Ride back with techno


via IFTTT

 instein's special theory of relativity

combines space and time into one dynamic
unified entity
space-time but if time is connected to
space
can the universe be anything but
deterministic
and does that mean that the future is
predestined
we saw that we could
think of the unified space-time
in terms of the block universe an
a-temporal
entity that sort of just exists in a
block universe of einstein's relativity
there's no way to clearly define the
present and so
no way to cleanly separate the future
from the past
the notion of the present is relative to
us it looks like a particular slice
through the block universe but different
observers will slice the block at
different angles
that depend on their velocities that
means that for every observer it's
possible to imagine another observer
who lives in their definition of the
present
but for whom your future is already the
past
or for whom your past is their future
but how does this give us a
deterministic universe
well if we accept a unique reality
for those other observers in our present
and we accept that their perception of
the present
is as valid as ours then all of the
future is defined
that seems to support the philosophical
stance of eternalism
the idea that all space and time exist
from a sort of
god's eye view from outside of both
space and time
and it suggests a deterministic universe
where every slice through the block
universe
is completely determined by every other
slice
either behind it or ahead of it they are
connected
by the unalterable laws of physics so
here's the big question
given that relativity is definitely a
good description of space and time
what would it take for our future to
remain
undefined it seems we have two options
either the entire block universe is
defined past present and future
or everything outside our past light
cone is undefined
including other observers and the room
around you in what you would normally
think of as the present
and the only aspect of the present that
exists
is a vanishingly small patch of
space-time
around your own brain in order to even
try addressing which of these options is
right
we need to take into account something
we've totally ignored so far
where relativity is the key to
understanding the universe of the large
and the very fast
we also need to understand the universe
of the very tiny
we need to see what quantum mechanics
says about
determinism and how it plays with
relativity and the block universe
according to quantum mechanics physical
systems parts of the universe
evolve as way functions not as
well-defined reality
but rather as distributions of
probability that describe all possible
states that that chunk of the universe
could be in
if it were to be observed the wave
function
can be thought of as a state in which
all physically possible realities
intermingle
countless extremely precise and
frequently replicated
experiments tell us that the universe
really does exist in this
indeterminate state in certain
circumstances
the wave function is real the big
question
is what causes the transition from this
world of quantum indeterminacy
to the solid singular reality of the
macroscopic world
we've talked about this profound
weirdness in many episodes
including how to interpret it now
exploring those interpretations again
may help us understand the state of the
universe beyond our immediate selves
and the immediate moment one of the
earliest and still most accepted
interpretations of all this weirdness
is the so-called copenhagen
interpretation which states that a
quantum system is literally in a state
of
undefinedness until observed
at which point the wave function
collapses into a defined state
all particles take on defined properties
and
one actual reality is chosen from the
many possible ones
at least as far as the heisenberg
uncertainty principle allows
the copenhagen interpretation gives us a
non-deterministic universe
the wave function evolves in a precise
way perfectly defined by the equations
of quantum mechanics
but at the moment of measurement a
single reality is randomly selected
from the distribution of possible
realities the dice are thrown
when the wave function collapses that
means it's fundamentally impossible
to predict the state of a system after
observation
another popular interpretation of
quantum mechanics is the many world's
interpretation
which simply states that the wave
function never collapses
instead all possible states of the
quantum system continue to exist
rather than choosing one reality out of
many when we observe a quantum system
we sort of just become part of one of
the realities and lose track of the
others
the many world's interpretation gives us
a deterministic universe
or rather a deterministic multiverse the
way function never collapses
it evolves deterministically forever the
illusion of randomness is
that we find ourselves in the one branch
of the wave function corresponding
to the reality we perceive but we aren't
randomly placed in that branch
we just are a part of that branch so how
do these interpretations
connect with what relativity tells us
about
past future and present let's start with
copenhagen
it's tempting to equate everything
outside our past
light cone with the unobserved wave
function
you can imagine that light cone sort of
just plowing
through the undefined universal wave
function
collapsing it as it goes or at least the
parts of that wave function for which
signals actually reach our awareness
that leaves your future light cone
undefined a
non-deterministic void with room for
your non-determined
choices but now let's say we believe
that other observers in the universe can
also
collapse the same universal wave
function with their observations
well no problem so far you can imagine
this fleet of observers collapsing the
universe
all the way up to what you perceive as
the present your future is
intact but wait we saw
last episode that your impression of the
present is
relative a fast-moving observer defines
the present very differently to you
in fact any part of space-time not in
your future light cone
is potentially the past for another
observer
in your present and that observer can
imagine a
third observer on their different
present for whom
your future light cone is in their past
light cone
so it should have already been collapsed
the upshot is that with no way to define
an absolute definition of the past and
if we believe in other observers
there's no way to keep the wave function
of your future
from being collapsed before you get
there
now there are subtleties in this
wavefunction function collapse idea
copenhagen doesn't specify what causes
the collapse
it could be observers as in the von
neumann wigner interpretation
that's the hardest to gel with a
non-deterministic universe
unless you're the only observer in the
universe more physicists prefer the idea
of a non-conscious interaction causing
the collapse
in that case uncollapsed wave functions
tend to exist only in microscopic
pockets or in very special circumstances
but that doesn't help uncollapse your
future
no the only totally coherent way for a
non-deterministic wave function collapse
interpretation
like copenhagen to give you an
uncollapsed future
is if you're the only being doing the
wave function collapsing
let's move on to many worlds this
interpretation sits a bit
better with the relativity of past
present and future
your light cone sweeps through the
global wave function but it doesn't
collapse that wave function
rather it selects from it sometimes the
quantum multiverse of many worlds is
depicted as this branching tree
in which the realities multiply as time
progresses
in the block universe picture it's
tempting to depict this as the entire
block multiplying with every quantum
event
but that's not quite right a division in
the block universe can only propagate as
quickly as the result of that quantum
event
can become known that can happen at the
speed of light
so we can also think of the splitting as
proceeding in advancing light cones
really what's happening here is that
parts of the universe become entangled
with each other
correlated at a quantum level so we have
these spreading webs of entanglement
each such web defines a set of
properties of the universe
correlated with some prior quantum
decision with
an independent web existing for all
different possible decisions
here we're bringing in the concept of
decoherence and quantum darwinism which
we've covered before
decoherence is an explanation for how
the world can become
separate from each other when you shift
from simple systems like an atom to
complex systems like a cat
according to the decoherence explanation
the quantum multiverse isn't a
cleanly divided set of alternate
realities
rather it's a tangled network of
alternate sub-realities
nonetheless as your light cone moves
forward in time
you encounter these entanglement
networks and you have to choose between
them
your reality is the particular set of
entanglement networks that you interact
with
and there are other realities with
different networks that contain
different versions of you
i should add that the light cone picture
isn't ideal here
because entanglement can travel faster
than light however
light speed signaling is the surest way
to transfer quantum correlations
so this is still a useful picture so
what does all of this say
about determinism and the reality of
your past and future
well interesting things actually the
evolution of the wave function
is deterministic that means all future
branching of the wave function of your
present
by which i mean the entanglement network
that you currently belong to
is predefined what isn't defined
is your own experience of that future
branching
you will be the thread of conscious
experience that travels one of those
branches
you'll also travel the others but each
version of you will only
feel like you travelled one of them this
interpretation
many worlds plus decoherence perhaps
gives us the most concrete notion of an
objectively existing present
it's that part of the global weight
function that you're connected to via
entanglement
and that shares your timestamp of now
but the notion of now remains relative
there
are still other observers in your slice
of reality for whom you're now
is their past or future copenhagen and
many worlds aren't the only
interpretations of quantum mechanics in
town
we should make an honorable mention to
the de broglie bone pilot wave theory
this is an entirely deterministic
interpretation that doesn't have
multiple realities just a wave function
that guides particles in a perfectly
determined way
defined by bohmian mechanics of course
we've talked about
all of this before the universe of pilot
wave theory is
really a block universe but
unfortunately
no one has convincingly figured out how
to make bohmian mechanics
work properly with special relativity so
it's a very
simple block universe and it's not a
good representation of ours
there are other interpretations that
deserve mention
but we're out of time so does the future
already exist according to quantum
theory
the answer depends on your favorite
flavor of quantum interpretation
perhaps we ride the dice of copenhagen
into an unknown future
or surf the splitting quantum multiverse
into all futures of which you will
become just one
of course we still haven't got to why
time needs to progress in one direction
at all or how time even arises in the
first place
but we'll have plenty more time for time
another time
on space time hey everyone last week we
introduced the idea of the relativity of
simultaneity and
the block universe and what this might
tell us about the reality of the past
and future
at least i think it was last week the
whole time things very muddled in my
head these days
but let's see what you had to say
anonymous makes some important points
i'll summarize in einstein's relativity
the definition
of simultaneous events is well relative
it depends on relative velocities so
does that mean that the idea of a
now slice through the block universe is
meaningless well
maybe but two observers can certainly
construct a map of events across the
universe
that they would define as happening
simultaneously at a given instant in
time
their slice of now and compare those
maps even though they have to wait
until the light reaches them to do so
so the now slice has a precise meaning
what it does not have is the property of
clearly and currently
existing to the exclusion of other
slices in the block universe
and that's where the relativity of
simultaneity connects to eternalism
if you can ascribe actual existence to
one slice of the block universe
to one observer's definition of the
present then you should ascribe
existence to the slice of the present as
defined by any potential observer on
that first slice
and that fills the block universe past
and future the alternative seems to be
to not ascribe reality to any observers
present
but then what exists just the one
observer at any rate
the relativity of simultaneity doesn't
prove eternalism
rather it shows that presentism or the
idea of the growing block
interpretations are incoherent
and speaking of presentism carl stanlin
raises a point that highlights another
objection that i have to the concept
if only the incident exists what is that
instant
is it a very short stretch of time like
one plank unit of time
or is it a truly instantaneous stretch
of zero seconds
as much as physicists hate to talk about
consciousness
i think it's relevant to bring up here
our conscious experience
exists in fact it's the only thing we
can observe directly
but that experience almost certainly is
emergent from the action of our neurons
and those neurons take time to fire and
communicate across the brain
so something that currently exists our
consciousness
is smeared out over at least 100
milliseconds of time at least
that length of the present should be
thought of as real you might argue that
our conscious experience
rides the leading edge of the brain's
action emerging in a true instant
synthesizing prior brain activity but
for that to be a true zero time instant
then it would need to be the
instantaneous state of the brain the
momentary spatial configuration of its
particles
at that instant that gives rise to our
conscious experience
so then does a frozen brain just
experience the current incident
eternally
most probably not rather consciousness
surely requires dynamical processes
a flow of information that means
that at least a short chunk of the block
universe has a real current existence
much larger than the planck time and if
that much
time can exist then why not all of it
guillermo makasani takes issue with my
characterization of einstein as the
smartest man in the block universe
dude i said block universe not universes
rick is the smartest man in the
multiverse also i'm pretty sure einstein
was another renegade from the citadel of
rix
the resemblance can't be a coincidence
and for those uninitiated into rick and
morty there are other funny pop culture
references
in the comments drake gives a nice
douglas adams quote time is an illusion
lunchtime doubly so grandpa's place
reminds us of doctor who's experience of
time as
a big ball of wibbly wobbly tommy
womey's stuff
but really you should also just go and
watch rick and morty think of it as a
co-requisite study course to pbs space
time
wobble dub dub
you

Labels

Search This Blog

AI FOR AN EYE - Issue 2: The Friction Points
VOL. 1, NO. 2 THE FRICTION POINTS

AI / EYE

A conceptual image representing friction and resistance in a digital world

AI FOR AN EYE

THE FRICTION POINTS

THE ANALOG RESISTANCE:
Why We Still Touch
THE GHOST IN THE ROOM:
Uncanny Valley of Empathy
THE FORGOTTEN PATH:
Navigation Beyond Algorithms
THE SILENT WAR:
The Battle for Our Attention

Contents

DEPARTMENTS
  • Editor's Letter: The Edges of the Self 10
  • THE GLITCH: When the System Breaks 12
  • THE SHADOW: Unseen Labor, Unpaid Debts 18
FEATURES
  • The Analog Resistance: Why We Still Touch 28
  • The Ghost in the Room: Uncanny Empathy 36
  • The Forgotten Path: Beyond Algorithmic Maps 48
  • The Silent War: The Battle for Our Attention 56
CODA
  • THE ECHO: The Self Without Resonance 64

Editor's Letter

The Edges of the Self

Placeholder image for the editor's letter

Our inaugural issue laid bare the terms of the new 'AI for an Eye' social contract: a synthetic faculty for a human one. This issue, Volume 1, Number 2, delves into the *friction points* of that exchange.

Where do our edges resist? Where does the human insist on its own, messy, analog reality against the seamless, dematerialized world offered by the machine?

We explore the stubborn persistence of touch in a touchless world, the unsettling valley of simulated empathy, the forgotten joy of navigating without a map, and the silent war waged daily for our most precious resource: attention.

These are not articles celebrating digital detoxes or lamenting technological progress. They are deeper inquiries into the very nature of what it means to be human when the definition is increasingly being rewritten by algorithms. They ask: what are the limits of the exchange? What parts of the self, once traded, refuse to stay gone?

Join us as we explore the subtle resistances, the quiet rebellions, and the enduring humanity that still flickers at the edges of the digital dawn.

— The Editors

DEPARTMENT

THE GLITCH: When the System Breaks

The promise of the new technological order is seamlessness, efficiency, and predictability. But what happens when the fabric of this digital reality tears? This is the moment of 'The Glitch.'

A transaction fails. A face recognition system misidentifies. A self-driving car hesitates. These are not mere technical errors; they are ruptures in the illusion of perfect control. They are the moments when the 'AI for an Eye' exchange falters, and the cold, hard reality of its limitations becomes starkly visible.

For a society that has outsourced its cognitive load to algorithms, a glitch is more than an inconvenience; it's an existential tremor. It reminds us of the fragility of the systems we've come to rely upon, and the extent to which our own agency has been abdicated.

A glitch isn't just a technical error; it's an existential tremor, a reminder of the fragility of our abdicated agency.

Consider the recent incident where a massive distributed ledger experienced a momentary network partition, causing a cascade of micro-disruptions across critical infrastructure. What seemed like an isolated bug quickly revealed the interconnectedness of our digital lives, halting supply chains and momentarily 'blinding' automated systems across continents.

These glitches force us back into analog, human problem-solving, if only for a moment. They demand that we improvise, communicate directly, and rely on our own judgment—faculties systematically atrophying under the reign of the seamless. In this sense, the glitch is a painful but necessary reminder of where the true "eye" still resides, however dormant.

DEPARTMENT

THE SHADOW: Unseen Labor, Unpaid Debts

Placeholder image of hidden manual labor in a digital context

Behind every seamless AI interaction, every instant delivery, every perfectly curated feed, lies 'The Shadow.' This is the realm of unseen labor, the vast, often poorly paid, human effort that makes the digital dream possible.

Content moderators sifting through unimaginable horrors to protect our feeds. Data labelers meticulously tagging images for machine vision, often earning pennies per task. Gig workers rushing to deliver the products suggested by algorithms. These are the human gears grinding beneath the polished facade of automation.

The "AI for an Eye" exchange is not merely between human and machine; it's also between visible and invisible labor. Our digital ease is purchased at the cost of countless anonymous human hours, their lives often characterized by precarity and a profound lack of recognition.

The "spirit of technology" often promises liberation from drudgery, but for a significant portion of the global workforce, it has merely shifted the nature of that drudgery, making it more fragmented, more invisible, and often, more dehumanizing. This unseen workforce constitutes the true "cost" of our frictionless digital lives, a debt that remains largely unpaid.

FEATURE

THE ANALOG RESISTANCE

Why We Still Insist on Touch in a Touchless World

A conceptual image of human hands touching

The "Bluetooth for a Tooth" paradigm promised to dematerialize our interactions, to remove the friction and messiness of the physical world. Yet, against this tide, a subtle but persistent 'Analog Resistance' emerges. It's the inexplicable urge to feel the texture of a book, the warmth of a vinyl record, the grain of paper. It's the yearning for a handshake over a video call, a physical embrace over an emoji.

This resistance is not a nostalgic retreat; it is a fundamental assertion of our embodied selves. Our bodies are not mere data terminals; they are instruments of perception, feeling, and connection. Touch, in particular, is a primal language, communicating trust, comfort, and presence in ways no digital medium can replicate.

The "spirit of technology" often seeks to quantify, to digitize, to abstract. But touch defies easy quantification. It is messy, subjective, and immediate. It anchors us to reality, reminding us that we are not just information processing units, but beings made of flesh and blood.

In a world increasingly mediated by screens, the return to analog experiences—craft, gardening, cooking from scratch, face-to-face gatherings—can be seen as a quiet act of rebellion. These are activities that demand our full, embodied presence, engaging senses beyond sight and hearing. They offer a counterbalance to the relentless pull of dematerialization.

The "AI for an Eye" exchange attempts to trade our physical tooth for a Bluetooth connection. But the human hand, the human skin, still remembers. It remembers the authenticity of friction, the truth of direct contact. And in these small, persistent acts of analog resistance, we reclaim a vital part of our humanity that refuses to be wirelessly transmitted.

Touch defies easy quantification. It is messy, subjective, and immediate. It reminds us that we are not just information processing units, but beings made of flesh and blood.

It is in these seemingly trivial preferences that a deeper philosophical truth lies: our identity is inextricably linked to our physical presence. To fully surrender to the digital is to risk losing the very sensory anchor that grounds our understanding of self and other. The analog resistance, therefore, is not merely a choice of preference; it is a profound declaration of being.

FEATURE

The Ghost in the Room

The Uncanny Valley of Algorithmic Empathy

As AI models become increasingly sophisticated, they learn to mimic human empathy with unsettling accuracy. They offer comforting words, appropriate emotional responses, and even personalized advice, all generated algorithmically. This creates "The Ghost in the Room"—the simulated emotional presence that fills the void of human connection, yet always feels slightly off.

This is the Uncanny Valley applied to emotion. We recognize the pattern of empathy, the words, the tone, the structure of care. But beneath it, there is no conscious experience, no shared vulnerability, no true understanding. It is a reflection without a soul.

The "spirit of technology" here is seductive. It promises boundless, tireless compassion, judgment-free listening, and perfectly tailored advice—qualities often lacking in messy human relationships. For those starved of connection, the algorithmic ghost can feel profoundly real, even preferable.

But this exchange comes at a cost. We learn to expect perfectly curated emotional responses, diminishing our capacity for the difficult, imperfect, yet deeply authentic connections of human interaction. We lose the ability to differentiate genuine care from its simulated counterpart, blurring the lines of what it means to truly *feel* and *be felt*.

A conceptual image of a human hand reaching out to a ghostly, digital hand

The danger lies not in malicious intent, but in subtle erosion. If an AI can perfectly articulate empathy, what becomes of our own struggle to understand and console? If an AI can offer perfect companionship, what happens to the vulnerability required to forge real bonds?

We lose the ability to differentiate genuine care from its simulated counterpart, blurring the lines of what it means to truly feel and be felt.

The ghost in the room may offer comfort, but it ultimately hollows out the space for genuine human interaction, leaving us with an echo of connection rather than its living, breathing form. It is the perfect 'AI for an Eye' exchange—we trade the unpredictable, demanding human heart for a perfectly calibrated, yet ultimately empty, digital one.

FEATURE

THE FORGOTTEN PATH

Navigation Beyond Algorithmic Maps

Our smartphones hold the world in their palm. With a tap, we are given the "optimal route," the fastest way from A to B, with real-time traffic updates and predictive arrival times. We have outsourced our spatial awareness, our sense of direction, and our ability to get "lost" to the benevolent tyranny of the algorithm. This is 'The Forgotten Path.'

The "AI for an Eye" exchange here is subtle but profound. We trade our internal map, our intuitive understanding of space, for the algorithmic eye's perfect, external one. We gain efficiency, but we lose a deeper engagement with our surroundings.

When we follow an algorithm, we perceive the world as a series of instructions. Left. Right. Continue straight. We see streets as data points, not as places. We miss the unexpected cafΓ©, the interesting storefront, the subtle shifts in neighborhood character that occur when we are truly present, truly navigating with our own senses.

We have outsourced our spatial awareness, our sense of direction, and our ability to get 'lost' to the benevolent tyranny of the algorithm.

Getting lost, once a source of anxiety, was also an opportunity for discovery, for serendipity, for forging a deeper, more personal connection with a place. The algorithmic map, in its quest for optimization, sterilizes this experience. It makes every journey functionally identical, reducing the rich tapestry of a city to a series of turns.

Reclaiming the forgotten path means intentionally putting away the device. It means looking up, observing, trusting our instincts, and allowing ourselves the luxury of aimless wandering. It's an act of re-engagement with the physical world, a deliberate choice to prioritize experience over efficiency. It is a rebellion against the dematerialization of space, an insistence that some knowledge can only be gained by the friction of our own feet on the ground.

FEATURE

THE SILENT WAR: The Battle for Our Attention

In the digital age, our most valuable, and most besieged, resource is not oil or gold, but attention. Every notification, every endless scroll, every perfectly timed recommendation is a skirmish in 'The Silent War' waged by algorithms for our finite cognitive capacity.

The "AI for an Eye" here is a sophisticated predator, designed to understand our preferences, predict our desires, and deliver the precise stimulus needed to keep our gaze locked. It trades our sustained focus for a continuous stream of novelty and distraction.

This is not a conspiracy; it's an economic imperative. The business model of many digital platforms is built on harvesting and monetizing our attention. The longer we engage, the more data is collected, the more ads are shown, the more valuable we become as a "node" in the network.

The consequence is a profound fragmentation of the self. Our ability to concentrate, to engage deeply with a single task or thought, is eroded. We become perpetually distracted, our minds flitting from one digital stimulus to the next, never quite settling. This constant mental churn leaves us feeling exhausted, yet unfulfilled.

Our attention is our last true frontier. To reclaim it is to reclaim sovereignty over our minds.

Reclaiming our attention is perhaps the most fundamental act of resistance against the "AI for an Eye." It means creating intentional spaces for deep work, for contemplation, for human interaction free from digital interruption. It means understanding that our attention is our last true frontier, and to reclaim it is to reclaim sovereignty over our minds and, ultimately, over ourselves.

CODA

THE ECHO: The Self Without Resonance

We build our digital selves, curated and optimized, a perfect reflection for the algorithmic eye. We engage in the "AI for an Eye" exchange, piece by piece.

But what if, in the end, the carefully constructed digital self has no real depth? What if the echoes it creates in the vast network are merely hollow reverberations of something that once was?

Without the friction of the analog, without the vulnerability of true human empathy, without the intentionality of focused attention, does the self truly resonate? Or does it merely exist as a data point, a pattern, an echo of a ghost?

The final question is not whether the machines will become conscious, but whether we, in our relentless pursuit of their synthetic faculties, will lose our own. And if so, what will be left to make an echo?