# The mathematics of artificial intelligence.

And based on the notion that there is something more than the physical, i.e. life energy.

I can empathize with that intuitive assumption. But I have come to accept that where there is life energy, there is also death energy.

If we translate that in a mathematical formula (the value of) the life numerator is cancelled out by (the value of) the death numerator and we just end up with the values of the energy operand.

Thus the term energy is sufficient to explain all universal phenomena.

Death energy ?

Death energy ?
Yes, when something dies its energy merely transforms into another form of energy, sometimes its just fertilizer for another life to begin.
Life is a dynamic chemical process, IMO

Yes, when something dies its energy merely transforms into another form of energy, sometimes its just fertilizer for another life to begin.

Agreed .

Now the death of artificial intelligence .

Agreed .
Now the death of artificial intelligence .
Good question. But should we not first ask if intelligence itself is a form of energy or a result of dynamic electro/chemical activity.

I had a similar discussion once about the definition of Potential. Someone declared that a mountain lake is potential energy.
My response was that a mountain lake has potential energy, IOW, a lake is just a lake, unless we drain it and use the kinetic energy of the descending water to drive a generator which converts the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
But note, as we drain the lake it begins to shrink as a lake until it is empty and dies as a lake, along with its potential ability to deliver kinetic energy.

river said:
Agreed .
Now the death of artificial intelligence .

Good question. But should we not first ask if intelligence itself is a form of energy or a result of dynamic electro/chemical activity.

Yes

But intelligence also has the " mind " which culminates all regions of the the brain . Into a whole of thought .

And survives death

I had a similar discussion once about the definition of Potential. Someone declared that a mountain lake is potential energy.
My response was that a mountain lake has potential energy, IOW, a lake is just a lake, unless we drain it and use the kinetic energy of the descending water to drive a generator which converts the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
But note, as we drain the lake it begins to shrink as a lake until it is empty and dies as a lake, along with its potential ability to deliver kinetic energy.

So....

Yes

But intelligence also has the " mind " which culminates all regions of the the brain . Into a whole of thought .
We may consider thinking as a form of energy. But I believe you are confusing the definition of the mind with something metaphysical instead of being a result of the various functions of the brain.
wiki, Mind;
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought: "as the thoughts ran through his mind, he came to a conclusion" ·
synonyms: brain · intelligence · intellect · intellectual capabilities
IOW an inherent potential.
And survives death
I must disagree with that assumption.
When the brain dies, so does the mind (the empty lake).

However, during one's lifetime a person builds a legacy of expressed thoughts and actions which may endure even after death.
An example can be found in the legacy left by Jesus after his death, IOW, the products of his mind are remembered by Christians.
This memory can be found in the mirror neuron system of the believer. In that respect one could claim that his thoughts live on in the present. But those thoughts were expressed in the past and after his death, it was impossible for Jesus to express new thoughts.
After his death his brain ceased to function and his mind along with it. Only the legacy remains.

Yes

But intelligence also has the " mind " which culminates all regions of the the brain . Into a whole of thought .

We may consider thinking as a form of energy. But I believe you are confusing the definition of the mind with something metaphysical instead of being a result of the various functions of the brain.

Disagree

Metaphysical is beyond material constructs of the brain .

Disagree

Metaphysical is beyond material constructs of the brain .
Yes, by definition. And you can also include mental constructs of the brain.

But the experience of vision is the pixilated reprensentation (translation) in our mirror neuron system of what our eyes observe or our mind (mirror neuron system) can imagine. And so it is with all our sensory experiences. They are not metaphysical, but mental experiences.

IMO, the closest approximation to a metaphysical state can be found in the definition of Potential (noun: that which may become physical reality)

In the end, when the brain dies, all it's sensory and experiential abilities die with it. The whole of the form and function of the individual's physical systems cease to function.

Consider that some 60% of the human body consists of water and the rest is a collection of some 500 chemicals, as per Robert Hazen.
When are cremated the residue is a few handfuls of ashes. If we are buried the process of decomposition just takes a longer time.

This why it is amazing that we can find any really old fossilized remains at all.

p.s. as to your previous question about AI dying, only a heap of the metal and plastic components survive, because those chemical systems degrade very slowly by oxidation (rust) or UV exposure (breaking down of long polymer strands which may take hundreds or even thousands of years) .

Last edited:
When ai dies all within it dies .

When ai dies all within it dies .
I agree, except for the physical structures, which just change form.

In-tell-igence. To not tell someone.
Evolution;
evolution (n.)
1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification....

FLOWER POWER This 3-D reconstruction reveals what the first flowers may have looked like. Female reproductive organs (green), male reproductive organs (yellow), and petallike structures (white) are shown.
......................
Also, modern blooms lost some of their whorls, the concentric layers of different flower parts. In some flowers, whorls dropped from at least four to two in petals and the leaflike structures at the base of a bloom, and from four to one in stamen, the team concludes. The finding suggests that natural selection pushed the plants to a less complex floral plan over time.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-portrait-worlds-first-flower-unveiled?

The less complex plan being the Fibonacci Sequence? Seems to be a very efficient way to capture sunlight and cram a lot of seeds in a finite space. As Darwin preferred to say "descent with modification"
A mathematically efficient structure. Why else would this pattern occur so frequently in nature? Is it logical to deduce that it gives a survival advantage to those many species plants or even universal structures. We discovered this unfolded mathematical sequence by observation, not by theoretical mathematics.

Last edited:
You could grow a dozen ferns in a controlled greenhouse environment, and every leaf of every plant will be unique.
That is not necessary, only the fundamental structure of self replication is required. But it does not guarantee perfectly identical replication , as demonstrated already in the leaf size alone.
"IFSs provide models for certain plants, leaves, and ferns, by virtue of the self-similarity which often occurs in branching structures in nature. But nature also exhibits randomness and variation from one level to the next; no two ferns are exactly alike, and the branching fronds become leaves at a smaller scale. V-variable fractals allow for such randomness and variability across scales, while at the same time admitting a continuous dependence on parameters which facilitates geometrical modelling. These factors allow us to make the hybrid biological models...
...we speculate that when a V -variable geometrical fractal model is found that has a good match to the geometry of a given plant, then there is a specific relationship between these code trees and the information stored in the genes of the plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_fern

Last edited:
I think what you're failing to see is that the physical world does have a natural order. This is what keeps things regular. Ultimately, all physical processes in the universe are layer upon layer of behavior due to the simplest of forces: strong, weak, em and gravity.
Yes, and those behaviors are mathematical in essence. They are not individual phenomena, that can be described by a single mathematical equation. They are all connected by the mathematical structure (essence) of spacetime itself.
I am not assigning any mystical property to universal mathematical functions. But physical interaction of values demands a regulatory system. Some physical things or events are mathematically permitted, some are not.

Human symbolic representation which we call mathematics is the recognition of these natural functions. Thus in human terms the Universe functions mathematically. The Universe does not need to know anything, it functions in accordance to what it naturally permits or forbids, which turns out to be a regulatory system which we have named Universal mathematics. i.e. predictable functions dependent on extant values..

Last edited:
Yes, and those behaviors are mathematical in essence. They are not individual phenomena, that can be described by a single mathematical equation. They are all connected by the mathematical structure (essence) of spacetime itself.
I am not assigning any mystical property to universal mathematical functions. But physical interaction of values demands a regulatory system. Some physical things or events are mathematically permitted, some are not.

Human symbolic representation which we call mathematics is the recognition of these natural functions. Thus in human terms the Universe functions mathematically. The Universe does not need to know anything, it functions in accordance to what it naturally permits or forbids, which turns out to be a regulatory system which we have named Universal mathematics. i.e. predictable functions dependent on extant values..

So what your saying is this ; the Universe controls the mathematical ideas .

So what your saying is this ; the Universe controls the mathematical ideas .
No, I am saying that a form of mathematical values and functions control the universe. It is the essence of the universe. In your terms, you might call it the "soul" of the universe.

David Bohm calls it "insight intelligence"

river said:
So what your saying is this ; the Universe controls the mathematical ideas .

No, I am saying that a form of mathematical values and functions control the universe. It is the essence of the universe. In your terms, you might call it the "soul" of the universe.

David Bohm calls it "insight intelligence"

So the " soul " of the Universe controls the mathematical values and functions .

So the " soul " of the Universe controls the mathematical values and functions .
No the mathematics are the essence of the universe.. I merely used that term because I hoped you would take it in proper context, which obviously you haven't.

No the mathematics are the essence of the universe.. I merely used that term because I hoped you would take it in proper context, which obviously you haven't.

I disagree

Mathematics is the consequence of material objects . Nothing more nothing less .

Mathematics is the consequence of material objects . Nothing more nothing less .
An odd way of defining it.

Mathematics is generally considered the embodiment of abstraction - no physical or materials elements have to be involved at all. A great deal (arguably, most) of mathematics works with things that have no physical component at all. There are mathematical constructs that cannot have a physical component yet work perfectly well.

An odd way of defining it.

Mathematics is generally considered the embodiment of abstraction - no physical or materials elements have to be involved at all. A great deal (arguably, most) of mathematics works with things that have no physical component at all. There are mathematical constructs that cannot have a physical component yet work perfectly well.

What " things " work perfectly well with what ?