[practal]

See, I don't get why people say that the world is somehow more complex than the world of mathematics. I think that is because people don't really understand what mathematics is. A computer game for example is pure mathematics, minus the players, but the players can also be modelled just by their observed digital inputs / outputs.

So the world of mathematics is really the only world model we need. If we can build a self-supervised entity for that world, we can also deal with the real world.

Now, you may have an argument by saying that the "real" world is simpler and more constrained than the mathematical world, and therefore if we focus on what we can do in the real world, we might make progress quicker. That argument I might buy.

[remus]

> So the world of mathematics is really the only world model we need. If we can build a self-supervised entity for that world, we can also deal with the real world.

In theory I think you are kind of right, in that you can model a lot of real world behaviour using maths, but it's an extremely inefficient lense to view much of the world through.

Consider something like playing catch on a windy day. If you wanted to model that mathematically there is a lot going on: you've got the ball interacting with gravity, fluid dynamics of the ball moving through the air, the changing wind conditions etc. yet this is a very basic task that many humans can do without really thinking about it.

Put more succinctly, there are many things we'd think of as very basic which need very complex maths to approach.

[constantcrying]

This view of simulation is just wrong and does not correspond at all to human perception.

Firstly, games aren't mathematics. They are low quality models of physics. Mathematics can not say what will happen in reality, mathematics can only describe a model and say what happens in the model. Just mathematics can not say anything about the real world, so a world model just doing mathematics can not say anything about the world either.

Secondly, and far worse for your premise, is that humans do not need these mathematical models. I do not understand the extremely complex mechanical problem of opening a door, to open a door. A world model which tries to understand the world based on mathematics has to. This makes any world model based on mathematics strictly inferior and totally unsuited to the goals.

[simianparrot]

A computer game is also textures, audio, maybe 3d models and landscapes, music composition, and data manipulation functions (see Minecraft).

Sure mathematics can be said to be at the core of most of that but you’re grossly oversimplifying.

[j7ake]

John Von Neumann would disagree with you :

"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is."

[wjnc]

The world of mathematics is only a language. The (Platonic) concepts go from simple to very complex, but at the base stands a (dynamic and evolving) language.

The real world however is far more complex and perhaps rooted in a universal language, but in one we don’t know (yet) and ultimately try to describe and order by all scientific endeavors combined.

This philosophy is an attempt to point out that you can create worlds from mathematics, but we are far from describing or simulating ‘Our World’ (Platonic concept) in mathematics.

[wavemode]

Representing concepts from the real world in terms of mathematics, is exactly what an AI model is internally.