Nosimpler
Shared posts
A Shared Entropic Axis Spans States of Consciousness Across Pharmacological and Clinical Conditions
NosimplerWTF is the "Entropic Brain Theory"?
Information Is Not Physical: Possibility Spaces, Erasure, and the Structure of Unrealized Alternatives
Thermodynamic description of wealth inequality in the world
Conceptual priorities shape individual gaze patterns during naturalistic visual attention
SignificanceStepping into a new visual environment, we immediately start to explore that environment with our eyes. What factors shape how we selectively allocate our attention? Participants explored 360°, real-world environments while their gaze was ...
Cognition does not automatically influence perception: Evidence from neural encoding of colors belonging to different categories
SignificanceThe Whorfian hypothesis posits that basic language categories alter one’s perception of the world in a fundamental manner. Some of the most compelling evidence in favor of this hypothesis came from electrophysiological responses that indicated ...
Prefix of the day: "pene"
Almost the thing or quality expressed by the root, as peneplain (almost a plain), peninsula (almost an island), penultimate (almost the last), penumbra (almost in shadow).
Kernel embeddings and the separation of measure phenomenon
SignificanceTwo-sample testing examines whether two probability distributions on some feature space differ based on random samples. It is fundamental in statistics and machine learning, especially when feature spaces are complex. Such settings are ...
Prefrontal gamma oscillations engage dynamic cell-type-specific configurations to support flexible behavior
Control of representation updating by higher-order thalamus enables history-based decision-making
Monolithic three-dimensional integration of silicon transistors
Nature, Published online: 27 May 2026; doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10496-6
Uniformly doped, ultrathin single-crystalline silicon nanomembranes can be vertically stacked at low temperature using a roll-transfer-printing process that is scalable to wafer scale and tolerant to substrate topology and surface roughness for constructing high-performance monolithic three-dimensional integrated circuits.Dyck language and fermionic second quantization: II. Applications
Low-dimensional population dynamics in the brainstem gate REM sleep
Nature Neuroscience, Published online: 25 May 2026; doi:10.1038/s41593-026-02314-z
Lozano et al. show that REM sleep is gated by low-dimensional brainstem network dynamics, in which opposing neuron populations across the midbrain and pons determine when transitions into REM sleep can occur.The oscillatory biology of sleep: Linkage to dementia | Science
A student takes on Stanford (and the world) | Science
A molecule with half-Möbius topology | Science
Premotor cortex uses a compositional neural geometry to plan words
Gene syntax defines supercoiling-mediated transcriptional feedback | Science
Multidimensional dynamics of object representations in the human visual system
Newfound brain network is a ‘secret system’ made of helper cells
Nature, Published online: 22 April 2026; doi:10.1038/d41586-026-01338-6
Webs of star-shaped cells called astrocytes connect distant parts of the brain, allowing long-distance exchange of molecules.Stability of Eye Movement-Related Eardrum Oscillations to acoustic and gravitational manipulations
Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics and Koopman operators with Shallow Recurrent Decoder Networks
SignificanceWe present sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics with shallow recurrent decoders (SINDy-SHRED), which jointly solves the sensing, model reduction and model identification problem with simple implementation, efficient computation, and ...
Quantum Signatures of Proper Time in Optical Ion Clocks
Author(s): Gabriel Sorci, Joshua Foo, Dietrich Leibfried, Christian Sanner, and Igor Pikovski
High-precision clocks based on quantum systems will work in a regime where a quantum description of proper time might be necessary.

[Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 163602] Published Mon Apr 20, 2026
On the existential risks of artificial intelligence
The impressive progresses in machine learning have revived the fear that humans might eventually be wiped out or enslaved by artificial superintelligences. This is hardly a new fear. For example, this fear is the basis of most of Isaac Asimov’s books, who imagined that robots are built with three laws to protect humans.
My point here is not to demonstrate that such events are impossible. On the contrary, my point is that autonomous human-made entities already exist, and cause the exact same risks that AI alarmists are talking about, except they are real. In this context, evil AI fantasies are an anthropomorphic distraction.
Let me quickly dismiss some misconceptions. Does ChatGPT understand language? Of course not. Large language models are (essentially) algorithms tuned to predict the next words. But here we don’t mean “word” in the human sense. In the human sense, a word is a symbol that means something. In the computer sense, a word is a symbol, to which we humans attribute meaning. When ChatGPT talks about bananas, it has no idea what a banana tastes like (well, it has no idea). It has never seen a banana or tasted a banana (well, it has never seen or tasted). “Banana” is just a node in a big graph of other nodes, totally disconnected from the outside world, and in particular from what “banana” might actually refer to. This is known in cognitive science as the “symbol grounding problem”, and it is a difficult problem that LLMs do not solve. So, maybe LLMs “understand” language, but only if you are willing to define “understand” in such a way that it is not required to know what words mean.
Machine learning algorithms are not biological organisms, they do not perceive, they are not conscious, they do not have intentions in the human sense. But it doesn’t matter. The broader worry about AI is simply that these algorithms are generally designed so as to optimize some predefined criterion (e.g., prediction error), and if we give them very powerful means to do so, in particular means that involve real actions in the world, then who knows whether using those means might not be harmful to us? At some point, without necessarily postulating any kind of evil mind, we humans might become means in the achievement of some optimization criterion. We built some technical goals into the machine, but it is very difficult to ensure that those are aligned with human values. This is the so-called “alignment” problem.
Why not. We are clearly not there, but maybe, in a hypothetical future, or at least as a thought experiment. But what strikes me with the misalignment narrative is that this scenario is not at all hypothetical if you are willing to look beyond anthropomorphic evil robots. Have you really never heard of any human-made entities with their own goals, which might be misaligned with human values? Entities that are powerful and hard to control by humans?
There is an obvious answer if you look at the social rather than technological domain: it is the modern financialized multinational corporation. The modern corporation is a human-made organization that is designed in such a way as to maximize profit. It does not have intentions or goals in a human sense, but exactly like in the AI alignment narrative, it is simply designed in such a way that it will use all means available in order to maximize a predefined criterion, which may or may not be perfectly aligned with human values. Let’s call these companies “profit robots”.
To what extent are profit robots autonomous from humans? Today’s modern large corporations are owned not by people but in majority by institutional stakeholders, such as mutual funds, i.e., other organizations with the same goals. As is well known, their multinational nature makes them largely immune to the legislation of states (hence the issues of fiscal optimization, social dumping, etc). As is also well known, a large part of the resources of a profit robot is devoted to marketing and advertisement, that is, in manipulating humans into buying their products.
Profit robots also engage in intense lobbying to bend human laws in their favor. But more to the point, the very notion of law is not the same for a profit robot as for humans. For humans, a law is something that sets boundaries on what could be done or should not be done, morally. But a profit robot is not a person. It has no moral principles. So, law is just one particular constraint, in fact a financial cost or risk – a company does not go to prison. A striking example of this is the “Dieselgate”: Volkswagen (also not owned by humans) intentionally programmed their engines so that their car emissions remained hidden during the pollution tests required to authorize their cars on the US market. As far as I know, shareholders were not informed, and neither were consumers. The company autonomously decided to break the law for profit. Again, the company is not evil: it is not a person. It behaves in this non-human way because it is a robot, exactly like in the AI misalignment narrative.
We often hear that ultimately, it is the consumers who have power, by deciding what to buy. This is simply false. Consumers did not know that Volkswagen cheated on pollution tests. Consumers rarely know in what exact conditions the products are made, or even to what corporation the products belong. This type of crucial information is deliberately hidden. Profit robots, on the other hand, actively manipulate consumers into buying their products. What to think of planned obsolescence? Nobody wants products that are deliberately designed to break down prematurely, yet that is what a profit robot makes. So yes, profit robots are largely autonomous from the human community.
Are profit robots an existential risk for humans? That might be a bit dramatic, but they certainly do cause very significant risks. A particular distressing fact illustrates this. As the Arctic ice melts because of global warming, oil companies get ready to drill the newly available resources. Clearly this is not in the interest of humans, but this is what a company like Shell, who is only directly owned by humans in the proportion of 6%, needs to do to pursue its goals, which as any other profit robot, is to generate profit by whatever means.
So yes, there is a risk that powerful human-made entities get out of control and that their goals are misaligned with human values. This worry is reasonable because it is already realized, except not in the technological domain. It is ironic (but not so surprising) that billionaires buy into the AI misalignment narrative but fail to see that the same narrative fully applies to the companies that their wealth depends on, except it is realized.
The reasonable worry about AI is not that AI takes control of the world: the worry is that AI provides even more powerful means for the misaligned robots that are already out of control now. In this context, evil AI fantasies are an anthropomorphic distraction from the actual problems we have already created.
Beyond the Geometry of Music
NosimplerYay John Baez and Dmitri Tymoczko apparently hit it off
Yesterday I had a great conversation with Dmitri Tymoczko about groupoids in music theory. But at this Higgs Centre Colloquium, he preferred to downplay groupoids and talk in a way physicists would enjoy more. Click here to watch his talk!
What’s great is that Tymoczkyo not faking it: he’s really found deep ways in which symmetry shows up pervasively in music.
At first he tried to describe them geometrically using orbifolds, which are spaces in which some singular points have nontrivial symmetry groups, like the tip of a cone formed by modding out the plane by the action of the group ℤ/n\mathbb{Z}/n. But then he realized that the geometry was less important than the symmetry, which you can describe using groupoids. That’s why his talk is called “Beyond the geometry of music”.
I’m helping him with his work on groupoids, and I hope he explains his work to mathematicians someday without pulling his punches. I didn’t get to interview him yesterday, but I’ll try to do that soon.
For now you can read his books A Geometry of Music and Harmony: an Owner’s Manual along with many papers. What I’ve read so far is really exciting.
Mark Jason Dominus: Well, I guess I believe everything now!
The principle of explosion is that in an inconsistent system
everything is provable: if you prove both and not-
for
any
,
you can then conclude
for any
:
$$(P \land \lnot P) \to Q.$$
This is, to put it briefly, not intuitive. But it is awfully hard to get rid of because it appears to follow immediately from two principles that are intuitive:
If we can prove that
is true, then we can prove that at least one of
or
is true. (In symbols,
.)
If we can prove that at least one of
or
is true, and we can prove that
is false, then we may conclude that that
is true. (Symbolically,
.).
Then suppose that we have proved that is both true and false.
Since we have proved
true, we have proved that at least one of
or
is true. But because we have also proved that
is
false, we may conclude that
is true. Q.E.D.
This proof is as simple as can be. If you want to get rid of this, you have a hard road ahead of you. You have to follow Graham Priest into the wilderness of paraconsistent logic.
Raymond Smullyan observes that although logic is supposed to model ordinary reasoning, it really falls down here. Nobody, on discovering the fact that they hold contradictory beliefs, or even a false one, concludes that therefore they must believe everything. In fact, says Smullyan, almost everyone does hold contradictory beliefs. His argument goes like this:
Consider all the things I believe individually,
. I believe each of these, considered separately, is true.
However, I also believe that I'm not infallible, and that at least one of
is false, although I don't know which ones.
Therefore I believe both
(because I believe each of the
separately) and
(because I believe that not all the
are true).
And therefore, by the principle of explosion, I ought to believe that I believe absolutely everything.
Well anyway, none of that was exactly what I planned to write about. I was pleased because I noticed a very simple, specific example of something I believed that was clearly inconsistent. Today I learned that K2, the second-highest mountain in the world, is in Asia, near the border of Pakistan and westernmost China. I was surprised by this, because I had thought that K2 was in Kenya somewhere.
But I also knew that the highest mountain in Africa was Kilimanjaro. So my simultaneous beliefs were flatly contradictory:
- K2 is the second-highest mountain in the world.
- Kilimanjaro is not the highest mountain in the world, but it is the highest mountain in Africa
- K2 is in Africa
Well, I guess until this morning I must have believed everything!
The Probability of the Law of Excluded Middle
The Law of Excluded Middle says that for any statement P, “P or not P” is true.
Is this law true? In classical logic it is. But in intuitionistic logic it’s not.
So, in intuitionistic logic we can ask what’s the probability that a randomly chosen statement obeys the Law of Excluded Middle. And the answer is “at most 2/3—or else your logic is classical”.
This is a very nice new result by Benjamin Bumpus and Zoltan Kocsis:
• Benjamin Bumpus, Degree of classicality, Merlin’s Notebook, 27 February 2024.
Of course they had to make this more precise before proving it. Just as classical logic is described by Boolean algebras, intuitionistic logic is described by something a bit more general: Heyting algebras. They proved that in a finite Heyting algebra, if more than 2/3 of the statements obey the Law of Excluded Middle, then it must be a Boolean algebra!
Interestingly, nothing like this is true for “not not P implies P”. They showed this can hold for an arbitrarily high fraction of statements in a Heyting algebra that is still not Boolean.
Here’s a piece of the free Heyting algebra on one generator, which some call the Rieger–Nishimura lattice:
I disagree with this statement, but boy, Hilbert sure could write!
Topological Learning in Multi-Class Data Sets. (arXiv:2301.09734v2 [cs.LG] UPDATED)
We specialize techniques from topological data analysis to the problem of characterizing the topological complexity (as defined in the body of the paper) of a multi-class data set. As a by-product, a topological classifier is defined that uses an open sub-covering of the data set. This sub-covering can be used to construct a simplicial complex whose topological features (e.g., Betti numbers) provide information about the classification problem. We use these topological constructs to study the impact of topological complexity on learning in feedforward deep neural networks (DNNs). We hypothesize that topological complexity is negatively correlated with the ability of a fully connected feedforward deep neural network to learn to classify data correctly. We evaluate our topological classification algorithm on multiple constructed and open source data sets. We also validate our hypothesis regarding the relationship between topological complexity and learning in DNN's on multiple data sets.
Emergence of brain-like mirror-symmetric viewpoint tuning in convolutional neural networks
Jacobian-Free Variational Method for Constructing Connecting Orbits in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. (arXiv:2301.11704v1 [nlin.CD])
In a dynamical systems description of spatiotemporally chaotic PDEs including those describing turbulence, chaos is viewed as a trajectory evolving within a network of non-chaotic, dynamically unstable, time-invariant solutions embedded in the chaotic attractor of the system. While equilibria, periodic orbits and invariant tori can be constructed using existing methods, computations of heteroclinic and homoclinic connections mediating the evolution between the former invariant solutions remain challenging. We propose a robust matrix-free variational method for computing connecting orbits between equilibrium solutions of a dynamical system that can be applied to high-dimensional problems. Instead of a common shooting-based approach, we define a minimization problem in the space of smooth state space curves that connect the two equilibria with a cost function measuring the deviation of a connecting curve from an integral curve of the vector field. Minimization deforms a trial curve until, at a global minimum, a connecting orbit is obtained. The method is robust, has no limitation on the dimension of the unstable manifold at the origin equilibrium, and does not suffer from exponential error amplification associated with time-marching a chaotic system. Owing to adjoint-based minimization techniques, no Jacobian matrices need to be constructed and the memory requirement scales linearly with the size of the problem. The robustness of the method is demonstrated for the one-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.



