Ali's Journal

Today I was reading this:

https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-batteries-could-provide-a-new-kind-of-energy-storage-by-messing-with-time

Here, the possibility of superposition of the sequence of events in energy storage in batteries has been explored. The same idea can be used in knowledge blocks. Currently, there are distinct evolution paths. A better approach will be if evolution paths are defined as different “measurements” of a “wave function” (something that contains all possible evolution paths). The same appears to be true in humans. For example, people may have no prejudgement about a new incident but as soon as it occurs their “mind wave function” collapses into an evolution path and they come up with a judgement about that incident. This can explain why (and more importantly how) people handpick evidence to approve their currently held views (i.e. how mind wave function collapses into a specific measurement). It is then possible to examine alternative possible “measurements”, that is parallel evolution paths that could occur but didn’t. It then can be used to minimize the effect of misinformation, radicalization, etc.

UPDATE 1:

In this view, each species is a measurement. It means each species is one “measurement” or evolution path of a wave function that contains all possible measurements (nature as a whole turns into one wave function). It then can provide a better understanding of symmetry in systems and how they collapse into new measurements once the system changes.

UPDATE 2:

This actually can explain the overall mechanism of the formation of ideas in one’s mind. In a conversation, people are presented with new, occasionally unexpected, viewpoints and they quickly form an idea or argument as a response. The argument is not unique. It happens a lot that one regrets saying (or doing) something when it’s too late. The wave function could very well collapse into a different measurement.

A while ago I was writing something about spaces generated by the mind:

The process of learning a structure is similar to the way it is constructed. For instance Euclidean geometry can be reduced to five basic axioms. All results and theorems are based on these basic building blocks. To learn the geometry one will need to start by learning those axioms and build on top of them to prove new theorems. So the process of learning the geometry is the same as constructing the structure. Knowledge is not based on random, isolated facts and results here and there. Knowledge of something is a structure that should be built block by block, and that resembles very much to the way the structure is originally generated. [1]

It’s not known exactly how brain groups related topics and memories, but there should be a type of “tag assignment” [2] so that when something happens, brain can retrieve related memories and knowledge to respond accordingly. When people learn new skills, they learn to extract relevant information from the environment and respond properly [3]. In other words, they reduce the space into its relevant information and construct the space again. That’s similar to viewing the space through a type of lens that filters out irrelevant information.

That is comparable to the way brain functions. In response to an environmental stimulus, brain retrieves related memories and knowledge and skills and construct a space based on them. Then, in mathematical terms, responses to those stimuli are defined in that space. In other words, responses are based on related previous memories and knowledge. As an example, proving basic theorems are very difficult for people unfamiliar to mathematics. On the other hand, experienced mathematicians can combine previously learned proofs to provide a new proof for a theorem. Brains of non-mathematicians can hardly retrieve any relevant information to construct a new proof, while mathematicians build and rebuild several spaces in mind to find a suitable proof.

So brain recollects related memories from tons of past memories and knowledge. The recollection process should be based on types of tag assignment mechanisms. So that related memories can be recollected in specific situations. Lots of knowledge and skills people acquire are due to experiences of their daily lives. This learning, which can be defined as the ability to respond accordingly in different situations, would be impossible without the above-mentioned tag assignment mechanism [4].
It becomes increasingly difficult to do the tag assignments when there are more information than what human brain can process. Scrolling updates in social media platforms is an example of going through lots of information without properly undergoing the tag assignment process. As a result no knowledge can be produced. Human brain is not evolved to handle the amount of information people are exposed to in the modern time. Technology is responsible for the exponential growth of information, but it can also provide solutions to augment human brains to process it.

Personal knowledge Vs collective knowledge, and why a platform for public opinion should be formed

Large Language Models (LLM) is based on inputs provided by a large number of users. It extracts knowledge based on relevant inputs from that pool. Social and collective behaviors are also based on a pool of shared experiences of a society. Despite the similarities between LLM and collective knowledge, they differ in fundamental ways. LLM does not generate collective knowledge. Users are unaware how their input are being used to generate answers for various inquiries. In LLM, there is no back and forth interactions in between individuals and the society which is the critical element of the process of the formation of collective knowledge [5]. This type of knowledge, in contrast to LLM, involves evolutionary processes.

In LLM, words are considered points in an n-dimensional space. Math formulas specify positions of each point. This process is unclear for users. Consequently, they are unaware how their inputs influence the output. This process cannot be used in models that aim to generate collective knowledge. The main pitfall in LLM, which is the ambiguity of the process, is the essential element in collective knowledge formation. To turnaround this, math formulas can be replaced by social mechanisms that influence the opinions of individuals in a society. As an example, it is known that social conformity influences the decision-making process of individuals [6]. This factor deforms space. The space in which collective knowledge is defined, as a result, depends on these factors. This can be compared with gravity. According to general gravity, massive objects deform spacetime. And spacetime, in turn, specifies the motion of objects in space. In the collective knowledge example, mechanisms such as conformity resemble massive objects that deform space. Then, similar to gravity in spacetime, a type of gravitational force should be defined in the social context that includes various factors shaping individual opinions.

The space of public opinion is a mathematical struct and is constructed by independent axes. Construction of these axes links LLM [7] to the formation of public opinions. As mentioned before, public opinion involves an evolutionary process. It means the space gradually evolves. An an example, imagine a social incident influences public opinions. This incident gradually evolves into an axis in the space of public opinion. To model this evolutionary process, it’s possible to define each axis as a set of keywords. Opinions will also be reduced to a set of keywords with values specifying their distances to each axes.

The evolution of each keyword (the above-mentioned incident for example) into an axis involves all inputs that contain that keyword. So this is a back and forth interaction between opinions (sets of keywords) and axes that define the space in which those opinions are contained.

more explanation here

It is now clear that it’s better to use a wave function instead of a space.

Here gravity deforms space. But if instead of space, the wave function is used, gravity is no longer a force deforming the space, instead it is something that alters the wave function. This provides a possible research path to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics.

UPDATE 3:

In neuromarketing, researchers aim to set environmental inputs in such a way that mind wave function collapses into certain measurements without people being aware of the impact of environmental stimuli in the process of their measurement. Combating misinformation, radicalization, etc. is the reverse approach meaning that people should be aware of environmental stimuli in the formation of opinions. In a debate, one side might nudge the other side so that their mind wave function collapses into certain measurements. It’s critical to be aware of that in a debate. In a discussion about a social/political topic, the losing side is the one that turns into swearing mode instead of providing reasonable arguments. So the opposing side might take advantage of that. However, in some circumstances, some nudges may have different impacts. The nudge might induce a sense of similarity (being in similar situations) or it might encourage shifting to the swearing mode. Depending on the personality of the other side, the mind wave function can collapse into different measurements. If it collapses into collaborative mode, it is a success for the other side. If it collapses into swearing mode, it is also a success.