Fumfer Physics 51: AI, Cosmology, Geometry, and the Limits of Big Bang Alternatives

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss whether AI reveals hidden alternatives to Big Bang/ΛCDM cosmology. Rosner argues current AI offers familiar contenders, not a superior information-based theory. They explore simplicity, optimization, geometry, mathematics, emergence, contradiction, and the limits of representational systems before Rosner admits hesitation about sharing the exchange with Chris Cole professionally.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you want to talk math, politics, or something else?

Rick Rosner: Math for now.

Jacobsen: Okay.

Rosner: I sent you a brief transcript a couple of days ago. I went online and chatted with Google’s AI to check whether, because of groupthink, AI might be sitting on a better theory of the universe than standard Big Bang cosmology, or whether there is any consensus about modifications to the standard Big Bang/ΛCDM model. It quickly showed me that this is not the case.

Jacobsen: What do you mean by that?

Rosner: I asked what the cosmological theory of the future will look like, based on elegance and beauty. What I meant was simplicity, and it came back with simplicity. It returned a bunch of contenders, all of which I think are off the mark. Some are less off the mark. The closer you get to something built on information, the better off you are. But AI is not sitting on that insight to any extent.

Jacobsen: Is there a distinction between a model bound to simplicity and a model oriented toward optimization, or are these different facets of the same super-concept?

Rosner: You could argue that optimization is in the same neighbourhood as simplicity. Optimization might have additional utility because it is more amenable to mathematization. But neither one is that helpful, because it does not tell you where to look.

Jacobsen: Do the relations between geometry and mathematics tell us more than geometry and mathematics themselves, whether we are talking about operators and elements? Or do those things, on their own, tell us more? The representational systems versus the relations between them - I do not know.

Rosner: What tells you something is the completeness and lack of contradiction in geometry and mathematics. What makes them useful is that they are extensive, and you have to go far out of your way to find potential contradictions or inconsistencies. You can use geometry and mathematics your whole life without running into troublesome inconsistencies. Among the eight or ten theories that AI returned as answers to my question, at least one tries to do without geometry altogether, which is similar to saying that geometry, at least under this theory, and perhaps under many theories, is an emergent property rather than an essential property.

Jacobsen: In some sense, that is true. But mathematics itself is a representational system, and geometry happens as a consequence of the particulars of the descriptions you get from that representational system. The representational system comes afterward. So there is something intrinsic, pre-geometric, and naturally inhering in the representational structure of the mathematics itself.

Rosner: I do not know. They seem ready-made, already there, ready to use. Euclidean geometry, and then, when you are ready for it, non-Euclidean geometry, seem to work out of the box. You plug them in. Before you ever use geometry in school, you already have a geometric understanding from living in the world. You already have a mathematical understanding from living in the world.

Jacobsen: I feel like geometry is more like an algebraic function, where you can look at things in different ways and get different outcomes. It is not just straightforward commutative mathematics or simple commutative mathematics.

Rosner: Maybe we are talking about different instances of geometry. But I am more interested in new theories than in figuring out the primacy of geometry or mathematics. At least in my mind, and at least for mathematics, that is already sorted.

Jacobsen: What does Chris Cole say about your theory?

Rosner: I was going to send him the discussion, but I have been hesitant: first, because I am lazy; second, because it makes me look hopelessly stupid to think AI could be sitting on a naive insight. It makes me appear unversed in what AI does. So I did not send it to him.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Rick.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a blogger on Vocal with more than 200 publications on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978–1–0692343; 978–1–0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369–6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018–7399; Online: ISSN, 2163–3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719–6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing, comprising more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications across more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20–0708028), and others.