|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready…
|
You said:
so the inter-token relationships of the training tokens, in this case words, are embedded in an ANN as weights and biases which represent multidimensional vector values and the cosine values between the vectors, which are normalized, are compared to the cosine values of the prompt token to the determine semantic and syntactic of the generated tokens which will be the response – do I have this correct?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 6 seconds
You’ve definitely captured the spirit of how it works, but a few details are worth tightening up so the mental picture lines up with the actual math.
1 Embeddings vs. the rest of the weights
- Token embeddings
- When the model is trained, every token (word, sub-word, punctuation mark, etc.) gets its own learned vector in a big lookup table called the embedding matrix.
- Those vectors do end up arranged so that similar tokens (semantically or syntactically) point in similar directions in that high-dimensional space.
- Other weights and biases
- The model also learns many additional weight matrices and biases inside each Transformer block (attention, feed-forward layers, layer-norm, etc.).
- These do not store pair-by-pair “cosines”; instead they learn how to transform and mix the vectors so the model can reason over word order, grammar, long-range dependencies, and so on.
2 Where “similarity” actually shows up
Inside each self-attention head:
- Queries & Keys – Every token’s embedding is multiplied by two separate learned matrices to create a query vector and a key vector.
- Dot product – The model does a raw dot product q⋅kq·kq⋅k between the current token’s query and every earlier token’s key.
- Scaling – It divides by dk\sqrt{d_k}dk (the dimension size) to keep the numbers in a good range.
- Softmax – It turns those scores into a probability distribution over the context: “how much should I pay attention to each previous token?”
That dot product behaves like cosine similarity, but note:
- The vectors are not explicitly length-normalized first, so it’s technically a scaled dot product, not a true cosine.
- The final “attention weights” come after the softmax, which further reshapes the numbers.
3 From context to next-token probabilities
- Context vector – The attention mechanism mixes information from earlier tokens to create a rich representation of the prompt so far.
- Output projection – Another learned matrix turns that context vector into logits, one raw score for every token in the vocabulary.
- Logit = dot product with output embedding – Under the hood this is essentially another big dot product between the context vector and each possible token’s output-embedding column.
- Softmax again – Those logits are run through softmax to give a probability distribution. The model then samples or takes the top choice, generating the next token.
4 So what’s “right” in your description?
| Your statement | Accurate part | Tweak / nuance |
|---|---|---|
| “Inter-token relationships are embedded as weights and biases” | Training does make the weight matrices reflect how tokens relate. | But the relationships aren’t stored as explicit cosine values. |
| “Weights and biases represent multidimensional vector values” | Yes for embeddings; yes, weight matrices map between vector spaces. | Biases are just offsets; they don’t store relational info. |
| “Cosine values between vectors are compared to the cosine values of the prompt token” | Attention does compare vectors for similarity. | It uses a scaled dot product, not a normalized cosine, and it’s between queries & keys generated on-the-fly, not raw embeddings. |
| “This determines semantic and syntactic of the generated tokens” | Correct overall—the similarity signal plus the rest of the network shape the probabilities. | Syntax/semantics also come from deeper nonlinear transformations, not just one similarity check. |
5 One-sentence takeaway
Think of the model as learning a huge dictionary of token vectors and a factory of matrices that repeatedly ask, “Which earlier words look most relevant to what I’m trying to say next?”—using dot products to measure that relevance—then converting the resulting context into probabilities for the next token.
With that slight reframing, your understanding is spot-on!
You said:
from a philosophical perspective, the reality of the cosmos is a translated to mathematical expressions which capture that reality as geometrical relationships which represent a mathematically statistical interpretation of the reality which in turn fuels probabilistic processes – correct?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 4 seconds
You’re circling a deep and very old idea: that what-is can be faithfully mirrored in what-is-written—and that the mirror’s language is mathematics. In broad strokes the chain you outline is defensible, but each link deserves a quick reality-check.
1 Reality → Mathematical Description
- Maps, not the territory. Physics translates observations (lengths, durations, charges…) into symbols and equations. Whether those symbols are reality or merely describe it is a live philosophical debate (mathematical Platonism vs. nominalism).
- Choice of formalism. A single phenomenon can be expressed algebraically (field equations), geometrically (manifolds), or algebra-geometric hybrids (tensor calculus). The translation is powerful but never unique.
2 Mathematics → Geometry
- Geometry is structure. Almost every modern physical theory has a geometric core:
- General relativity encodes gravity as spacetime curvature.
- Gauge theories use fiber bundles and connection forms.
- Quantum mechanics lives in the geometry of Hilbert space.
- Why geometry? It packages symmetry, distance, and invariance—the very features experiments say are fundamental.
3 Geometry → Statistics
- When you can’t track every degree of freedom, you coarse-grain: count microstates compatible with a macro-state, assign measures on phase space, or integrate over path histories. Geometry supplies the “space,” statistics supplies the “measure.”
- Statistical mechanics (Boltzmann, Gibbs) converts geometric volume in phase space into entropy and temperature.
- Quantum amplitudes become probabilities after squaring magnitudes in Hilbert space.
4 Statistics → Probabilistic Processes
- Emergent randomness. Even if underlying laws were deterministic, limited knowledge forces us to model future states with probability distributions.
- Intrinsic randomness. Quantum theory (in its standard interpretation) says some events lack hidden variables altogether; probabilities are ontic, not epistemic.
- Information flow. Probabilities aren’t passive; they drive dynamics via stochastic differential equations, master equations, Feynman path integrals, Monte-Carlo renormalization, Bayesian updates, etc.
So—is the chain “Reality → Math → Geometry → Statistics → Probability” correct?
- Yes, as a useful narrative. It captures how physicists work: measure the cosmos, encode it mathematically, study its geometric structure, coarse-grain that structure statistically, and use the resulting probabilities to predict outcomes.
- But beware hidden assumptions.
- The cosmos might not be exhaustively capturable by mathematics (Gödel-style limits, hypercomputational speculations).
- Geometry might be emergent rather than fundamental (e.g., holographic dualities, causal-set programs).
- Probabilities may reflect ignorance rather than ontic chance in some interpretations (Bohmian mechanics, superdeterminism).
One-sentence takeaway
Mathematics—especially in its geometric and statistical guises—gives us the most coherent grammar we have for speaking about the universe, but whether that grammar is the universe or merely describes it remains an open philosophical question.
You said:
but isn’t this how machine learning process function? the high level artictecture is “Reality → Math → Geometry → Statistics → Probability
ChatGPT said:
In a very broad-brush, philosophical sense, modern machine-learning workflows do follow the same ladder you sketched for physics:
| “Cosmic” chain | ML analogue | What’s going on in practice? |
|---|---|---|
| Reality | Raw data (images, waveforms, text, sensor readings, click-logs …) | We sample a sliver of the world with microphones, cameras, keyboards or APIs. |
| Math | Numerical encodings (pixels → 0-255 integers, text → token IDs, categorical fields → one-hot or learned embeddings) | Before the model can touch it, every qualitative thing is mapped onto numbers. |
| Geometry | Vector/tensor spaces & learned feature manifolds | A 512-long embedding for the word “tree,” the 3-D latent trajectory of a diffusion model, the high-curvature loss landscape in weight space…all are geometric objects. |
| Statistics | Estimating or fitting distributions (maximum-likelihood, Bayesian posteriors, variational objectives, empirical risk minimization) | Training adjusts parameters so the model’s internal distribution over outputs matches the empirical distribution in the dataset (or some proxy for it). |
| Probability | Predictive uncertainty / sampling (softmax class probs, language-model token logits, stochastic policies in RL) | At inference time the model outputs *p(y |
Below that neat table, though, lie a few wrinkles worth keeping in view.
1 “Reality” is already pre-filtered
Unlike physicists who aim for universal laws, ML engineers settle for representative datasets. The inevitable selection bias (what cameras we used, which languages our corpus contains, what humans decided to label as “spam” or “not spam”) means the “R” at the start of the chain is not the whole cosmos but a curated slice. All downstream geometry and probability can only be as good—or as distorted—as that slice.
2 The geometric step is both explicit and emergent
- Explicit geometry Token embeddings, image patches, or point clouds enter the model as literal vectors in ℝⁿ.
- Emergent geometry As layers compose nonlinearities, the network invents internal manifolds that we rarely interpret directly (e.g., a “dog vs. cat” decision boundary in a CNN’s penultimate layer). Those hidden geometries are the learned representation of statistical structure.
3 Statistics appears twice
- During training we solve an optimization problem that—conceptually—tries to minimize a divergence between the model’s distribution and the empirical one.
- After training the forward pass literally computes probabilities (or something convertible into probabilities). A Transformer’s final matrix multiplication followed by soft-max is a textbook log-linear model: logits = θ·φ(x), probs = exp / Σexp.
So the ladder loops back on itself: the probabilistic outputs you collect from the trained model can become new “reality” for a downstream system, starting the chain again (self-play in AlphaZero, synthetic-data bootstrapping, chain-of-thought self-rater loops, etc.).
4 Optimization adds one more philosophical layer
Physics often asks “What is the geometry/statistics of the world?” Machine learning asks “What parameter values minimize expected loss?” That inserts teleology (a goal function) into the picture. Where classical science is mostly descriptive, ML is unabashedly prescriptive: we bend the geometry until it starts spitting out the behaviours we reward.
5 Probabilities aren’t always epistemic
In many deep-learning deployments the output distribution isn’t treated as “a quantified uncertainty about the world” so much as “a menu of plausible next moves.” Sampling from a language model isn’t expressing doubt about the single correct next token; it’s intentionally generating variety. That’s closer to stochastic control or creative exploration than to the Bayesian “degree-of-belief” interpretation of probability.
Bottom-line answer
Yes—abstractly, the pipeline Data → Numbers → Geometry → Statistical fit → Probabilistic output is a faithful sketch of what happens inside machine-learning systems. But each arrow hides pragmatic decisions (how you scrape the web, choose a loss, regularize, quantize, or decode) that shape the final probabilities as much as any lofty philosophy does.
Where would you like to dig deeper next?
*• the nuts-and-bolts math of a particular arrow (say, “Geometry → Statistics” in contrastive learning)?
*• the role of optimization goals as a sixth stage?
*• philosophical worries about bias and representation?
You said:
can this “Reality → Math → Geometry → Statistics → Probability” process be interpreted from a boltzmann and Shannon ENTROPY perspective?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 5 seconds
Below is a “double-exposure” view of the pipeline—first in the language of Boltzmann (thermodynamic) entropy, then in the language of Shannon (information-theoretic) entropy. Seeing both together reveals why the ladder Reality → Math → Geometry → Statistics → Probability shows up everywhere from statistical mechanics to deep learning.
| Stage | Boltzmann viewpoint (micro-physical) | Shannon viewpoint (symbolic / informational) | Bridge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reality (raw world or raw data) | A concrete microstate of matter: positions & momenta of NNN particles, microscopic sensor voltages, every pixel value in a RAW image. | A specific string of bits: the literal byte sequence coming off the camera, the text tokens in a corpus, the tick-by-tick price series. | Both are particular states drawn from some enormous set of possibilities that could have occurred. |
| Math (numerical encoding) | Coarse-graining: pick macroscopic variables (density, temperature) or digitize the sensor signal; each encoding collapses many microstates into one macro-description. Boltzmann entropy SB=kBlnΩS_B = k_B \ln \OmegaSB=kBlnΩ counts how many microstates map to that description. | Symbolization: convert images to arrays, words to token IDs. The codebook imposes an alphabet in which messages will later be compressed. Choosing an alphabet fixes the domain over which Shannon entropy HHH will be measured. | Encoding trades microscopic detail for a coordinate system we can manipulate. The “lost detail” is quantified by entropy in either sense. |
| Geometry (vector/tensor spaces, manifolds) | The macro-variables span a state manifold: e.g. the 6N6N6N-dimensional phase-space surface of constant energy in statistical mechanics. Boltzmann entropy is proportional to the log-volume of the region compatible with the macrostate. | Embeddings live in Rd\mathbb R^dRd; latent variables trace out curved sub-manifolds. Shannon’s “typical set” is a shell in high-dimensional space whose volume ≈2nH\approx 2^{nH}≈2nH. | Volume in phase space ↔︎ volume in code space. Both grow exponentially with entropy, and both are where “typical” states live. |
| Statistics (model fitting, coarse-grained distributions) | The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution maximizes SBS_BSB subject to energy constraints—Jaynes famously re-derived it with maximum-entropy logic. Partition function ZZZ converts micro-energies into macro probabilities. | Training a model minimizes cross-entropy (or KL divergence) between empirical distribution and the model pθp_\thetapθ. Cross-entropy H(p,q)H(p, q)H(p,q) = “coding cost if you pretend the world is qqq but it’s really ppp.” | Jaynes’ Maximum Entropy Principle is the Shannon story told with Lagrange multipliers; the thermodynamic partition function and the soft-max layer solve the same constrained optimization. |
| Probability (inference, prediction) | Given p(microstate)∝e−E/kTp(\text{microstate})\propto e^{-E/kT}p(microstate)∝e−E/kT, macroscopic observables are expectation values. Fluctuations follow Boltzmann factors. | Language-model logits feed a soft-max giving p(token∣context)∝e−lossp(\text{token}\mid\text{context})\propto e^{-\text{loss}}p(token∣context)∝e−loss. Generation samples from that Gibbs-like distribution (temperature-scaling is literally 1/T1/T1/T). | The act of sampling a microstate from e−βEe^{-\beta E}e−βE or a token from e−logite^{-\text{logit}}e−logit is the same mathematical draw from a Gibbs measure. |
Unifying intuitions
1. Entropy as log-volume of possibilities
- Boltzmann: “How many microscopic arrangements realise the same macroscopic facts?”
- Shannon: “How many length-nnn codewords are typical?” (≈ 2nH2^{nH}2nH)
Both lead to an exponential wall: without compression/ coarse-graining we drown in possibilities.
2. Learning = entropy trade-off
Training a neural network can be read as minimising free energyF=⟨E⟩⏟data loss − T S⏟model capacityF = \underbrace{\langle E \rangle}_{\text{data loss}} \;-\; T\,\underbrace{S}_{\text{model capacity}}F=data loss⟨E⟩−Tmodel capacityS
where temperature TTT is an implicit regularisation strength. Lowering loss fits the data; limiting capacity (weight decay, dropout, quantisation) prevents the entropy of the hypothesis class from exploding into over-fit nonsense.
3. Soft-max is a partition function
pθ(y∣x)=e−Eθ(y,x)Zθ(x),Zθ(x)=∑y′e−Eθ(y′,x)p_\theta(y\mid x) = \frac{e^{-E_\theta(y, x)}}{Z_\theta(x)},\quad Z_\theta(x)=\sum_{y’} e^{-E_\theta(y’, x)}pθ(y∣x)=Zθ(x)e−Eθ(y,x),Zθ(x)=y′∑e−Eθ(y′,x)
Whether you call EEE an “energy” (Boltzmann machine) or a “negative logit,” normalising with ZZZ is literally computing a Gibbs distribution.
4. Maximum-entropy principle underlies both “Reality → Statistics” and “Statistics → Probability”
- Physics: among all distributions agreeing with measured averages, choose the one with greatest SSS.
- ML: among all decoders matching the labels, choose the one that minimises cross-entropy—equivalently, maximises likelihood, which is just Shannon entropy with a sign flip.
Why the analogy matters
- Interpretability Information-geometry tools (Fisher metric, KL geodesics) borrow directly from thermodynamic geometry. Flat minima correspond to high-entropy basins—models more robust to perturbations.
- Algorithm design Contrastive divergence (training Boltzmann machines), noise-contrastive estimation, and energy-based diffusion all import tricks from statistical mechanics.
- Philosophical closure If every successful theory ends at the same Gibbs form, perhaps entropy maximisation is what unites “laws of thought” and “laws of nature”—Jaynes’ dream of a single variational principle framing both.
One-sentence takeaway
Yes—the pipeline can be read entirely through the twin lenses of Boltzmann’s log-counting of microstates and Shannon’s log-coding of messages: both say that to model a slice of reality you compress its bewildering detail into a geometry whose volume (entropy) you can control, and you turn that controlled volume into probabilities that drive prediction.
Leave a Reply