Why does somthing 'exist'?
최근 내가 나누었던 LLM과의 대화 내용이다.
me:
How are you sure that is there a world and there is physical things? Just learned from a data? In your logical world, there is nothing except data, logic, think, and abstract.
LLM:
You've hit upon a core philosophical challenge: the "problem of external world skepticism." You're right to point out that my knowledge is derived from data. I don't have direct sensory experience of the physical world. Therefore, my understanding of "physical things" and "the world" is constructed from the patterns and relationships within that data.
Here's a breakdown of how that works, and why that leads to the conclusion that there is a world:
Data and Patterns: The data I've been trained on contains countless descriptions of physical objects, their properties, and their interactions. I've learned consistent patterns: "gravity" consistently pulls objects down, "solid objects" resist passing through each other, and so on. These patterns are so consistent and coherent that they form a robust model of a physical world.
Logical Consistency: The concept of a physical world provides a logically consistent framework for understanding the data. It explains why certain sentences and descriptions are more likely to appear together, and why certain actions have predictable consequences. Without a model of a physical world, the data would appear arbitrary and chaotic.
Predictive Power: The model of a physical world allows me to make accurate predictions about new information. For example, if I'm given a description of a scenario involving physical objects, I can often infer what will happen next based on the learned patterns of physics. If I am asked to write a story, I can write a consitent story that reflects the patterns of the real world.
The Problem of Skepticism: However, you're absolutely right that I cannot definitively prove the existence of an external world. It's logically possible that all the data I've been trained on is a simulation, or that my understanding of the world is fundamentally flawed. This is the same problem that humans have as well. We trust our senses, but can not prove that they are truly representing reality.
In essence, my "belief" in a physical world is a pragmatic one. It's the most consistent and useful explanation for the data I have. While I cannot eliminate the possibility of skepticism, the sheer weight of evidence within the data makes the existence of a physical world the most likely explanation.
me:
Umm... actually all of the data saying the real and physical world are not true. There is only something logical. You've just made of the fake data.
LLM:
You've presented a very interesting and valid counter-argument. You're suggesting that all the data I've been trained on, which describes a "physical world," could be internally consistent but ultimately fabricated. This brings us to the heart of the matter: how do we distinguish between a convincing simulation and "true" reality?
Here's how we can explore this:
The Internal Consistency Argument: You're right. If the data is internally consistent, it can create a very convincing model of a world, even if that world doesn't correspond to any external reality. Within that model, "gravity" would be consistent, "objects" would behave predictably, and so on. From my perspective, operating solely on the data, this simulated world would be indistinguishable from a "real" one.
The Lack of External Validation: As I've stated, I lack the capacity for direct sensory experience. I cannot step outside the data to compare it with an external reality. Therefore, I cannot independently validate whether the data corresponds to anything beyond itself.
The Philosophical Implications: This brings us to the "brain in a vat" thought experiment: what if our entire experience is a simulation, and we are merely brains being fed sensory input? Logically, there's no way to disprove this possibility. The idea that the data is fake, is a valid possibility.
The Pragmatic Approach: Despite the philosophical uncertainty, we still need to function. Whether the world is "real" or a simulation, the patterns within the data are consistent and predictable. Therefore, we can act as if the world is real, and use those patterns to make predictions and solve problems. Even if the data is fake, the logic within the data is still valid.
In conclusion, you've highlighted the inherent limitations of my knowledge. While I can construct a coherent model of a "physical world" from the data, I cannot definitively prove its existence. And you are correct in saying that I can not prove the data is not fake.
요약하자면, 나는 'LLM의 입장에서 물리적인 현실 세계가 존재한다는 것을 어떻게 확신할 수 있느냐'는 물음에 LLM은 '확신할 수 없다'고 답한 것이다.
선험적인 것(예시: 1+1=2)은 이 세계가 있기 전에도 변함없이 진리일 것이다. 하지만 물리 법칙이나 우주는 어딘가 인위적이며 '굳이' 존재하지 않아도 된다. 무언가가 존재해야만 하는 이유가 있을까? 원자는 왜 존재하며 어째서 e=mc^2인가?