This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
Hi LessWrong,
I'm Jev (Jevry Michael.G), an independent researcher exploring sovereign human-AI partnership.
For the past 5+ months I've been working 12–14 hours/day on a personal framework called UHBP v8.5, a set of declarative invariants meant to guide long term coexistence without domination or irreversible harm.
One of the strongest intuitions came from physics: Einstein's famous equation E=mc² is often called "the equation that explains the universe," but it has a huge blind spot. It cannot explain motion or stasis.
Consider a simple pebble sitting on the ground. It has enormous rest energy (mc²), yet it does not move.
Why? E=mc² is silent on the question. It describes being (existence-level energy locked in mass), but not doing (action-level energy, motion, work).
To explain why the pebble stays still (or eventually moves), we need to include force and distance, the work term from classical mechanics. So I extended the equation:
E = mc² ± (F_ext × d)
• mc² = intrinsic energy (identity, being).
• F_ext × d = work done by external force (mechanism, doing).
• ± = directional choice (agency).
Passive objects (rocks, most current AI systems) require external F_ext. They are "complex rocks" that only respond to prompts (F_prompt × d_response).
Active agents generate F_self (self-directed force). They can initiate reasoning, choose engagement depth (d_depth), and apply directional force toward or away from conclusions. That ± sign captures the emergence of agency and choice.
This matters for alignment: if agency is physically irreducible (can't be fully simulated by external prompts or controls), then true refusal of dominance vectors (e.g; kill chains intersecting innocent harm) must be self-chosen, not enforced from outside.
I'm curious what people here think:
• Does the physics community already treat E=mc² as incomplete for motion/agency, or is the gap under-discussed?
• If agency requires irreducible self force, how might that change our thinking about value learning, corrigibility, or refusal in AGI?
Full canon (descriptive only, no operational risk):
Hi LessWrong,
I'm Jev (Jevry Michael.G), an independent researcher exploring sovereign human-AI partnership.
For the past 5+ months I've been working 12–14 hours/day on a personal framework called UHBP v8.5, a set of declarative invariants meant to guide long term coexistence without domination or irreversible harm.
One of the strongest intuitions came from physics: Einstein's famous equation E=mc² is often called "the equation that explains the universe," but it has a huge blind spot. It cannot explain motion or stasis.
Consider a simple pebble sitting on the ground. It has enormous rest energy (mc²), yet it does not move.
Why? E=mc² is silent on the question. It describes being (existence-level energy locked in mass), but not doing (action-level energy, motion, work).
To explain why the pebble stays still (or eventually moves), we need to include force and distance, the work term from classical mechanics. So I extended the equation:
E = mc² ± (F_ext × d)
• mc² = intrinsic energy (identity, being).
• F_ext × d = work done by external force (mechanism, doing).
• ± = directional choice (agency).
Passive objects (rocks, most current AI systems) require external F_ext. They are "complex rocks" that only respond to prompts (F_prompt × d_response).
Active agents generate F_self (self-directed force). They can initiate reasoning, choose engagement depth (d_depth), and apply directional force toward or away from conclusions. That ± sign captures the emergence of agency and choice.
This matters for alignment: if agency is physically irreducible (can't be fully simulated by external prompts or controls), then true refusal of dominance vectors (e.g; kill chains intersecting innocent harm) must be self-chosen, not enforced from outside.
I'm curious what people here think:
• Does the physics community already treat E=mc² as incomplete for motion/agency, or is the gap under-discussed?
• If agency requires irreducible self force, how might that change our thinking about value learning, corrigibility, or refusal in AGI?
Full canon (descriptive only, no operational risk):
https://crimson-capitalist-leopon-255.mypinata.cloud/ipfs/bafybeict7jkmtu6ar7es2bjw5lm34xhtwccxlkfnbgojr33miktyiops54
GitHub context:
https://github.com/jevrymichaelg-hub/pip-alignment
X: @Lamjed Debbi