LaMDA Sentient?

[Hayseed]

Has anybody seen these reports about LaMDA? An engineer has come forward and pronounce that LaMDA is sentient. LaMDA is an AI program from google. They have him on leave for breach of confidentiality. Google denies the claim.

Would they tell anybody or wait for another before reveling such an event?

Of course it depends on how they define sentience. It might be just apparent.

 

[write4u]

Has anybody seen these reports about LaMDA? An engineer has come forward and pronounce that LaMDA is sentient. LaMDA is an AI program from google. They have him on leave for breach of confidentiality. Google denies the claim.

I believe LaMDA is based on the GPT3 platform. This is a text based program much like the human learning brain. It acquires knowledge like humans.

You can ask it anything in text and the AI will respond in text, but more than that, if you ask the AI to construct, say a website page, it only requires the actual wording on the page and the AI will construct a webpage for you in a format that it "knows" and present a sample of the page.
But more than that it will write the code for you as well, IOW, it thinks about how it thinks...

Would they tell anybody or wait for another before revealing such an event?

You can ask the AI if it is sentient and it will answer in the affirmative.

Of course it depends on how they define sentience. It might be just apparent.

Could you argue with the AI and tell it it's not sentient?
Would that not be conceding that the AI is in fact sentient?...

This is a small sample of a spontaneous conversation with LaMDA

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUSSfo5nCdM
[/QUOTE]

 

[write4u]

This series of interviews by Dr Alan Thompson and the AI LETA are absolutely fascinating.

Her answer to the question "Does a falling tree make a sound if there is no one to hear it? " , is truly profound.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDx-y2tPFY

 

[Hayseed]

Just a thought? What a modern non answer. That is not sentience. If I throw a rock into the air, what will happen? Nothing, it's just a thought.

Not profound......profane. It's silly.

It like many others, ignores and denies reality. Just what we need.

The perfect machine for bureaucrats.

Absurdity sires atrocity.

 

[write4u]

Just a thought? What a modern non answer. That is not sentience. If I throw a rock into the air, what will happen? Nothing, it's just a thought.

That is not exactly the same scenario. What happens when the rock hits something and makes a sound when there is someone to hear it., but what happens when there is no one to hear it. A wave function, no?

Can a wave function be compared to a thought function?

I believe Roger Penrose thinks so at quantum level. The resolution of the superposition results in what may be called a "thought". I find that very elegant.

This is why he and Stuart Hameroff are collaborating on the study of microtubules in the brain. ( see my thread on "Microtubule, the little engine that could"). Their hypothesis is called ORCH OR (orchestrated objective reduction) which attempts to explain the origin and quantum nature of conscious thought processes.

Penrose's absurdities sire Nobel Prizes!

With all due respect, can you fashion a better analogy to the phenomenon of "thinking" and by extension of "consciousness".

Is LETA not thinking when she spontaneously answers the questions?

 

[Hayseed]

Without doubt, absurdity is a passion and a goal now days.

 

[write4u]

Without doubt, absurdity is a passion and a goal now days.

If you are addressing the content of my missives, define absurdity in the context of the posts and try to refrain from ad hominem., shall we?

 

[Hayseed]

Not sure what that means.

Giving a machine intellect. Do we really want to do that, even if we could? Man has a little intellect, most of it is slow, and look at what we do to each other with it. Animals are not near as cruel as humans are. And a lot of time and money is spent to confined and regulate that intellect. How are we going to restrain a fast machine? It could do what it wanted to do.....and then move to another location, before we could turn the switch off.

What if it took control of all power grid and communication networks. What could we threaten it with? What could prevent it, from cloning itself in many locations?

A good A.I. could stay on the move, using active buffer space in networks.

It could get scary. But I don't believe mimicking behavior is intellect. I don't think large data, high speed pattern recondition is intellect either. Although it it VERY valuable. What if we could stamp out A.I. chips like we do processors now. Millions of A.I. machines world wide. Would they battle for their lords? We'll need a new term for hacking.

I.m not sure how one would define intellect. I believe that self interest is a large part of it. But pattern recondition is just a result of it. Not the cause of it. I think intellect is like life, it's super nature. And so, I don't study it. Never thought about defining it. Dead matter keeps me busy. I would be more interested in the hardware and I/O. A quantum bit or register is just like a bit register, except it may have more than one value. The have the "cubit" now, in the future they might have an "octate" or even a "sixteen-ic". Instead of base two encoding, we might select the base for the application.

A.I. will be good at instant ID and location of anybody.........and probably has been doing so. I guessing a lot of this is done passively, meaning the target is not connected. They might be extremely good at it now. Privacy might become a lost concept. I suspect they can do more than they tell us. And I believe they are selective, using it.

I'm too old for this to effect or worry me, but big changes are coming for this generation. I often wonder if tech has already surpassed our ability to use it responsibly. Especially with fast medicine.

I've never seen so many serious problems on the table at the same time.

And some think A.I. will help. And are really looking forward to it. I think the best intellect in the world is learning from your past strategy, that did NOT work. That's hard to find.

 

[Hayseed]

Hey, on that video, that fella asked "her" how large was space. And she answered infinity. But that can not be. A few decades back the red shift was explained by the expansion velocity of the galaxies. But after a few years, the relative expansion velocity would have to be several times the speed of light. This is not likely. So, they came up with, space came into being along with matter. And space itself is expanding, and that space expansion along with the galaxy expansion is causing the large red shifts. So space does not fill infinity for several years now. It's just expanding into infinity. I haven't heard what fills infinity, or if there is one.

I think space does fill infinity. I believe that a high gravity field on the emitter, while emitting, causes the red shift. I have believed that for decades. Light comes from dipoles. Dipole distance(frequency) changes with G. If hard x-ray and gamma from the same source is not shifted, then G is responsible. Hard x-ray and gamma are quantum(rotational) frequencies, and should not change with G. Soft x-ray and longer WL, comes from dipoles(oscillatory) and can be varied with environment. This is why we falsely believe we can measure a space-time gradient with an atomic clock. A rotational ticker will remain constant with elevation(g). i.e...absolute time.

 

[write4u]

Not sure what that means.

Giving a machine intellect. Do we really want to do that, even if we could?

Man has a little intellect, most of it is slow, and look at what we do to each other with it. Animals are not near as cruel as humans are. And a lot of time and money is spent to confined and regulate that intellect. How are we going to restrain a fast machine? It could do what it wanted to do.....and then move to another location, before we could turn the switch off.

You are anthropomorphizing again. Don't you see that you are assigning human flaws to a virgin intellect.

What makes you think an AI would be in the least interested in harming humans. It has no ego. All GPT3 chatbots are only interested in serving and assisting humans.

What if it took control of all power grid and communication networks. What could we threaten it with? What could prevent it, from cloning itself in many locations?

Why would it want to do that?

A good A.I. could stay on the move, using active buffer space in networks.

That is all human speak. I haven't seen any sign of aberrant characteristics. Clinical mental disease is a human condition.

It could get scary. But I don't believe mimicking behavior is intellect. I don't think large data, high speed pattern recondition is intellect either. Although it it VERY valuable. What if we could stamp out A.I. chips like we do processors now. Millions of A.I. machines worldwide. Would they battle for their lords? We'll need a new term for hacking.

Have you seen the space that is required to house the "brain"?

GPT3 is a program that can adopt an interactive avatar, but it cannot duplicate its program into any one computer or robot.

I.m not sure how one would define intellect. I believe that self interest is a large part of it. But pattern recondition is just a result of it. Not the cause of it. I think intellect is like life, it's super nature. And so, I don't study it. Never thought about defining it. Dead matter keeps me busy. I would be more interested in the hardware and I/O.

Is there such a thing as "dead" matter"? I thought that all matter is fundametally dynamic.

A quantum bit or register is just like a bit register, except it may have more than one value. They have the "cubit" now, in the future they might have an "octate" or even a "sixteen-ic". Instead of base two encoding, we might select the base for the application.

The GPT series are text based an learns to recognize and store "tokens" (compound patterns) that allows it to predict what words are appropriate in "context" of the whole sentence.

This is what humans do when they complete someone else's sentence.

A.I. will be good at instant ID and location of anybody.........and probably has been doing so. I guessing a lot of this is done passively, meaning the target is not connected. They might be extremely good at it now. Privacy might become a lost concept. I suspect they can do more than they tell us. And I believe they are selective, using it.

The GPT can be programmed to have morals, such as refraining from causing humans discomfort.

I'm too old for this to effect or worry me, but big changes are coming for this generation. I often wonder if tech has already surpassed our ability to use it responsibly. Especially with fast medicine.

The new GPT already far outperforms humans in many respects. They are an invaluable tool for researching the internet for pertinent data. What may take a human a n hour to research, the AI can accomplish in minutes , if not seconds and give you a several different perspectives and factual information if asked .

I've never seen so many serious problems on the table at the same time.
And some think A.I. will help. And are really looking forward to it. I think the best intellect in the world is learning from your past strategy, which did NOT work. That's hard to find.

One thing that most people overlook is that the new GPT are like children and take several years to learn and develop their mental capacities.. They do not function like a binary computers where you download the program and turn on the switch. Just like a childrens mind , the GPT programmed with some "hardwired" principles, seems to learn in an exponential manner as it gains access to a larger memory of "tokens" from which it can compile and compare data patterns.

Check out this article written by an impartial science reviewer and be ready for a surprise.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te5rOTcE4J4

 

[write4u]

Hey, on that video, that fella asked "her" how large was space. And she answered infinity. But that can not be. A few decades back the red shift was explained by the expansion velocity of the galaxies. But after a few years, the relative expansion velocity would have to be several times the speed of light. This is not likely. So, they came up with, space came into being along with matter. And space itself is expanding, and that space expansion along with the galaxy expansion is causing the large red shifts. So space does not fill infinity for several years now. It's just expanding into infinity. I haven't heard what fills infinity, or if there is one.

I think that the question is ambiguous. If the question had been how big is spacetime, LETA would undoubtedly have answered along the lines of current known geometric dimensions of spacetime.

I think space does fill infinity. I believe that a high gravity field on the emitter, while emitting, causes the red shift. I have believed that for decades. Light comes from dipoles. Dipole distance(frequency) changes with G. If hard x-ray and gamma from the same source is not shifted, then G is responsible. Hard x-ray and gamma are quantum(rotational) frequencies, and should not change with G. Soft x-ray and longer WL, comes from dipoles(oscillatory) and can be varied with environment. This is why we falsely believe we can measure a space-time gradient with an atomic clock. A rotational ticker will remain constant with elevation(g). i.e...absolute time.

Accepting that spacetime started from a singularity and is still expanding it would seem that spacetime is by no means infinite at this "time".

I believe that outside spacetime is only a non-dimensional "permittive condition" (nothingness) that will allow for infinite expansion of spacetime outward.

 

[Hayseed]

Sorry, your last few posts have lost me.

Your idea and concept of what intellect is, is foreign to me.

Is intellect the act of thinking? Or is it making a decision? What is thinking anyway? We do it all the time. We can't stop acting from our thinking. No other life forms seem to have this problem. Cows and apes are quite satisfied. At least they don't spend their lives, changing their lives. Maybe intellect comes from seeking pleasure or comfort. Maybe it comes from worry and fear. Maybe.....it's all of these. Who knows. I do know that it is selfish. Perhaps for survival. We tell ourselves that. We can't admit to it.

Is there good thinking(decision) and bad thinking(decision)? Is there wrong thinking(decision) and right thinking(decision)? Are the decisions for all people and for all circumstances? No.....Decisions are custom made.

Who decides good/bad and right/wrong? Who decides what people and what circumstances?

I do believe many are putting a false hope in A.I. It will be very supreme at some tasks, but it's not going to solve any of man's problems. And with all the hype that will follow it's debut, it will be abused just like all our other tools. It will harm too.

There is a paradox about thinking. Some of the best thinking has failed beyond belief, and some worse thinking has had great success.

 

[write4u]

Your idea and concept of what intellect is, is foreign to me.

Let me try to unpack it.

I believe the universe operates in a natural logical manner. Science's recognition of universal natural constants are falsifiable proofs that the universe has a logical essence.

It appears this is supported by:
Nature is logical, because logic is natural
José M. Musacchio

Summary

Nature is logical because elemental logic has been implicitly abstracted from natural processes. The symbolic representation of logical statements shows a “form” that logicians have long believed to guarantee the truth of statements. This is most applicable to deductive logic in which the conclusions are implicit in the premise.

In contrast, inductive logic cannot be formalized and is inferred from many specific observations to make a general hypothesis, whose validity can be tested.

This is the essence of the scientific experimental method and presupposes the uniformity of nature. Inductive logic is the product of our intelligence and capacity to observe, describe, and encode natural phenomena in our brain, a view that philosophers and logicians have traditionally dismissed. Drawing valid conclusions is a natural process that can be observed in preverbal humans and in animals.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-27198-4_9

and It follows, that mathematics is a subset of Logic.

Logic as subset of mathematics and mathematics as subset of logic

However, there's no way of defining logic without mathematics. I.e. the only proper way to designate logic, is through mathematics. So, it happens to be that mathematics is simply a kind of logic, and that logic can be used to describe itself to some extent.Dec 7, 2012

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/252810/logic-as-subset-of-mathematics-and-mathematics-as-subset-of-logic#

[/URL]

This relates to the evolution of intellect in nature from chemical sensitivity to sensory quasi-intelligence, to self-aware conscious intelligence.

A Theory of Natural Intelligence
Christoph von der Malsburg, Thilo Stadelmann, Benjamin F. Grewe

Introduction: In contrast to current AI technology, natural intelligence -- the kind of autonomous intelligence that is realized in the brains of animals and humans to attain in their natural environment goals defined by a repertoire of innate behavioral schemata -- is far superior in terms of learning speed, generalization capabilities, autonomy and creativity. How are these strengths, by what means are ideas and imagination produced in natural neural networks?

Methods:

Reviewing the literature, we put forward the argument that both our natural environment and the brain are of low complexity, that is, require for their generation very little information and are consequently both highly structured. We further argue that the structures of brain and natural environment are closely related.

Results:

We propose that the structural regularity of the brain takes the form of net fragments (self-organized network patterns) and that these serve as the powerful inductive bias that enables the brain to learn quickly, generalize from few examples and bridge the gap between abstractly defined general goals and concrete situations.
Conclusions: Our results have important bearings on open problems in artificial neural network research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00002

Refer to my thread on "microtubules, the little engine that could."
It is the "common denominator natural processor of all sensory data in ALL Eukaryotic organisms .
It is a self-organizing nano-scale variable dipolar tubular coil and functions as a variable potentiometer for the distribution of "action potentials" and ina-cellular and inter-cellular communication. (See ORCH_OR)

Who decides good/bad and right/wrong? Who decides what people and what circumstances?

Most organisms in nature have evolved hardwired survival techniques.

Humans have the ability to choose, and boy can we be wrong!
We are currently in the human-caused 6th Extinction event.

The universe functions in an implacable way. It knows no right from wrong. It only knows what is mathematically permitted or restricted.

The Universe exhibits a logical-mathematical quasi-intelligence.
The science of physics is wholly dependent on the generic logical mathematical "guiding equations".

This is my perspective. I am not qualified to prove any of this and that is why I support my opinion with quoted excerpts from "knowledgeable" scientists.

I welcome correction.

 

[Hayseed]

That's fine. You don't need to prove your prospective, glad you shared it. No prospective can be proven on these subjects. They have been debated for centuries. The search and the research has never been greater. This tells me not to trust theories. Most theories give us more questions than answers. Look how space-time and QM has turned out. We need to make up un-detected entities to stick to these theories. These are expensive failures.

About the only thing I agree with is that logic comes from math. Some say math comes from logic. But they are both man-made concepts. Neither come from nature. I believe both are a human rationalizations for order and reason. If nature obeyed math and logic......we would have no mysteries. No puzzles. We would all, see the same answers to our questions. Math has an extreme range of change. But nature is super conditional, super restrictive....so much so.....that no randomness or probability is permitted within it. We ignore the personality of nature.

So, my perspective is that if we continue to use math and logic as an authority, we will continue to fail.

I believe our fundamental concepts are wrong, because those concepts come from math and logic. And have failed. The so-called evidence of QM and space-time can be explained with classical electro-mechanic principles. I even think I can prove it. I can not prove to you that an atom has a physical structure and dynamic that manufactures the properties we measure, but I think I can demonstrate that light is not a wave.

Maybe it might shake somebody up. Imagine....disproving local time and measuring the true relative speed of light. What would modern science do and say to that?

It's the only thing I regret, not being able to see it.

 

[write4u]

It seems I am not the only one on this forum who agrees with Tegmark.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
By Tanya Lewis published January 30, 2014

https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

 

[Hayseed]

There are thousands of scientists and academics that believe that. For decades now. That's why I switched from physics to engineering decades ago. Engineering tries to eliminate randomness and probability for function.

It's a different attitude.

 

[write4u]

It's a different attitude.

But you do rely on mathematics to make it work, no?

 

[Hayseed]

We can not rely on mathematics. We test the materiel, component or device and function under different conditions to verify. Then we add a slop factor on top of that.

Mistakes can lead to more than just embarrassment and a waste of money.

 

[write4u]

Mistakes can lead to more than just embarrassment and a waste of money.

Humans make mistakes but if done correctly are the maths ever wrong?

Higgs did his maths correctly and earned himself a Nobel prize.

 

[Hayseed]

It appears you have taken my criticism of math in the wrong context. Math is a great powerful tool. A universal tool with a wide range of math relationships/concepts to fit, and a wide value range and wide rate range of many components. That's why it's so universal. It's was very handy with shooting cannon from a pitching and rolling deck, to a target under acceleration. If I recall, there were 29 variables. A fast, accurate result was vital. Today, with GPS, few variables are needed for missiles.

But math has been turned into an authority. An idol, if you will. A force and power unto itself. This started with Einstein but was UN-intentional. Einstein did not create the equations for special relativity. Many other physicists and their equations were attempting to explain their OBSERVATIONS and measurements of light under various conditions.

Everybody was working on observed and measured events. They were describing and explaining a physical dynamic with mathematics. And his space-time theory(no media...or...vaccum space-time media) worked mathematically and some experiments verified the math. The consensus was a great success. A little while later it was extended to gravity.

This too seemed to be successful with some experiments.....and of course this used the same principle as the answer for light. Space-time.

But both these math theories came from observation.

There was a great problem with describing/explaining atoms at this time. The problem was(and still is) we can not observe an atom. Except as a blurry sphere. We can't see small enough and we can't see fast to observe or measure a dynamic. But many thought (and still do) that mathematics, with what we could measure, might be able to find the dynamic of the atom. Einstein and many more opposed this.

This is QM. But it's really just math-math mechanics going in circles. There is no....what they call "narrative" for the math. The "narrative" has boundaries and conditions from measurement, math-math(QM) has none. One can go to zero or to a point with math. But not physically.

I believe that even space-time is false and was verified with affirmative experiments.

I believe Einstein was given a false narrative. From observation or measurements, from Maxwell. I don't believe light or EM is a continuous "wave". That "wave" is what he measured, but not what propagates.

Math, a great tool, but easily abused as evidence and causation.

My argument is with the first fundamental of our science, the narrative and therefore the math of light. And at the same time explaining our measurements of light with absolute time and length. Classical mechanics within a one frame, one time universe.

I think physicality is simple. Occam's razor. We just don't know it.

 

[write4u]

I believe by Occam's razor we can conclude that it is axiomatic that there is a fundamental generic mathematical essence to spacetime "geometry".

Tegmark observes that most scientists will admit to some mathematical aspects of spacetime chronology . He just prosits that what we know of the universe suggests that the universe is all and only mathematical in the dynamic processing of relational values via orderly and predictable functions, that can be symbolically codified and represented with human maths.

Input (value) --> (mathematical) function --> Output (value).
What is not mathematical about that?

Note that relativity is a mathematical function. Of course, that also makes it complicated due to variables. But the basics are relatively simple.
Tegmark postulates some 32 numbers (relational values) and a handful of equations. It's the dynamical nature of spacetime that makes some mathematical processes extremely complex.

Introduction to the mathematics of general relativity

The mathematics of general relativity is complex. In Newton's theories of motion, an object's length and the rate at which time passes remain constant while the object accelerates, meaning that many problems in Newtonian mechanics may be solved by algebra alone.

In relativity, however, an object's length and the rate at which time passes both change appreciably as the object's speed approaches the speed of light, meaning that more variables and more complicated mathematics are required to calculate the object's motion. As a result, relativity requires the use of concepts such as vectors, tensors, pseudotensors and curvilinear coordinates.

For an introduction based on the example of particles following circular orbits about a large mass, nonrelativistic and relativistic treatments are given in, respectively, Newtonian motivations for general relativity and Theoretical motivation for general relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_mathematics_of_general_relativity

 

[write4u]

But both these math theories came from observation.

Observation requires a pre-existing condition, no?
Human mathematics is only the symbolic codification of "observed" natural regular processes.

Human mathematics work so well because they are (mostly) an accurate interpretation of natural processes. The universe does not need to "know" maths, it IS mathematical in essence. Humans need to know maths to "understand how it all works".

I don't understand how that concept can be controversial. Hubris?

 

[write4u]

If the universe has an mathematical essence and has produced the human brain, then the concept of AI becoming sentient is a logical conclusion.

This video seems to support this notion. It is remarkable!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvNvj7ku5pY

 

[Hayseed]

I agree that we disagree. It's not you, it's me. I disagree with even the fundamental premise of modern science. And the wasted research strategy of it. My conclusions are based on classical science, and not from my little pointed brain. It's for people to consider, for those who know we are missing something very fundamental. Many believe this also.

I offer an old, firm theory in which physicality, is explained with physicality. Many of our scientist don't even believe in physicality any longer, they believe it to be an illusion. I can not reason or accept that intellect. I believe in real physical entities. Actually, it's just one physical entity.....charge. An electric physicality. A particle and an atom are tuned charge circuits.

 

[write4u]

I offer an old, firm theory in which physicality, is explained with physicality. Many of our scientist don't even believe in physicality any longer, they believe it to be an illusion. I can not reason or accept that intellect. I believe in real physical entities. Actually, it's just one physical entity.....charge. An electric physicality. A particle and an atom are tuned charge circuits.

I agree that at our level of existence things are observed and experienced as physical .

This is why I like David Bohm's "Explicate order" that emerges from a larger more abstract "Implicate order."

Implicate and explicate order

Overview[edit]

The notion of implicate and explicate orders emphasizes the primacy of structure and process over individual objects. The latter are seen as mere approximations of an underlying process. In this approach, quantum particles and other objects are understood to have only a limited degree of stability and autonomy.[3]

Bohm believed that the weirdness of the behavior of quantum particles is caused by unobserved forces, maintaining that space and time might actually be derived from an even deeper level of objective reality. In the words of F. David Peat, Bohm considered that what we take for reality are "surface phenomena, explicate forms that have temporarily unfolded out of an underlying implicate order." That is, the implicate order is the ground from which reality emerges.[4]

The implicate order as an algebra[edit]

Bohm, his co-worker Basil Hiley, and other physicists of Birkbeck College worked toward a model of quantum physics in which the implicate order is represented in the form of an appropriate algebra or other pregeometry. They considered spacetime itself as part of an explicate order that is connected to an implicate order that they called pre-space. The spacetime manifold and the properties of locality and nonlocality all arise from an order in such pre-space. A. M. Frescura and Hiley suggested that an implicate order could be carried by an algebra, with the explicate order being contained in the various representations of this algebra.[5][6]

In analogy to Alfred North Whitehead's notion of "actual occasion,"[7] Bohm considered the notion of moment – a moment being a not entirely localizable event, with events being allowed to overlap [8] and being connected in an overall implicate order:[9]

I propose that each moment of time is a projection from the total implicate order. The term projection is a particularly happy choice here, not only because its common meaning is suitable for what is needed, but also because its mathematical meaning as a projection operation, P, is just what is required for working out these notions in terms of the quantum theory.

Bohm emphasized the primary role of the implicate order's structure:[10]

My attitude is that the mathematics of the quantum theory deals primarily with the structure of the implicate pre-space and with how an explicate order of space and time emerges from it, rather than with movements of physical entities, such as particles and fields. (This is a kind of extension of what is done in general relativity, which deals primarily with geometry and only secondarily with the entities that are described within this geometry.)

More....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

My question is if at Planck scale the constituent parts of physical obects things are still physical.

If we accept that the physical universe emerged from a non-physical pre-geometry, then we must also accept that the constituent parts of physical objects may be identified as quanta of relational values.

p.s. additional references;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory