Cognitive Physics

StevenA

7th February 2007 - 07:24 AM

I heard someone coin the term 'cognitive physics' before and I think it sounds like a cool title for what influences the mind would have over what forms of physical phenomenon would be possible to observe.

The basic question is, to what extent does the universe impose specific physical forms and processes on us and to what extent does the mind or "conscious window" impose restrictions on what phenomenon we're capable of witnessing and understanding?

I'm going to start off with a simple hypothesis:

1) Everything exists. (Yes, this includes both abstract relationships as well as physical objects and all the processes they could be a part of as well a myriad other rational and irrational and crazy things etc.)

Now let's see if we can make better sense of this by doing some introspection on what it is to be human (yes, my hypothesis also assumes we're a couple people who can share some communication about this - hence why it's a post on the internet)

I'll list some other things I believe are self evident.

a) The mind is only capable of recognizing "rational" processes and restricts the classes of processes that can be "rationally" detected. ("Rational" in this case closely corresponds to what types of computations are possible via. "universal computation" - most any system of computation can be transformed into an alternate system with different internals that calculates an identical output, given enough time - Yes, you could theoretically build a mechanical machine that would run Windows if you gave it enough time and energy).

Because these systems can all provide equivalent means of calculating a "rational" answer, it's best to stick with only a few operations like (though not all operations are equally efficient at calculating something)

Multiple identical "things" can only physically appear as one "thing".

If you can perceive two objects as separate, they don't share all traits identically - for example, you might imagine two electrons would be identical, but if you can see two then they differ in time or location and at least one dimension/attribute is not the same (though you, as an observer can provide this difference and make one electron appear as two, but still they aren't seen in an identical context or they truly would be identical in all ways and be only witnessable as one thing - there's only one electron concept and it's entirely unique).

Also, I'll try to use an example of "everything" being viewed physically, specific by specific from the inside, whereas the mind attempts to find correlations and fold or compress observations into their smallest representation - from the physical inside things can appear vast, while from the outside they can appear very small.

Now let's start finding some symmetry first to show how "everything" can appear physically and mentally.

Because everything is constructed of all possible relationships between "things", including their compliments, each thing has a unique opposite and all possible relationships are filled entirely. There is no missing "thing" in everything and so you can continually fold all relationships in half, matching one thing against a complimentary aspect it could be seen as perfectly uniform and mentally compressible to a point.

Now you might assume that everything could contain a greater number of one thing than something else, but that concept of having a specific number of something is also a concept that has a matching compliment (besides, two identical things can only be seen as one thing because you can't interact with one of them and then stop interacting with the next, in order to separate them, because then they're influences are truly not identical. Each concept or moment once entirely specified becomes a unique point in the infinite dimensional "everything", without quantity).

From the physical inside a perfect everything is vast and uniform and has no specific reference point from which to measure it. It's a vast void of nothing (in specific).

-------------------------------------------

Now the asymmetries come into play when make physical observations. A physical observation randomly detects one thing at a time (that thing could be a specific conscious moment or an interaction between two particles etc.).

Because everything is infinitely more complex than an observer, an observer can't select a specific relationship or unique thing out of everything, simply because the complexity of even a minute part of it is infinitely more complex than the observer. In this case, the observer can't select any specific thing but instead detect something that the observer proceeds to relation to prior observations.

The probability of receive any specific "thing" is infinitesmally small and close to 0. We'll call it 'p' (which could be seen as 1/# of "things" in everything).

The reason why one thing alone can't be seen physically, is because one thing in itself is infinitesmally unlikely to be witnessed, though once you calculate the ratio of seeing one thing versus something else, the ratio is 1:1.

p~=0 (the density of a unique thing to everything)
p/p=1 (For the math types out there, this is the density of an N dimensional thing to another N dimensional thing - we're working with degrees of infinity here, for example p^3/p^2=p)
1/p~=infinity (the ratio of everything to a unique thing)

If you try to find an underlying non-uniform fundamental probability of one thing existing versus another, you're stuck making many assumptions. For example, are protons and electrons equal in number? Instead realize the fundemental concept of one is just as significant as the fundamental concept as the other, and the same goes for red bananas, because an infinite number of indentical things can only appear as a single thing. The observer creates a bias by prior random selections - the creation of asymmetry is in the random selection of a subset of everything and associated mental construction of a model. The mind tries to learn everything from an undersampled representation of it.

Now let's start off with an observer's first "thing". In that instant, there's nothing to "do" except observe. Even if the observer had some control over what this observation was to be, there was no extended knowledge of everything at that point and the selection is entirely meaningless and without reason (irrational).

There's also no freedom for an observer to create a relationship between it and anything else and no ability to remember the experience as it had no relationship to a past. It's truly a mental point and a physically infinite void. In that instant, it would a lot like 'you', but stretching through time and without any defining attributes except the existance as a 'thing'.

Now this can also be seen as a single attribute with which to interact with the rest of the universe, though with only being connected to a single attribute you can't do this because you can't flash morse code or otherwise altering without becoming something else, and there's no extended relationship with anything else, so we can just call it a symbol - 'A'. 'A' could have never existed in isolation or spent most of eternity in isolation and there would seem no way for 'A' to know the difference.

Now you get the second symbol we'll call it 'B', and it can be considered a physical experience with a memory because it can now be seen as coming after 'A'. You can experience/draw a connection between the two an record it as an event in time, but you still have no ability to do anything except observe (or at least, only knowing of 'A' before gave you no extended directions in which you could rationally select something related to it - the only limitation for 'B' was that it couldn't be identical to 'A'). So this could be seen much like the instant of physical birth in which sensation is possible but no rational perception of a will or intelligence is available. Also, no physical 3 dimensional perception would be possible either as it would appear only appear as a line between two points - a forward motion. Also, you could alternate between witnessing 'A' and 'B' an infinite number of times without an ability to detect anything other than the start and end points. So a lot could actually happen, but whenever you can only detect two states, you're either at the beginning or the end and the number of times you cycle between them wouldn't be possible because it requires you to be able to have a representation for that cycling.

Mentally, you could see it as two point, but physically it's the first dimension - time.

Now once you receive a third thing, you can now perceive 3 dimensional spacetime and potentially have the ability to communicate with others. The perception of a conscious will and the ability to make a decision come into play because you have a choice how you relate that third thing to the other two.

For example, with two symbols you could potentially transmit binary information by selecting one and then the other, but you can't truly do this because you can't demarcate where one symbol ends and the other begins. For example, if you wanted to transmit the sequence AA. You'd have no state to determine whether you displayed A once or twice, so you only have two unique choices, to either alternate showing A then B then A etc. and get stuck toggling between these because you have no symbol to indicate what you did before or to remain transmitting the current symbol (and I believe you can show that it doesn't matter which one - your only visible external state would be to either oscillate between the two or remain unchanged - a wave of light or empty space). Also there's no way for you to both detect time and witness information if only two symbols are available as you'll always witness a continual oscillation between A and B because again, you have no way of know whether or not you saw the same symbol multiple times.

But with the third symbol available to interact with you can transmit and detect binary streams of information over time. For example, you could transmit a binary stream of information as well as a symbol to denote time by this table:

Transmit 0
A->B
B->C
C->A

Transmit 1
A->C
B->A
C->B

If you look at it like 3 positions on a circle, you can rotate either forwards or backwards and also determine when a step occurs.

In this case you can experience bidirectional and controllable communication via. 3 dimensions/attributes/things. Though it's interesting to consider that what you communicate with may not use those same attributes to communicate with something else, though you can communicate through something and effectively utilize those extended attributes to make further explorations. So for example, you might do an experiment where you test whether or not a rolling ball experiences friction. You can't directly sense the friction, but you communicate via. your spacial perceptions with the ball, that communicates with the surface that it's rolling on, in a bidirectional manner, but in this case you had to share at least 3 dimensional features in order to experience a bidirectional communication over time with it and it has to share the attribute friction as well as at least two other dimension with whatever it's envisioned to communicate with, in order that you can effectively see through the 3 ball features to access the friction attribute. You've then extended your network of understanding and effectively your physical senses beyond what they were by understanding and creating a mental relationship between these concepts.

No matter what concepts/attributes/dimensions of 'everything' you interact with, they are only a coherent subset that are possible to be witnessed in common.

------------------------------------------

I won't be on-line much next week and have a large number of other thoughts along these lines but I'll just post some things to mull over for those interested:

Science, as a social institution is limited by its own nature to addressing shared, recurring and physically communicable phenomenon. This imposes limits on the realm of scientific knowledge to periodic, predictive and at a minimum 3 dimensional phenomenon. If you can't communicate something, it's not within the realm of science (as a collective institution at least, though individuals can still attempt to apply scientific ideals to their personal experiences).

So if we were to ask the question of why the wavefunction of light is sinusoidal, we can at least rule out many other possibilities - a non-repetitive waveform would not be a shape that could be repeated, communicated and demonstrated to others (in fact if light had no coherent features, we couldn't see, so obviously a structure must be present).

But if you look a bit deeper you'll find that the wave function of light is a mental creation and not necessarily an imposed physical one. As a rough example, I could roll two dice and measure the distribution of the sum of these and see a triangular shape with 2s and 12s being rare but 7s being very common. Each die actually rolled a uniform distribution from 1 to 6 with no bias in value but it was the mentally imposed measurement of the sum that created a non-uniform bias to the distribution.

You can look at the number of quarks possessed by light and matter and find very similar traits with communicating by 2 or 3 symbols respectively (space is likely composed of single symbols).

If you look at the Taylor series expansion of many functions, you can see both an exponential as well as a factorial component. Now imagine a wave spreading through a network of relationships and the amplitude being influence by both its dispersion through the network (a factorial) as well as recurring feedbacks, creating exponential components.

Why does energy appear to be conserved? (You can think this one over if you want, but if not, here's a great one - ) Energy represents detectable information and any relationship that destroyed it could do so only once - basically resonant structures, with feedback are able to retain and amplify characteristics more than self damping systems.

If you view the physical senses as building connections of physical relationships in order to "see further", the mind communicates through a network of such relationships built upon each other that gives the physical appearance of wave like characteristics travelling at light speed - you can't see faster than light only because that's what you haven't seen yet. The subjective limit for time is that you can't see more than one thing at a time, or alternately the probability of seeing one thing is p, whereas the probability of seeing two things simulateously is p^2 and infinitely less likely, without rescaleing observations somehow.

I know these are just lots of observations without being tied strongly together, and I apologize for not following through on a stricter development on the idea here, but I don't have much time right now and wanted to at least get the thoughts out there for whoever else is interested in this stuff.

Isee

7th February 2007 - 09:37 AM

StevenA,

That is great stuff.

I can't do any better.

People don't understand that physic itself come from the
mind. And beyond the mind is recognition of the outside
world. Which is itself a unification between the inner expectation with the
outside world of the environment.

This bring back the question of communication and relationship between
oneself and the local group. Thats to me is the LAW.

Thanks

gman

7th February 2007 - 02:27 PM

You can only see one frame at one time rather than one thing, I think.
And I agree with Isee, "great Stuff", ".
I like the duality in it. I like the logic in it. Makes since even for common folk like me!
It supports atherial properties in my mind.
BIG EVENT...................A.I. Coming to a neighbor hood near you!

Nick

8th February 2007 - 02:30 AM

Does all of math have a direct application to something in physics? I call this math used to describe the universe and its phenomenon REAL MATH. Perhaps some math is is simply imaginary such as the complex plane. After all there are no negative physical quantities.

Isee

8th February 2007 - 06:18 AM

There seems to be two groups in physic. If you looks at the debate here in physOrg. One is in the side of Quantum perspective and the other is in Relative perspective. This creates two lines that form like a knife edge. I called these line world lines. The future world line is Quantum possibilities and the past world line is Relativity.
Now, what we want to focus on is where the world lines meet or the knife edge. The knife edge is the present state. The present state is all of past and all of future combined. The question is who is doing the combining of all these info? I presume it is called intelligence. It don't matter if it is an A.I or some life form.

The present state must be in active focus all the time.
The present state must not be theory or assumption.
The present state must be visual not imagination.
The present state must be in the act of measuring.
The present state must be in the state of do process.
The present state must be in the act of detecting.
The present state is NOW not seconds ago or seconds into the future.

Let look at A.I or inspection and measurement system of electronic circuit.
An electron microscope scan one frame over a sample. The fame travel from
the sample into a detector and into an image recognition board. Here it stored (past info) as a reference frame. When a second frame come in it is combined
with the reference frame. The different between the two frames is what the
machine is seeing or measuring. How fast is this machine inspect? Well, take all the pot holes on the US roads, street, and freeway. It can find all in one hour and give all the sizes..... Note active focus. It is in a direct line of sight.

So, punching cell phone # while driving is not a direct line of sight.
Sleeping on the wheel is not a direct line of sight.

Zephir

8th February 2007 - 08:55 AM

QUOTE (Isee+Feb 8 2007, 09:18 AM)

...one is in the side of Quantum perspective and the other is in Relative perspective. This creates two lines that form like a knife edge...

This duality corresponds the wave description and particle description of Aether foam. The wave description is interested about elastic properties of quantum foam, the density of which is proportional to energy density, so its undulations are exhibiting the nonlinear effects of quantum waves. The aether appears as a dense foam, formed by its own condensate blobs/droplets in nested hierarchy of phases, which are forming the structure of nested dimensions. While the M-theory is QM centric, it's dealing with the QM approach too.

The particle approach observes the aether as a dense inertial fluid, filled by it's own vortices. It's interested about its torsion deformations recursively nested in mostly perpendicular direction. The torsion field description follows the SU(2) Lorentz transform symmetry, which can be considered as a sort of shear rotation. This approach doesn't requires the nested (hidden) dimensions (LQG theory), but it can be extended into it (the Heim's theory).

In Aether foam description, both these models are in mutual duality, just the torsion motion of vortexes are distributed along surface membranes of quantum foam. The more dense foam, the less the torsion model is pronounced on behalf of wave model and vice-versa. In more detailed view, the Aether passes through at least three states during its condensation, each of which requires the different math formalism.

The most general for the Aether description by my opinion is the particle view approach, which can be described as inertial diffusion by using of statistical entropy distribution approach or LBM or cellular automata models, but not by nondiscrete math, which faces the infinites problem in the boundary conditions of the other models. The second one is elastic torsion field (the spin network or Heim's selector calculus can be used for it's description) and most exact but least stable is the third one, i.e. the nested wave equation model, enabled for PDE solution.

kaneda

8th February 2007 - 10:15 AM

Zephir. Has there been any evidence to back this up or is it informed speculation?

gman

8th February 2007 - 01:46 PM

Just a theory.... Bubbles come in infinite shapes and sizes.
Like the pipes of a organ, the sound comes from different sizes of pipe.
Each bubble will have its own tone and resident frequencies.
The experiment to the link I have posted only involves sound moving through an almost flat surface. (The metal plate)
What if we observe this phenomena in a sphere? This is much like it would be shaped in nature anyway.
Blue prints to life perhaps?
Blue prints to intelligence perhaps?
Or just a way to fill the bubble with structure?

Oh yea, A.I. is not A.I. I don't think. Rather I is I.

anyway here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToLI7WHObhE

Youtube research.

mergatroid

8th February 2007 - 02:17 PM

This may be only an amusing side note and in no way relevant to the topic at hand, though Apple wants to be the first to introduce a line of products promoting cognitive computers in the future.

A tip: slowly begin dumping all your Microsoft stock, and buy an inordinate amount of Apple (AAPL) stock, doing so in increments, of course.

Aerohead

8th February 2007 - 07:56 PM

Hi StevenA,

I've always thought that "metaphysics" would eventually be replaced by a "complete physics." Fully explained would be the observer / observed, receiver / transmitter causality problem encountered in all human thinking. As an aeronautical engineer, it looks like the "N-body problem" all over again. Funny, how this crops up everywhere. We study it in orbital mechanics, quantum mechanics, molecular kinetics and even in formal logic ! What you're undertaking above is formidable, indeed. Is it possible that "information theory" will also finally encompass physics ? A lot of physicists these days seem to think so. And surrounding information theory ? Philosophy ? The study and understanding of everything ? Sounds like (the) Greek(s) to me !

~Jim

PS: Will keep reading here.

Eric England

8th February 2007 - 11:31 PM

QUOTE (Aerohead+Feb 8 2007, 12:56 PM)

~Jim

PS: Will keep reading here.

Excellent.

Aerohead

10th February 2007 - 12:31 AM

Hi StevenA,

I've come back to this forum several times today hoping to find more of your fundamental, epistemological "ramblings." You must already have limited time as you warned above. Perhaps some of the rest of us should take up this subject in your absence ! The problem is...time ! In the meantime (!) this post will reinsert the topic at the top of the heap for others to notice. ~Jim

soundhertz

15th February 2007 - 06:49 AM

Now that was some fun reading Steve. I only now found this. You'd think more would offer ideas, but I guess going out of the box is taboo...

I'm outta here until the middle of next week, when I'll attempt to really digest this and see what comes to mind about why things come to mind, and vice versa! Meanwhile, I'm following in aerohead's footsteps and am bringing it back to the top. Ramble on!

dtbams

15th February 2007 - 07:05 AM

OK, let's please end with your opening premises...

QUOTE (StevenA+Feb 7 2007, 07:24 AM)

1) Everything exists.

"Discriminating the real from unreal is meaningless."

QUOTE (StevenA+Feb 7 2007, 07:24 AM)

a) The mind is only capable of recognizing "rational" processes...

"Reason is blindness."

OK, you are on a message board where the people are trying to discriminate the real from unreal by means of reason.

STFU
KTHX

Isee

15th February 2007 - 08:44 AM

TIME AND INFORMATION

The PAST, the PRESENT, and the FUTURE.

The PAST is a record of, it is a program of, it is a procedure of, and it is an imprint of. The PAST is where all the information is stored. The PAST can shows us HOW it happened but not WHY it happened.

What ever the information is about it's all depended on who or what is looking at the info. So, iformation isn't information at all for some people, animal, and machine. But the moment that someone or something recognize the info TIME jump from PAST to PRESENT imediately. So, the PRESENT must be visual and it is dependent on those who do the observing. The observer pick and choose info or no info by choice or by genetic/program trade.

The process of thinking about a problem which essentially recycle memories and the process of looking at a problem has no effect on the FUTURE events. It is merely an attempt to execute not an act of execution. It is a problem that needed to be fixed but the being has not yet take any action to do so. Once the observer\being takes ACTION the PRESENT immediately jump to the FUTURE. So, every ACTION that we do is for the FUTURE not for the PAST and not for the PRESENT. Every ACTION is a constant invention and every invention is for the FUTURE. We make cars so that it will run in the FUTURE not in the PAST. There is no way to go back to the PAST because the path is sealed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic.

Intelligence is the combined of memory, thinking, seeing, and inventing in one. It is life that make it through this dark and fuzzy world of Quantum. Our line of sight is the only light that pierce through this darkness as we walk. There are suprises in very turn. Some come in small packages and some come in big packages. The Quantum world is just a little beyond the suprises. Quantum nature is not something you can imagine, see, understand, or put into a mathematical equation. It is the way nature is. Illusive and unpredictable.
Looks like we need more good inventions to fight nature. But watch your back. We giving up lots of good trades and knowledge to a machine.

StevenA

16th February 2007 - 08:57 AM

QUOTE (Isee+)

... physic itself come from the
mind. And beyond the mind is recognition of the outside
world. Which is itself a unification between the inner expectation with the
outside world of the environment.

Yes, intelligence is driven by values/motivation. From an evolutionary perspective, there's a benefit to being able to predict how one's interaction will influence their future and this utilizes prediction, which requires creating an internal representation of the external environment.

Of course, this prediction is only useful for elements of the environment that both can be predicted and can be altered.

It's quite a paradox to consider that being able to predict something with 100% certainty wouldn't appear to have any evolutionary advantage as you'd have no ability to alter it, if the results were bad. So at a minimum, an evolutionarily useful ability to predict would require a will, or some ability to alter the expected result. So it's not passive prediction that's valuable, but instead the ability to predict how ones influences affect things - the value of prediction lies in having an internal interactive model of 'reality' and being able to analyze the expected results of various actions, instead of knowing with absolute certainty what will unavoidably occur.

QUOTE (Isee+)

This bring back the question of communication and relationship between
oneself and the local group.

Yes, and a necessity for bidirectional communication appears likely as well.

Imagine if you only had an ability to passively observe things but no ability to interact with them and alter them. The first thing that occurs to me is that there would be no purpose, motivation or reason to understand them as there'd be no benefit or liability either way.

Also, there would be no way of distinguishing being oneself and other things - you'd have no ability to create markers within your experiences and be able to see these as representing "yourself". For example, when you watch a movie, "you" only exist outside the movie because you don't have an ability to influence anything within the movie.

If you look at how the body interacts with the environment, it's most definitely not entirely passive, but possesses a "closed loop" feedback, where your actions become part of your observations and from this feedback, using intelligence, you can extract a model of "yourself" and make predictions of how your actions will influence the environment (for better or worse).

In order to understand a system, especially in a manner with some utility, I believe you have to be able to influence it and find predictable responses, otherwise the information is seen as a useless (and effectively invisible?) piece of uncorrelated background noise.

Questions remain over how motivation and evolution are present, but we can see evolution as a product of time within a system of conserved quantities (possibly the only quantities that have any ability to be rationally utilized) and time appears to be a natural result of making individuals observations of "everything".

So you could boil these down to the questions of why physical observations of "everything" occur in a specific and limited way (though it seems obvious you couldn't physically observe everything at once, without the information becoming useless and unintelligeable - you'd have no way of selecting anything else or placing a value on it relative to anything else - so it would be similar to the paradox of knowing everything with absolute certainty and thus relegating yourself to having no ability to influence it). Also, it's not difficult to understand why specifics would naturally result from making limited observations and that by having a horizon on ones ability to predict the future, results in some specific and unforseen future naturally occuring.

... but I still can't help thinking there shoud be a way to trace through the past and at least see how the present resulted from it. Would a perfect memory create some sort of paradox? If "everything" exists, then a perfect memory of finite past shouldn't reveal everything or create a paradox, though if the past wasn't finite ... then a perfect memory might cause problems. In other words, if someone's experiences spanned an infinite amount of time, they could potentially see and understand everything (consider that constant change is necessary for time to exist and so this exploration would naturally cover a diverse landscape) and this leads to a complimentray scenario of attempting to physically experience everything at once (no defining features exist on that scale), where all possible rational contradictions exists and mentally things are folded into a point (basically there would be no utility to knowledge if you were predetermined to experience everything, without an ability to alter course or skip some experiences).

Alternately, spacetime already appears to present the necessary characteristics of a memory. In this case, both "everything" as well as the memory of it could exist simultaneously but both are only observable in relatively finite quantities because neither has a rational representation in its entirity.

StevenA

16th February 2007 - 11:24 AM

QUOTE (gman+Feb 7 2007, 02:27 PM)

Some of the main reasons I've taken an approach based more upon pure logic and information is because:

1) There are many physical models that I believe are capable of describing the same thing, and so they're redudant. For example, in string theory, a large number of theories that appeared diverse on the surface were unified by realizing that they were all describing a common concept by from different perspectives.

I think science is a lot like the idea of people in a dark room, feeling an elephant from a lot of different and limited perspectives, that appear different because of the limits each observer has in seeing the entire picture, but that am underlying shared reality still exists (though you can't sensibly say it's identical for everyone or that everyone should be able to see it the same way).

2) It's very general purpose and seems more fundamental and worthy of considering a 'proof' (though all proofs still rely on assumptions) when it's based upon very binary relationships - you test what occurs when an idea is true and when it's false and see if one of these appears solid.

The big picture, to me, seems to be that nothing is impossible. When you really push the envelope on what could be, there's little of anything imagineable that seems truly impossible to be seen by an individual as true or real. (I have no idea whether the unimaginable is possible, but by definition, I can't imagine it being possible

).

People have dreamed of flying likely for as long as humans have been around. Well, with a little work, people can fly now. Usually it's not as convenient as most would like, but we can do better (would someone be satisfied with a jetpack or hangglider? How about minature fusion rockets in their shoes someday?) In the extreme, there's little difference between what's virtual and what's real. I remember people used to consider the internet as being 'virtual' reality and though I admit you can't easily grow food or keep a roof over your head by solely typing on a keyboard, there's an undeniable physical reality that's around, but it's still malleable and there's no easy distinction between what's virtual or real (For example, I know the internet is real because I can physically pull the plug on my modem and see the real effect - so much for the idea of a virtual information superhighway - it's a real one

).

If you look at what should be one of the most solid physical limits - light speed, it appears the limit doesn't truly apply subjectively to individuals (or even groups of them travelling together), nor do I believe light truly has a velocity in the typical sense. Yes, you can measure a rather predictable delay, on average, through some repeatative round trip path through space but this isn't necessarily measuring the velocity of light through that space any more than you can write a program for a computer to calculate how fast electrons are moving through it, without some ability to physical measure the distances over which they've travelled.

When the Earth moves through space, it has no effect on the round trip delays we measure for light, and this is easy to explain if we recognize that light itself is what makes the appearance of motion possible. The velocity at which a wave on the ocean passes someone by on a boat, appears to change when the person is moving because they're both moving through a space constructed by common features (for example, you measure the velocity of the boat with the land or something else as a reference and not the wave itself - the velocity of the wave is determined similarly, so each can be seen as having a velocity relative to something else).

In other words, you could theoretically travel across the Milky Way galaxy in what might appear to you to be a day (given enough energy), which should be faster than light speed, but no, in theory light would still appear to you to be travelling just as much faster than you as it was when you remained 'stationary'. In other words, light might as well have an infinite velocity because no matter how fast you move it's always faster. This makes more sense when you consider that you truly can't see light moving - if it always moves faster than you, there's no way to physically move ahead of a photon of light that passed you and actually verify what its speed is ... it ends up that you're either in the path of a photon and detect, or you're not and don't detect anything. Also, with relativity, time slows as you approach light speed (defined as ~300km/sec) and should stop for a photon - so a photon can't age but instead acts as a perfect information carrier, transmitting information from one point to another point losslessly (easy to imagine if you consider that without time passing for a photon, it can't change its contents and so appears unchanged, though truly you can't verify for certain what it contained when it was emitted either, nor the exact path, so again you're left without much of an ability to verify things).

The problem is that light (and the forces associated with it) constructs the picture through which a perception of motion occurs - the velocity of the electrons striking your monitor doesn't alter the picture drawn each frame.

If you doubled the speed of this force, it only takes half as long for things to interact, so the intensity of their interactions could be seen to double, but doubling the force on an object with a velocity that's doubled ends up tracing out the same trajectory, it just follows the identical path in half the time, but physical senses of time would also occur faster as well as forces and velocities of the clocks.

You'd have to scale the gravitational force as well in order to keep things balanced, but the point is that there's no way to really measure the true velocities of these forces because we can only measure ratios between them and there's really nothing denying some particle on the far side of the universe (not that I'm really trying to imply there's a physical 'far side') virtually instantly communicating with a particle here (at least part of the time, as I believe it would be physically useless if they communicated all information identically), as long as no unresolvable paradoxes occur.

So the questions seems to be more about how we interprete forces to create a mental understanding of space and that requires understanding what the predictable features/correlations are that we use to generate the internal model of space - I believe, as my initial post for this thread stated, that a minimum of 3 attributes/dimensions need to be shared with something else in order to communicate an extended perception of time and space. It's interesting though to consider that there doesn't necessarily need to be only 3 unique properties that construct "spacetime", but instead that you only need to be able to communicate with even a single neighbor via. a minimum of 3 dimensions in order to see beyond them - communication through something to see more. For example, the internet doesn't rely solely on one physical method of communication or protocol, but instead each point to point connection can have different physical attributes and manners of formatting information, yet it could still be describing in a semi-spacial fashion by measuring virtual distances using (round trip) ping times.

(Yes, I'm rambling as usual ...)

Anyway, thank you for the comment. I agree that there's a lot of room left in science for some novel things to be 'out there' or 'in here' too. I guess we'll have to wait and see, or begin writing the next chapter.

StevenA

16th February 2007 - 11:51 AM

QUOTE (Aerohead+Feb 8 2007, 07:56 PM)

~Jim

PS: Will keep reading here.

It could be that science has become overly obsessed with trying to find an objective reality and, along the way, overlooked the more substantive various subject realities that it's composed of.

There's a paradox involved if on one hand science tells people to believe in what's tangible and can be seen and felt etc., yet on the other hand expects all individual observations should agree perfectly.

To me the only real resolution possible is to begin with a definition that reality is exactly what you personally see and believe it to be. It's impossible (as far as I know) to really experience anything other than that perspective anyway. Of course, being able to understand how others view it and see what differences exist is good (and can avoid problems

) but objective reality is fundamentally composed of a diverse range of subjective ones (and all the various biases in representations involved).

Yes, I'd very much enjoy seeing ideas from information theory supplanting physics because it would make the picture of the physical universe become more of a sandbox for intelligences (No, I'm not trying to say "God" here).

My guess is that you could take a random network of memory elements and processors and extract an equivalent light speed space (you simply map delays to distances and wavelike functions naturally arise from observing information conserved through cyclic pathways - destructive events only occur once almost by definition can't be reliably repeated so only the general properties of classes of such destructive conditions could be statistically characterized by science as a shared institution) with equivalent physical processes that could mirror the properties of the physics we observe, but I don't have a "proof" of this, except for a long chain of thoughts that seems to point this direction. The question is really over whether or not there are specific physical processes that couldn't be derived naturally from the evolution of a random computational process (there's also the question of whether or not the distributions of various classes of physical processes could only be matched by a specific type of network with a specific distribution of processes or whether any specific process capable of universal computation, performed on a large enough scale would acquire certain characteristics - I believe this could be true).

Anyway, thanks again. It appears you're familiar with a lot of these ideas already and that's great to see. Push the envelope on what's possible and see what you come up with. I agree that it appears a diverse range of knowledge appears built upon a much smaller set of concepts but organized in different ways, and this appears due to fundamental limits of what the mind is capable of understanding. You can see many physical analogies of these as well and it would be interesting to know if they coincide.

Aerohead

16th February 2007 - 06:06 PM

Hi StevenA,

I enjoy your ideas very much.

Remember the computer game of Life ? Am I right to assume that you are postulating that a computational game of "Universe" is possible ?

Underlying your large set of symbols are their possible states and rules of interaction with other symbols. It seems to me you've got two possible approaches for building a computational model:

Eulerian: Frames of reference are local to each symbol.

Lagrangian: There is always some larger encompassing frame of reference in which to compute behavior and one has to be chosen.

It is said that Einstein was always trying to place his mind's eye on the traveling photon. In that vein, could a computational effort attempt to place N eyes on N symbols plus one eye on the entire set ?

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.physorg.com/news90777113.html

The design of those symbols and their interactions....that's the main issue in physics !

Out of time for now. ~Jim

Isee

18th February 2007 - 11:29 PM

Relativity control two aspects of reality. One aspect is that the being must decide what it wants to do. The choice is local because it comes from genetic plus the individual desire. Just the idea of mentioning of wanting to do or to prove something is a challenge to nature. The moment of questioning is the moment that the uncertainty apply. Your question and your desire to prove something tell you that you are not there yet and the answere can be found if and only if you follow a strick and stringin law of science. This law of science is the second aspect of Relativity.
If you do not follow the second part of Relativity you are doing a lot of guessworking and you may or may not get to your goal. If you do everything just right according to Relativity you will find the answere to your desire but just don't declared that this is how the universe work! Only an extremist woud declared such a thing. The moment you start finger pointing is the moment you are wrong. Your genetic is localize, your desire is localize, your theory is localize, your instruments are localize, your math and logic are localize, your destination is localize, and your proof of your theory is localize. This is what I means if you do everything right you will get there. This is the detail know how or the way you do the correct problem solving.
But on the other side of the equation, things will go wrong. That is a suprise. WOW, I NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE...

Let say that we (local group) wanted to prove Einstein theory. We will make an instrument Gravity Probe B to test his theory.

This may seems like normal and very scientific to those local group. But from a Quantum perspective there is a lot of cheating going on.

Every Logic equations, Newtonian equations, Relativity equations has been simplified and decontaminated to its bone. Now, all the operator has to do is to follow the rules of decontamination. If the theory say Mass the operator must get the exact Mass with zero telerance and no contamination. Which he will never can do. So, by excepting the logic of the equation the operator cheat a little here and there through out the process. The only way Relativity works is that if the system in study is static or decontaminated to what the theory said. If the operator fail to decontaminate the system, and the rocket blow up mid way, who false is it? That is another part of reality that we have to think about. What may seems smooth and nicely polished may not be so under an electron microscope. The skin vibrate and made of many things.

StevenA

25th February 2007 - 01:52 AM

Thanks for all the comments. There are a lot of good comments here that I'd like to respond to but I'll continue with some more thoughts on these ideas (some of which are related to previous comments):

The mind is capable of symbolically representing infinity, but physical infinities don't appear to exist (at least not in a coherent manner other than possibly the simple fact that anything exists in the first place - the concept of existance is an absolute without any supporting arguments, IMO. It just is and can be used as a basis for logical arguments because it requires no proof - or alternately a possible infinite number of proofs could be given with no ability to physically disprove any of them). My guess is that physical objects correlate to completely specified discrete structures, with relationships compatible with prior/other relationships/structures - the concept "apple" doesn't physically exist, for example, because it defines an infinite number of possible apples, but if somehow the structure of a specific apple could be specified completely and remain compatible with other objects it's required to maintain a relationship with (for example, gravity and the air etc.), then likely it does exist. (This at least seems derived from my hypothesis that everything exists but the relationships an observer constructs between them limits what's possible to rationally witness)

Let me give a simple example of how such a "three phase" symbolic representation can convey extended information over time and then expand upon what's needed to extend this into more realistic models.

Let's imagine a straight line in space (a single dimension, maybe a variable x, time or distance etc.). If we're working in a space with a constant speed (which any sequential ordering of positions can provide), then we could represent various phases of space like this:

ABCABC(A)BCABCABC...

I put parenthesis surrounding the third A in order to identify where a hypothetical observer might imagine themselves to be positioned.

Now if they opted to move in along this dimension and then detected the symbol C, they could imagine themselves (after having received the physical verification) that they had moved to the C, left of them.

If they had detected B, then the motion would be to the right. The observer in this case placed the detection into the context of a motion and nature provided the unknown. If they had detected an A, then no perception of motion would have appeared possible as we're considering that each of these symbols is physically identical in all ways and indifferentiable. In that case no perception of time would be possible, as no physical change was detectable (though a state hidden to the observer might be possible during this).

If a random series of As, Bs and Cs were to be experienced within an observers context of motion, a random sequence of left and right motions, as well as undetectable pauses would occur. The result would look a lot like Brownian motion and if you viewed a large collection of such motions a general dispursion/diffusion, in the selected dimension, would appear to occur.

Now because all As, Bs, and Cs are considered to be truly identical, there's an oversimplification here - being at A would not, in itself present information as to the direction you travelled getting there, so you truly need to specify the beginning and the end of a motion as a directed connection in order to specify instantaneous motion within a dimension.

The 6 units of detectable motion in this case would be the following symbol pairs:

(motion to the right)
A->B
B->C
C->A

(motion to the left)
C->B
B->A
A->C

The there hidden state changes are (these could likely be similar to Higgs particles - H+, H0 and H-):
A->A
B->B
C->C

The three hidden state changes aren't subjectively possible to distinguish between, and they would all be identical to the an observer, though there may be ways of indirectly inferring their densities).

The remaining 6 classes of motions occur in two directions and possess 3 phases or families (this sounds a lot like fundamental particles, eh?).

Now to detect motion within 3 dimensions, we could use 3 such phased spaces. Using orthogonal X, Y and Z coordinates would provide one perspective, but that seems to require us specifying some arbitrary physical direction in which motions are relative two, so instead, let's just create a multidimensional space by specifying distances between objects and letting the mapping of space fold between them into whatever configuration matches these distances.

Let's take a look at what motion through a 3 dimensional space would require:

In this case we need 3 objects, with distances between all of them. Let's call the objects X, Y and Z, with the three distances/dimensions being XY, YZ and ZX.

In order to have a perception of motion, each dimension should contain a from and to symbol in order that a motion in each of these dimensions can be determined.

There's a question of whether or not unique symbols for each dimension would be needed. If an observer provides the context for which dimension of motion a change is occuring in, then you don't need separate groups of symbols for XY, YZ and ZX. In this case a single serial stream of As, Bs and Cs could operate a lot like a strand of DNA and simply provide cues for folding space, but still allow a measure of subjective interpretation about what axises such folds should occur, otherwise the external environment provides all the information and no subjective interpretations or relative measurements are possible (there's no room for an observer and the system could easily be seen as closed and static).

Let's analyze what subjective characteristics could exist for sequences of these 3 symbols (remember, this is a minimum number to communcate information over time, you can use more, and doesn't include a memory of those events, nor does this necessarily have to agree with physical observations, though it would appear to place limits on what observations the institution of science, in the form of shared communications about common observations is capable of observing - science itself is a subjective observer with observational biases of anything/"everything", just as the brain, being a collection of neurons is limited to processing information in a form that a collection of neurons is capable of):

There are a total of 27 possible combinations of 3 symbols in a sequence 3 long (3*3*3), which could be interpreted as symbolic of extended motion within 3 dimensions. Here's an exhaustive list:

AAA AAB AAC ABA ABB ABC ACA ACB ACC
BAA BAB BAC BBA BBB BBC BCA BCB BCC
CAA CAB CAC CBA CBB CBC CCA CCB CCC

The AAA, BBB and CCC sequences would subjectively appear as A,B and C, as multiple repetitions of identical things appear identical.

We can compress some other double sequences and see these:

AAB->AB
ABB->AB

(notice AAB and ABB appear identical and smaller, this might be assocaited with an attractive force or possibly as a compressed physical unit, with a nebulous 'strong force' holding it together)

AAC->AC
ACC->AC

BAA->BA
BBA->BA

BBC->BC
BCC->BC

CAA->CA
CCA->CA

CBB->CB
CCB->CB

Our new table of distinguishably different objects, sorted by length, appears as:

A,B,C

AB,BC,CA
(and their compliments)
BA,CB,AC
(though the above 6 forms can be created by duplicating either the first or last symbol, 2 two possible forms exist for them that leaves one dimension correlated to either one of the other two dimensions)

Along with the uncompressible representations of:

ABC,BCA,CAB (these can be seen as 3 phases of a clockwise rotation)
CBA,BAC,ACB (3 phases of a counter-clockwise rotation)

You also have the group of irreducible 2 phase relationships:
ABA,ACA
BAB,BCB
CAC,CBC

That's a total of 21 unique physically distinguishable units of motion within 3 dimensions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's compare the characteristics of these families to the 21 fundamental particles found in the standard model of particle physics:

If a sequence contains a duplicate symbol and repetitions of it go observed, this could be interpreted as a non-linearity and a compression in distance between objects (an attractive force between them - repulsive forces can be automatically observed when a relative lack of compressive force is present between objects, compared to others). So let's say all forces are attractive and that observations of expansion are due to the observer using a compressed ruler to measure things (if your ruler shrinks, it makes other things appear to grow further apart) - alternately all forces could be seen as expansive/repulsive and gravity would be due to an expansion of the Earth pushing you upward etc. It makes no difference - distances and scales of sizes are relative and you only need a single common distance metric (this is unavoidably a subjective measure) to describe all locations within a space and velocities can automatically be derived from this.

So we have 9 particles in the standard model that exert a force and affect distances.

We have the 3 primary symbols of AAA, BBB, and CCC compressed to observed single representations of A,B and C. This might mirror the 3 particles H+, H0 and H- associated with the Higgs field (and this compressed representation could also describe how observations of warped space or black holes could be created ... if objects are too tightly entangled, they can come to share identical attributes and only appear to interact as a single object - two objects possessing entirely identical physical attributes would seem to be only possible to observe as a single object because you could never interact with a part of it without interacting with the entirity and so you'd have no ability to separate one part of it from the other because no feature would be present to make this discrimination)

6 other forces are the photon, gluon and graviton and the 3 forces (W+ W- and Z0) associated with the weak/radioactive force.

Comparing that to the mininal 3 dimensional symbolic interpretation of motion, we have 6 more compressed forces, though these have at least one transition and come in 3 phases of 2 families (I'll put an asterisk to represent which dimension is compressed):

A*B, B*C, C*A
AB*, BC*, CA*

These can appear indistinguishable, but could have different indirect/hidden interactions where the YZ axis is correlated with either the XY axis or the ZX axis. I assume these are forces that can appear to be at 90 degs to each other, like the difference between perpendicular magnetic and electrical forces of a wave.

It seems quite likely the 3 weak forces of an atom could have externally mirrored, or time reversed (possibly similar to a matter/anti-matter relationship with physics outside an atom).

Then we have 12 fermions arranged as 2 groups of 3 families of particle pairs (6 quarks and 6 leptons, each composed of 3 families of 2 particles). You could present the symbolic groups in the same format as:

Full 3 phase rotations:
phase A clockwise and counter clockwise
ABC, ACB
phase B clockwise and counter clockwise
BCA, BAC
phase C clockwise and counter clockwise
CAB, ACB

3 symbol, 2 phase
AB positive and negative phases
ABA, BAB
BC positive and negative phases
BCB, CBC
CA positive and negative phases
CAC, ACA

For example, one of the above could correlate to the 3 flavors or colors of quarks with -1/3,+2/3 spin properties (though you could also consider these the +1/3 or -1/3rd phase rotations that transmit binary information and are physically separable over time). The other group of leptons come as the electron, muon and tau particles each with either a charge or neutral. By analyzing how the end points of their interactions combine, a table of the forces and relative densities of each could be constructed.

-------------------------------------------------------------

A couple more rambling thoughts:

I believe science is capable of potentially answering anything that could be put into a series yes or no replies to questions, but consider that subjective conscious experiences can go beyond what an ability to communicate allows. For example, the physical aspects of a ball should be communicable via. enough yes or no answers to a series of questions (you could imagine these as clockwise or counter clockwise rotations of the symbols), but you can't communicate the conscious perception of an emotion to someone else in this manner. It has an information content beyond what such a precise binary stream of information could provide.

This might be seen in a mathematical framework as relative scales of infinity. An infinite number of yes/no answers would likely never provide the ability for a lump of coal to experience happiness or sadness (then again, I could be wrong ... but I think the analogy is clear enough).

In this case, it could be seen as new scales of information or symbols accessible in one form of communication that aren't accessible in another. They're independent dimensions and unrelated or alternately infinitely larger or smaller in scale. For example, the prime numbers are infinitely less dense on a number line than integers and the real numbers (fractions) are infinitely denser than integers and irrational numbers (everything else on a number line), I believe, are infinitely denser than that and the complex numbers yet again infinitely greater in number.

This might appear difficult to work with until you consider that an observer would make an observation based upon one form of infinity and the information content could be described as a logarithm (the number of times it's been multiplied an infinite number of times), and most human senses tend to be logarithmic anyway, though, of course, we assume it's not over an infinite range.

So scales of information content in incompatible dimensions might be seen as:

log(infinity^#dimensions of independent information)/log(infinity) = #dimensions of independent information

Which should give the approximate number of channels over which information can be communicated.

gman

25th February 2007 - 03:54 PM

wow!
StevenA I will read every post of yours that I can find. This stuff in my opinion is great and it is exactly at the heart of unification, simplification, and it gives orintation. Keep on thinking!

Peace,AL

Zephir

25th February 2007 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE (gman+Feb 25 2007, 06:54 PM)

This stuff in my opinion is great and it is exactly at the heart of unification, simplification, and it gives orientation

If so, can you explain, what this stuff is all about?

Nick

25th February 2007 - 07:12 PM

The answer is in what it is called. PHYSICAL REALITY. The experimentalists measure physical quantiities. That is why it is called what it is called.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

AlphaNumeric

25th February 2007 - 07:50 PM

QUOTE

6 other forces are the photon, gluon and graviton and the 3 forces (W+ W- and Z0) associated with the weak/radioactive force.

Except that there's 8 distinct gluons, not just one of them. This can be seen by computing the number of generators of the SU(3) Lie algebra, just as there's 3 weak bosons from the SU(2) algebra and 1 for electromagnetism from U(1). Hence the total gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1).

It's not quite as precise as that, but suffice to say if you count 3 weak bosons, you should be counting 8 gluons too.

It's mentioned on Wiki here.

fivedoughnut

25th February 2007 - 08:15 PM

StevenA,

The universe ...... as simple as ABC ...... genius

gman

25th February 2007 - 08:47 PM

QUOTE (Zephir+Feb 25 2007, 05:29 PM)

If so, can you explain, what this stuff is all about?

gman

25th February 2007 - 08:55 PM

But I know you can! I am a fan of your AWT also and I am listening.

StevenA

25th February 2007 - 09:30 PM

QUOTE (gman+Feb 25 2007, 03:54 PM)

Thanks much for the compliment. I went over my post history and found some threads I posted on quite a while ago that you might enjoy looking at also, though an evolution has taken place in the ideas, the general flavor has remained the same.

Space Lattice, Brownian Time, Gravity, Relativity, Stochastic Light Speed, Euclidean Space
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8249

Parabolic space - the link between micro and macro, Where the warp comes into spacetime
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8743&hl=

Observer dependent reality
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=9418&hl=

The Single Photon Universe
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8190&hl=

surface tension of space?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5250&hl=

Order from Chaos. Pulling c and waves from the noise
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6528&hl=

A Recursive Universe?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6355&hl=

Acceleration, not motion, is physical change
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11603&hl=

Directional Time - Ether vs. Relativity
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8629&hl=

And my first thread on this site (though my views have evolved over time, they still retain this general flavor):
The universe in a planck sized nutshell?, Reverberations in a small universe
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5031&hl=

Basically, I've been trying to develop the idea that the physical universe is fundamentally infinite/chaotic/random/stochastic/irrational etc., but that the body/mind/consciousness filters out the noise and becomes tuned to the repetitive/coherent/rational/predictable etc. structures within it (these would likely only be an infinitesimal part of what truly exists, though the rest would still appear as noise/background ... and likely time itself as a perfectly predictable structure can be defined by a single unchanging state). Effectively an element of unpredictability appears necessary in order for growth/change/learning to occur. So you have two extremes, like oil on water, with the physical world sandwiched in between - absolute physical chaos on one hand and absolute mental order mirrored on the other side - they can be seen similarly if you realize an extremely intelligent process could appear chaotic, and the chaos provides the equivalent of an informational energy that's organized into rational and predictable structures. It's interesting that some mathematical problems are best solved by including some randomness to them and as far as I know, the debate as to whether or not this need can be removed is still debated. This seems counter intuitive because we tend to imagine everything should have a single optimal solution and at least hope that we could determine it, but consider that finding an optimal solution to a problem requires a search and that you can't find something you don't yet know about without doing some exploration of the unknowns. So in many ways elements of unpredictability and failure are already a part of the optimal solution for finding long term solutions - for example, though science attempts to be able to precisely predict and control the physical world, it's not entirely capable of doing this and the only way to approach this is by experimentation and explorations that risk failure. The best someone could really expect to do is risk making every possibly mistake, once, but then utilizing that information to repeat the successes a potentially infinite number of times.

I believe nature has answers for everything but doesn't supply a meaning with them. So it's up to you to create the meanings and find a way those meanings can exist rationally and without conflict in a physical universe (or alternately find a way to grasp the irrational). Everyone has their own unique perspective (and that's likely what creates the literal physical differentiation between them) and even seeing the same set of things, but experienced in a different order, can create different logical interpretations of what happened and what might be expected to occur next.

For example, if you had 4 black stones and 4 white stones and placed them in various patterns or into orders that might appear random, the expectations of what shade a hidden 9th stone might be would be altered and so we could effectively consider it sensible and logical that the color of the 9th stone could be altered by simply rearranging the order of 8 independent stones (not that "stones" are a very technical definition to begin with). What created that bias in expectations? It had little of anything to do with individual atoms in any of the rocks but instead was largely a subjective mental construction, searching for an order.

Now you could actually construct a system to predict the approximate percent of people that would expect a black versus white stone and you could then take these probability distributions (depending on how they were organized, they could look a lot like waves) and treat them similar to probability waves in quantum mechanics and come up with a system that could predict even more complex subjective interactions of between multiple groups of stones etc. and my guess is that after analyzing it in enough detail and removing the noise from the measurements, you could extract something a lot like fundamental physical processes.

In the end though, the color of individual stones could remain entirely random, unpredictable, chaotic or entirely intelligently determine with a motive, yet beyond a scope capable of being coherently understood (in either case, if you don't know what color the hidden stone is, you don't know it, whether it was randomly determined or intelligently selected doesn't change the final color) but the mental constructions and subjective interpretations and perceived fields of interactions between these would remain and subjectively appear to be real, simply because intelligence can only work with order.

Here's another interesting thought:

Imagine two identical balls approaching each other in a straight line, then bouncing, losslessly off each other and then moving away again.

If the two balls were considered identical, except for spacial position, like a pair of electrons, then you could rewrite this in a different way. I'll call the particle coming from the left A and the one from the right, B.

Initially they look like this:
A-----><------B

Then they collide:

----->AB<----

Then they rebound:

A<------------>B

But because you can't differentiate between them other than physical location (which could be seen as associated with observations occuring with a specific sequencial ordering in time).

You could also describe it as this, with them passing through each other and not interacting:

A-----><------B

----->AB<-----

<-----BA------>

B<------------>A

That looks a bit wierd, but let's take it a step further and separate the two paths:

--------------->A

B<--------------

Now realize that A and B can appear identical if you swap your point of view between ends of the line (again, assuming they are only physically distinguishable by physical location and don't possess internal feartures that allow them to be differentiated between - fundamental particles in physics appear to possess these characteristics). In this case, you could see B as identical to A, but travelling backward in time, or alternately as a prediction of the future of A.

If you look at A from the right hand side (its future), it looks just like B from a left sided perspective (they're both approaching you). Alternately you could swap perspectives and see them both moving away from you.

In a light speed space, you can't see anything other than local interactions, so the only physical perspective you could have regarding this would have to be at the point of interaction between A and B, of which I assume, you'd have to be either A or B in the interaction, but this doesn't tell you the direction over the motion, but instead only that an interaction occured. So you'd have to imagine the path of one of the particles, in order to perceive a spacial direction/axis for the collision.

I'm not explaining this very well, but basically, if you had a black box and you injected a particle in one end and then later saw an identical particle (except for the time of detection) return along the same path, you could either imagine the particle was reflected or that it never collided with anything and instead you happened to detect another particle travelling toward you. If the only difference between the two observations is time, then you only know for certain you saw a class X particle at that location at two separate times, without direct physical evidence whether or not it was the same particle returning to you or some other particle that appears identical, but later.

What occured would be subject to interpretation and you could effectively see a virtual mental particle created that travelled backwards in time and resulted in a detectable physical collision with a real particle travelling forward in time. Both the future mental expectations as well as a real physical possibility met and interacted as a physically detectable force in the present. The two particles are physically indistinguishable yet the mind adds tags calling one A and one B.

Now this might seem too abstract and unrealistic because of the aritificial symmetries I imposed on the example - real objects on a larger scale have varied speeds and masses and don't follow identical pathways etc., but I believe this is where the statistical conversion from the quantum/discrete to the mental/continuous realm make the properties appear different. In order to witness such a collision, you need a method by which you can observe it. These observation methods themselves rely on detecting forces that are already subject to interpretation and the macroscopic forces we detect appear to be composed of smaller discrete units.

Another simple way to see it is in the Newtonian idea of forces being composed of equal and opposite components and conservation of momentum - in the end, nothing moves anywhere as acceleration in one direction creates an acceleration in the opposite direction. In fact, you can fly as fast as you want and it won't make a dent in how fast light appears to move - you might as well be standing still, watching a television screen for how much influence physical motion has over light speed ... that is until you realize that the entire perception of motion and velocities are subjectively determined and light speed isn't a physical limit except for observers who want to remain firmly rooted as stationary observers. As soon as you accelerate, space and time warp in order that you can see beyond what were priorly evisioned as event horizons and time slows in order to allow you to get to where you want to go in (subjectively) less time than it took light to get there. In this case, you might as well being moving at light speed through a moment of frozen time for the rest of the universe. The limits are ones of complexity/information and not physical impossibilities. If you can find a rational way to incorporate something into the universe, it becomes real (and the universe continues to expand?). The main problem presented by light speed limits is that you can't physically travel a long way and return, without seeing a lot of time having passed from where you left, but consider that two explorers could leave one morning and take two different trips along different paths in the universe and the head back decades later and meet up for what each might subjectively consider to be lunchtime because time slowed for both of them - the universe suddenly looks a lot smaller when you're moving faster. (Of course there are a ton of technical problems with this and the scale is extremely exaggerated compared to more realistic future expectations, but as far as I know it's not a scenario denied by relativity)

QUOTE (gman+)

Peace,AL

Peace, Steve

StevenA

25th February 2007 - 10:30 PM

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 25 2007, 07:50 PM)

I originally compressed them correctly but then recopied it incorrectly. The groups should be:

AB,BC,CA
and their counter rotations
BA,CB,AC

I'll check out the wikipedia link though (taking the family out tonight, so I'll have to do this later).

Thanks for the comments though. If I missed something, it'll just give me more to fit in ... so it's all good.

gman

27th February 2007 - 01:15 AM

OK I did say I was gonna read your stuff.... Might take a while.

StevenA

27th February 2007 - 04:22 AM

QUOTE (gman+Feb 27 2007, 01:15 AM)

OK I did say I was gonna read your stuff.... Might take a while.

Just check out whatever looks interesting. I figured I'd post some of the threads that seemed most relevant, so you wouldn't have to spend a lot of time searching.

I still don't have this stuff all put together and verified as accurately describing real physical observations, but it seems like the pieces should fit together well if I can get a clearer picture of how the loose ends precisely fit together.

For example, on a macroscale, human senses appear to substitute statistical measures for large numbers of lower level activities. Individually these actions don't necessarily proceed in a specific direction in space or even, depending upon interpretation, time.

For example, it's not impossible that the rather random thermal motion of atoms in a block of wood could make it appear to become newer over time. It would still be aging, but instead of the motions causing a general breakdown and disorganization over time, they could potentially reinforce the structure instead. The probability of this happening over more than a minute fraction of a second would be astronomical, but it wouldn't appear entirely impossible.

The effects become much more significant on smaller scales though, where the motion of an individual atom or electron could easily be toward reinforcing the structure, but that's similar to the probability of rolling a 5 or 6 on a die ... it's easy to encounter as long you're only making a few rolls, but almost impossible when you're rolling hundreds of dice.

So in this case an individual particle can appear to violate the intuitive view of physics on a human scale and could even make it appear as though the particle travelled backward in time, depending upon the definition.

When you look at how a statistical measure of time (for example, how diffused the molecules of some object become over time) progresses on a large scale, this can proceed according to a diffusion of the square root of time.

If we assumed motion was in unit increments, as appears the only detectable manner in quantum mechanics, then apply a statistical measure of time for a human/relativistic scale, we get something that look a lot like time dilation under relativity.

I'll post some math on this idea later (kids need to use the computer).

StevenA

27th February 2007 - 07:43 AM

Here's how observations of time dilation can occur in a fundamentally discrete system with macroscale time measurements based upon diffusion.

Going back to the example of motion within a single dimension, at each point in time a motion can occur forward or backward (with the stationary moments being undetected).

If you have a group of particles at some position and they all move together, every unit of time, then they stay together as a group and don't appear to age or diffuse. Imagine stacking some beans on a shaking table. If they always move 1 inch every time you shake the table, then a light speed motion in one direction would be the equivalent of having all the beans move together in a tight pile 1 inch in some direction for every shake - the pile does appear to "age".

But if you aren't moving at light speed, but instead the beans stay generally in one location, then they can be randomly moving in different directions and staying generally stationary as a group, but diffusing. We see that diffusion, on a human scale of observations, as time passing.

We can calculate the equivalent "age" of a system by measuring the variance of the average unit from the systems center.

Let's say a group of particles is moving, on average, at velocity v. If we assume each particle could move either direction, each time step, then the velocity of individuals particles would always be +/-c.

In order to have the system experience an average change in position at a rate of v, the probability of moving one direction, versus the other, for individual particles is:

p=(v+c)/2c

For example, for a group of particles moving at negative light speed, the probability of moving at positive light speed is:

p=(-c+c)/2c = 0 (In other words, they're always moving at negative light speed)

For a group of particles moving at positive 1/2 light speed, the probability for each individual particle to move at 100% positive light speed is:

p=(c/2+c)/2c = 0.75 (they move at positive light speed 75% of the time and negative light speed 25% of the time, and the average motion of the system is 75%-25% = +50% light speed)

Now we can calculate how fast the system diffuses by calculating the equivalent energy of each set of particles moving away from the center.

The particles moving at positive light speed are moving faster than the center by (c-v), while the particles moving at negative light speed are moving at a relative velocity to the center of (-c-v). The distribution of positive moving particles is p and the distribution of negative particles (1-p). The total energy of diffusion is:

e(diffusion)=p*(c-v)^2+(1-p)(-c-v)^2

After substituting for p, we simplify this to:

e(diffusion)=c^2-v^2

This makes sense when you consider the endpoints of v=0 or v=+/-c. When v=0, all the energy is diffusing at light speed and the energy is c^2 ... a lot like e=mc^2, except without the m. If we calculated the total energy for all the mass of the system, at rest, it would be:

e(diffusion_for_total_stationary_mass)=mc^2

Now the diffusion/time energy reduces when an object is travelling at light speed, down to:

e(diffusion)=c^2-c^2=0

When we measure time on a human scale though, we don't measure the energy directly, but instead the statistical variance it creates (the root mean squared, or rms value). This where the parabolic and linear space mismatches occur between the quantum and relativistic realms (you can't see you're measuring a parabolic space because you can only measure at a point and round trip paths end up cancelling out the distortion).

macroscale age of a system~=(c^2-v^2)^0.5

I say it's approximately, only because this is a statistical measure and subject to observer sampling. Of course we need a stationary observer for relativity, so we have the ratios of these times as:

observed relative macroscale age of system ~= (c^2-v^2)^0.5 / (c^2-0^2) ^0.5

observed relative macroscale age of system ~= ((c^2-v^2) / c^2 )^0.5

observed relative macroscale age of system ~= (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5

And that's the relativistic view of time dilation between the micro and macro universe. Mentally we exist in a Euclidean space, physically we're in a Hamming space and the statistical conversion between the two makes the warps appear in space and time.

Most common measures of energy, distances and times aren't using a fundamental form of these, but instead statistical versions of them. That dooms things to having uncertainty, whether or not that uncertainty fundamentally must exist - the waves aren't real but statistical mental constructions that possess their own inherent properties based upon their own construction.

I think the limit to velocities isn't constant light speed, but constant light acceleration. That would make the universe a heck of a lot smaller, but I admit trying to pin down the equations solidly is tough and it's hard to determine which aspects of motion are due to a constant velocity versus constant acceleration. (Interestingly enough I don't believe you can actually detect constant motion - we detect forces and forces are due to accelerations, not constant motion)

kaneda

27th February 2007 - 10:03 AM

Rationality should apply to physics. There are aspects of accepted phsyics which are obviously wrong and yet are believed by the spurious use of maths.

StevenA

27th February 2007 - 04:51 PM

QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 27 2007, 10:03 AM)

Rationality should apply to physics. There are aspects of accepted phsyics which are obviously wrong and yet are believed by the spurious use of maths.

Mathematics is great at giving precise answers, when the problem is specified precisely, but the answers imply little (or alternately imply any/every possible interpretation) beyond what they were specifically created to describe.

For example, the formula for intensity 1/d^2 can be seen as very accurate, if every intensity measured and used to create it is accurate, but measurements of intensities are inherently noisy and inaccurate. The formula only becomes approximately true when you precisely know the distance and when you ignore a massive amount of detailed information carried by photons and simply calculate a statistical average.

Then if you get into the questions over exactly what properties of space are being measured to determine distance and realize there are many possible underlying metrics available for estimating a distance (we could use triangulation, delays, wavelengths etc.) and what effects could a negative distance possess? We won't know if we're using a function of d^2 instead of d, nor does d^2 give an easy way to measure extreme distances as d^2 factor falls off or rises quickly for close or long distances.

And then you come to the almost infinite number of ways rigid absolute principles can be imagined to exist behind these changing relative measurements. How and why does a force exert itself on a photon from a mass and through what pathways does a photon travel through space (or does it travel through space at all or is our knowledge of space constructed by the statistical properties we extract from photons themselves, in a vicious circle)? When is a photon emitted and how much time does it take to become detected and how can you verify a guess at this with absolute certainty? You can't, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology gave up and simply defined distances, velocities and times in terms of light, which removes the ability to use these definitions and get anything other than the precise value they specified.

http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
c=299,792,458m/s

That's a precise value. In other words, it just so happens that by using meters and seconds, the speed of light becomes an exact integer ratio of these two.

Of course that's not true. The speed of light isn't directly measurable. What this ratio really means is that a meter has been defined as X wavelengths of a cesium atom (again a statistical measurement as you need to have an intensity strong enough to assure a statistically good measurement of wave cycles as you count them - you can't count X wavelengths with a single photon, nor would even X photons give you a very reliable measurement either. You actually need to assure you've sufficiently oversampled the wave to make the measurements unlikely to be incorrect).

So this flies in the face of relativity, IMO, because under relativity you can only make local observations and so can only measure round trip delays but not velocities for light. So you could specify times using light, or distances using light, or even both if you feel daring and (overly) confident, but you can't use both and assume the equation v=d/t holds true, because it now becomes an unverifiable assumption in the case of light - if you look out at space, you can't see light waves moving through it - you can't reach out and look at a photon without becoming the new endpoint and the velocity of a photon through a vacuum is unverifiable (a true vacuum should either not pass light or pass it instantly anyway, as no structure exists within a pure vacuum to specify ratios of delays, so space has a structure and isn't a pure vacuum). The only alternative, if you want to have a reliable definition for velocity is to realize it's a subjective measure that depends upon a lot of subjective assumptions made about motion, but that once you've determined a consistant manner to measure it, then comparing average round trip delays between two pathways can give consistant results (like the path of light to a distant mirror and back, versus the shorter cyclic motion of a high speed clock ... it doesn't matter how fast light travels or where it goes, by using a specific clock or ruler to measure things, you're constrained to seeing things in terms of those units, whether or not whatever you're measuring is fundamentally constrained to having those units).

If you believe c=299,792,458 m/s then when you rigorously apply this belief it becomes true. Pick a number.

Meanwhile, other people will be making light "travel" slower than you can walk (I admit that's not a vacuum, but it serves as a great example of how limited the view of a constant velocity to light is) and others showing how you can get to the nearest star in under a year ... but of course c remained precisely 299,792,458 m/s the entire time and so light speed was never violated, simply by definition.

I'm being overly critical. The insights into there being a medium to space, through which light travels is great and recognizing the correlation of this with how perceptions of space and waves are constructed is also great, but when it comes to some limitations, things are as fluid as thought.

StevenA

27th February 2007 - 05:32 PM

Taking the idea of diffusion and time dilation further, consider gravity.

If the Earth is seen as stationary, then it should be expanding/diffusion into a vacuum (not necessarily space) and space should be diffusing/expanding as well.

So if you're standing on the Earth and you feel gravity, you could imagine an invisible force pulling you down, or you could imagine the Earth expanding and accelerating you upward. The Moon is constantly moving away from us, but never subjectively getting anywhere - why? Because as it moves further away, at an angle, the Earth expands and keeps the ratios of the two distances the same.

Imagine the Moon displacing a vacuum and "sucking" space into it, while the Earth does the same (though space is diffusing also), though at a faster rate because it's more massive. If you positioned yourself somewhere in the middle but a bit closer to the Moon, you could find a point at which the flows were balanced and you'd neither be displaced toward the Moon, nor the Earth. That would be the gravitational center between the two. Of course, you'd be expanding as well and so neither the Moon nor the Earth would appear to be growing larger, relative to yourself.

Time slows in a gravitational field. That's not hard to imagine if you consider that standing on the Earth is actually the same as being accelerated upward by the Earth. In this case, you're spending more time accelerating and less time diffusing/aging - the motion is more coherent than a random motion in all directions.

The limit to motion isn't light speed, as normally imagined, but constant light acceleration. Here are some clues for this:

Constant motion isn't detected as a change. You can drift through space unaccelerated and not be able to detect any internal change (Yes, I recognize there are ways of accelerating without being able to easily detect it either, so that leaves more to consider, but let's just stick to acceleration for now).

No matter how fast you travel, light appears to have a constant velocity, but this isn't quite as true when you're accelerating. Once you begin accelerating, a flow of energy occurs and creates a true distortion to measurements of light speed - in effect, you really are moving relative to light, when you're accelerating and you can detect a changing bias in light intensities between the forward and reverse direction of travel. An event horizon can be seen to be created behind you because you're moving away from an ability to detect or interact with that information, while the present zooms by and the intensities of objects in the future direction of travel become more intense, effectively allowing you to see your future location more clearly in the direction of travel (though your ability to alter course becomes more limited). I intentionally put this into an analogy of selecting a destination and applying work/energy to realize it, while seeing the past state fade and the new future becoming more influencial and certain during this process, because it seems to correlate with many other endeavors.

Something else to consider is that if objects moving at a high velocity don't have much available time to internally diffuse/age, then objects undergoing a large acceleration should remain more compact and dense as their motion isn't outward but focused on a direction. If this also correlates with less diffusion into a vacuum, then highly accelerated objects shouldn't exert as much of a gravitational force. For example, in a black hole, if an object is being accelerated toward the center, it should remain more compact and not diffuse, which could reduce the effective gravitational force it exerted. In this case a black hole wouldn't need to collapse to a point because the objects would remain smaller and not exert as much force on each other. A similar mechanism might keep electrons from spiralling into the nucleus of an atom as well.

Anyway, I hope these ideas spark some creative insights into how to see beyond relativity and into the quantum realm.

Majkl

27th February 2007 - 06:00 PM

My guess is that seeing things as distincitve is the problem itself. I dont consider black hole as any different as photonic resonation or wave. As light was once thought as separate thing it is today a part of electrodynamic spectra. That in my opinion is the case with everything. The more separations you see the less real and more intelect dependant it becomes. I cannot really tell where to draw a line when there isnt one.

StevenA

27th February 2007 - 06:54 PM

QUOTE (Majkl+Feb 27 2007, 06:00 PM)

I agree with your sentiment. You can even show mathematically that the information contained in a network of relationships between objects is greater than the information each contains individually (the network is something additional and can possess much more information, especially on large scales). In this manner, I agree that you can't analyze a system by only looking at its components in isolation. "The soul of poetry is spirited away when dissected into mere words."

But on the other hand, you have to be careful not to treat an entire system as an object, the same problem exists and it ends up being that whatever statistical tools we use to reduce the information contained by a system, create their own artifacts that obscure the actual view (I've got to inject a political comment here that this is a persistant problem with typical views of democracy

... just as sometimes the forest is missed because of the trees, the opposite happens and the individuals trees are ignored when people see a forest, or individuals get trampled on for the sake of the society they're suppose to compose).

A large part of the problem is that the mind itself has problems grasping complex relationships and prefers reducing them to smaller, easier to grasp concepts, but that reduction ends up creating attributes that the mind effectively imposes on its own views. I guess in a way that's unavoidable, though if we can understand the processes that the mind employs in understanding something, an inverse "filter" can be constructed to look at the information in a more "raw" format. For example, if the mind tends to amplify the significance of some predictable and repetitive events, then that's similar to a low pass audio filter that amplifies the bass. You can compensate for this by using a high pass filter (turning up the treble, for example, and analyzing the smaller scale/higher frequency features in more detail) to more accurately reflect the unprocessed information.

That's just an abstract example, though I believe you can look at real physical phenomenon and by analyzing the sprectrum of the wave functions and seeing how quickly or slowly different wave functions fall off, determine how many layers of processing, and what approximate characteristics, or scales of size those processes operate on.

Then again, I'm being hypocritical to an extent because using such sweeping generalizations for mental processes, once again destroys the details of it and likely dooms this to again becoming a statistical view.

The best way to remove these artifacts, IMO, is to attempt to collect as much information as possible from a small quantum system, including the exact ordering of detected events and any other network related features that could be imagined as a factor and then just do some massive combinatorial tests of possible structural relationships to see whether or not there appear to be any statistical features present below planck scales. Though I assume this approach would already be taken for attempts to validate string theories. The mind is still constraining the search space, and I doubt we could ever detect irrational relationships, but it's interesting to consider what's the most amount of information you can extract from a system of limited observations and then try to see what the "real" universe, beyond the figurative "mind games"

, looks like, if that's even possible.

True chaos or randomness should be entirely unpredictable and be capable of conveying anything, with the meaning being subject to interpretation. If you can find any structure within it, then that structure isn't part of the randomness. Though the question might always remain whether or not that structure is truly statistically significant or was it due to chance or an observational bias. I guess that's where the intelligent design debates come into play ... with the fundamental question being whether or not anything is truly random, though for real intents and purposes it seems that if you can't predict something, it might as well be considered random, whether or not from another perspective it is, and the difference is between whether or not you see a structure to it.

Majkl

27th February 2007 - 08:10 PM

Fundamental question of randomness. Maybe its similar to the question of to be or not to be. I am meaningless randomness and accept conceptualism as total illusion and or i am fundamentaly organised and it has a universal purpose conceptualism as total truth. I found it very uneasy to see universe as organized in any way anyway. If we listen to echoes of the past we might see that we started with a circle and at present are in a possible 26 dimensional complexity. Universe hasnt changed much from circle to 26 dimensions of ours. I consider ourselves as randomly formed repetitive dynamics. if we turn around 180 degress from our point like perspective we can see its opposite. Whatever you would follow you would end up in all states. Thats something i am pointing at. Even though I know I am pointing in all directions at the same time. I couldnt say i beleive in randomness. I am randomness. Would i give any significance to randomly formed structures? Well it seems the only random structure this chaos is interested is all around me. Its female. I got something that really fits there. I know it without any thinking. Its a concept that invented me. A naturally formed concept. If out of all possible concepts only that is relevant i cannot see nothing but randomness for miles. It doesnt mean i like females any less. This gives me even a reason to doubt monogamy ever had done any good. Iam way off topic i know. But thats whats randomness is. Or should i pretend i am monogamous Prince with fairy tale goals? Cant rule crazy without being crazier.

StevenA

28th February 2007 - 06:04 AM

QUOTE (Majkl+)

Good question.

I tend to think there's a large storyline behind it all (though I can't remember what the hell it was!

) and that things aren't entirely coincidental, but on the other hand the universe can't be a closed system simply because as soon as you try to bottle it up and store it on a shelf, isolated from any new input, it stops changing and time stops. People generally overlook the fact that it takes an internal sense of time to create a sense of time passing externally. This sense of time can't logically come from the inside because the inside isn't changing. It would be like trying to count without any room available to put the new numbers. An example I've given before is to imagine being in a universe with only a ball spinning. If you were to stand on the ball, there's no way to determine time because there's no detectable change available (you can't look at the stars or feel the wind or sense background radiation etc.). The rotation only becomes appearent when you add something else and then compare views - the changing relationship allows for time to be detected, but you still need states to remember whether the ball rotated once, or twice etc. and this requires a counter ... with potentially an infinite number of digits, but that requires adding a counter to this space and the counts could just keep growing and expanding space. An entirely closed universe could be described like a fixed number to indicate the state - say 17. The only way this 17 could change would be by looking at the 17 differently, but then you added new information to the viewpoint and it's no longer closed.

So the universe isn't closed but continually growing. Someone might consider it to be growing along a predetermined path, but if you can't predict what that is, then it's useless to consider it predetermined (and there are paradoxes that appear when you try to include a system with perfect prediction - and the predictions end up useless as well because you can't alter them either. If you already knew what the universe was going to do tomorrow then you'd effectively have your own model of an identical universe, which would have to also include another you, predicting what today was going to be, and you'd be stuck having always known exactly what was going to happen without any ability to alter it ... doesn't sound like an occupation I'd enjoy in any event

QUOTE (Majkl+)

I consider ourselves as randomly formed repetitive dynamics. if we turn around 180 degress from our point like perspective we can see its opposite. Whatever you would follow you would end up in all states. Thats something i am pointing at. Even though I know I am pointing in all directions at the same time.

I believe I understand what you're saying here. Selecting any one direction in an entirely random universe would be mentally equivalent to selecting any other direction - it wouldn't matter which way you chose, you'd effectively only have the option of moving or staying still (and staying still doesn't appear to be an option either, IMO, because that's exactly what happens all the time, but you only see time pass when you aren't standing still - so it would be a long line of uncontrolled experiences, which doesn't work either because you can't coherently detect yourself in a system you have no coherent way of affecting - just like you can determine where you are in a lake by making a splash and watching the ripples or having a physical focal point to your senses that makes your view of space have a preferred center. For example, I don't imagine my mind to be centered at my elbow because the focal point of my senses are centered around the head and not elsewhere. Without some way to select and control a preferred perspective and see your influences, there's no way to detect where or even if you exist, nor would any one action have any preference over another action because those actions wouldn't affect what you experienced - I think the perception of time is likely a natural result of having a will and ability to interact with the environment and that's also likely why physics appears based upon mutual interactions and not unidirectional ones, though such might not be impossible, but they could be impossible to detect, so of no importance anyway).

QUOTE (Majkl+)

I couldnt say i beleive in randomness. I am randomness.

I don't know how true this is. It seems difficult, or at least not physically meaningful to say you are randomness. I've had some conversations before and I don't believe the mind can really be said to possess an ability for randomness, or at least there wouldn't appear to be a way to associated it with anything specifically because then it's not really random.

The issue is that pure randomness has no (specific?) form and, I believe, by definition isn't rational and can't be said to exist in any specific area of space or possess any specific properties, nor even a specific time, because that implied it would have to have some sort of linear chronology where every random element would have a single connection in time to the "next" random element and such a structure would seem, by definition, to not be random.

Randomness, in my opinion, would have characteristics a lot like the Big Bang (not that observations of the Big Bang are necessarily accurately understood, but the general concept appears to describe a source of pure chaos/randomness). It's formless in that it doesn't exist within space in some area, it has no features that can be said to be large or small (on one hand the result appears huge, yet simultaneously it appears to have a small origin, that could even extend beyond the universe) and properties of it even molded the space we exist in. It's pure incoherent energy or information capable of creating or describing anything, yet without any inherent handles to grab hold of and control. It appears from my current impression of science to effectively be a background the mind uses to paint pictures on, but quantum mechanics might find new structures within that noise that previously went overlooked.

QUOTE (Majkl+)

Would i give any significance to randomly formed structures? Well it seems the only random structure this chaos is interested is all around me. Its female. I got something that really fits there. I know it without any thinking. Its a concept that invented me. A naturally formed concept. If out of all possible concepts only that is relevant i cannot see nothing but randomness for miles. It doesnt mean i like females any less. This gives me even a reason to doubt monogamy ever had done any good. Iam way off topic i know. But thats whats randomness is. Or should i pretend i am monogamous Prince with fairy tale goals? Cant rule crazy without being crazier.

What are the odds that two pieces of "randomness" would think so much alike on this subject?

I guess it's about 100% certainty.

I take back what I said about not knowing anything about the storyline behind the scenes ... I feel confident there's a goddess around so femanine your knees would melt. If you happen to spot her, let me know.

gman

1st March 2007 - 04:11 PM

I saw her last night at my show. They were hot.

StevenA

1st March 2007 - 05:20 PM

QUOTE (gman+Mar 1 2007, 04:11 PM)

I saw her last night at my show. They were hot.

Did you see where she was headed? (Dang, she's always one step ahead of me?

... That's ok. We've got a date coming and I'm patient.)

I've had that "knees melting" experience a few times, but the most embarrasing one happened at work, when my boss introduced me to his wife. She was literally stunningly beautiful (IMO) and I tried to act normal but am pretty sure I failed - I tried to say something and could hardly even understand myself talking. I think it was an attempt at a generic "Nice to meet you" or a garbled "Hello" ... whatever it was, I was mostly interested in not flushing or having my legs buckle. Man, she was just ... beautiful, and I had a girlfriend once for ~4 months that almost did the same thing to me but I was young and the hormones couldn't take the overdose. Ah well, live and learn. The part of it that leaves a sting mostly is that I did too good a job hiding it and she never knew how much I liked her. After about five years (and many thousands of thoughts about her), and a few years after I'd married someone else, I had to at least go back and let her know how strongly I'd felt about her (and nostalgically still did). She started crying because she thought I had only wanted to be friends, and I understand why she could have thought that ... I was raised as a Mormon and apparently had done too good of a job at being a "good kid", to the extent that it took hormones hormones driving me almost crazy and 5 years of reliving a few moments over and over again to get me to let her know how much she was to me.

I don't regret anything exactly. It's great to have a broad spectrum of experiences and there's no reason to regret doing something you thought was right at the time, even if the results weren't great because that's part of learning, but if I had the opportunity to go back and try something different, I've got a pretty good idea of where that difference would be.

Oh well, I'll get it right some day. (Makes me wonder if electrons have similar thoughts trying to find an available proton to pair up with

)

P.S. I've got a great wife, 5 kids and 16 years married with little of anything I can truly asy I regret ... but there are always a few extra memories that will be around for as long as my memory holds out and that's all fine.

gman

5th March 2007 - 11:48 PM

That sounds like me in highshcool. I had plenty of girlfriends, even a teacher, but the girl I wanted never was made aware of my want because I hid it from her. She still doesn't know, and will never know, because I don't know where she went. Why do we do that? I am married now also, with one 13 year old girl. Too late now. But the memories linger.
Peace, AL

P.S. Nothing like proton humping electrons!

StevenA

18th March 2007 - 04:29 PM

I think it's time to add some more to this thread.

If we take "everything" and look at it, we could break it into two components, the first being 1) the infinite and irrational or unpredictable and incomprehensible etc. and the second 2) the finite, rational, predictable and deterministic.

We can also find within the "everything" an operation for negation/neither/nor/not/other or complimentation.

This could be considered a single operation logical operation capable of deriving all rational functions (when given enough time, memory and available input/output).

So we begin with "everything":

Everything
Not(Everything)=Nothing
Neither/Not/Nor(Everything,Nothing)=Something (which could be rational or irrational)

If we look at the a binary logic NOR function, we have a function where the output is true when the input are all false.

So:

NOR(0)=1
NOR(1)=0

NOR(0,0)=1
NOR(0,1)=0
NOR(1,0)=0
NOR(1,1)=0

NOR(0,0,0....,0)=1
NOR(1,0,0....,0)=0
NOR(0,1,0....,0)=0
...
NOR(0,0,0....,1)=0

If we express this mathematically, we have a function that computes:

NOR()=1
NOR(x)=1-x
NOR(x,y)=1-x-y+xy
NOR(x,y,z)=1-x-y-z+xy+xz+yz-xyz

You can see a binomial expansion occuring here:

NOR()=1 (1)
NOR(x)=1-x (1 -1)
NOR(x,x)=1-2x+x^2 (1 -2 1)
NOR(x,x,x)=1-3x+3x^2-x^3 (1 -3 3 -1)
...
NOR(x0,x1,x2,x3....,x(n-1))=(-x)^0*n!/(0!*(n-0)!)+(-x)^1*n!/(1!*(n-1)!)+(-x)^2*n!/(2!*(n-2)!)+...+(-x)^(n-1)*n!/((n-1)!*1!)

As an interesting side note, if we measure the odd/even parity of these values, we get a structure that evolves fractally with exponential characteristics like this:

1
11
101
1111
10001
110011
1010101
11111111
100000001
1100000011
...

Here's a graphic of "Sierpinski's Triangle", which is also related to Bose Einstein condensates, or the wave function of matter and this has also been observed while using lasers in a chaotic mode.

User posted image

Here's a similar image generated using a laser:
user posted image

(For fun, here's a page with many interesting images generated in real time, with video feedback: http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projects/laserModes/)

Another thing to recognize is that for large n, we can rescale and generate an approximation of our NOR function as this:

NOR(x0,x1,x2,x3....,x(n-1))~=1+x*-n/1!+(x*-n)^2/2!+...+(x*-n)^m/m! (for n>>1 and m<<n)

If we substitute:

y=-x/n

this becomes:

NOR(x0,x1,x2,x3....,x(n-1))~=1+y/1!+y^2/2!+...+y^m/m! (for n>>1 and m<<n)

That is the Taylor Series expansion of the exponential function:

If we instead substituted y=-ix/n, we could separate out the sine and cosine phase.

But going back to the binomal expansion, we find that the value peaks near n/2 and close to an exponential decay with a time constant n/2, for example, with an n of 20, we see the center amplitudes at:

1 -20 190 ... -167,960 184,756 -167,960 ... 190 -20 1

This can act similar to a wave packet with an exponentially decaying amplitude, (photon with dual particle/wave properties) near the center of the wave function, for large n, but consider that this isn't necessarily over time, but instead a discrete diffusion of properties into large numbers of dimensions, with inversions in amplitude of their influence occuring as each new dimension of interaction is added. If you can intuitively grasp what that means, congratulations! I sure can't

, though it does support the idea of reciprocal spaces occuring along divisions of dimensions.

A possible way to describe this might be to interprete each dimension as requiring a property that defines it and this creates complimentary sets of properties in each half, so for example, if a dimension adds an "energy", you have 3 new groups - two arise from the energy attribute/dimension and the implicit anti-energy compliment as well, but you have "things" remaining with properties unrelated to either energy or anti-energy and are rejected by neither A or !A - so you could see neither A nor !A as being a dimensional structure that doesn't possess any A related attributes - it's an infinitely smaller subset that lies one dimension lower).

Ok, let's go back to the minimal 3 symbol communication required for converying an extended perception of time (3 dimensional "spacetime") and assign some logical operations to these and determine what classes of functions could be subjectively derived from these:

Now we'll only be able to determine the rational relationships because they have a predictable component, though some irrational functions could be largely predictable, they couldn't be entirely, so we might find the appearance of rational structures within an irrational one, but ultimately it's subjective as to whether or not anything represents a predictable/rational/coherent structure, or whether it's viewed as irrational/unpredictable/chaotic/unknowable (though chaotic isn't a great term because it doesn't always imply unpredictable).

Again, I'll just limit this to looking for the repetitive symbolic structures in a 3-D environment.

We have the symbols A, B and C. We'll say a clockwise rotation A->B->C->A->... indicates a sampling of something from the "everything" (which implies a memory and creates space and we'll say it's a random binary value with a probably, p, of being 1 or "true") and that a counterclockwise rotation performs a logical NORing of all the accumulated components.

The single phase sequences of AAA..., BBB..., CCC... are still undetectable except as a single A, B or C so they could appear as an impulse function but lack any extended representation for time.

Now we encounter the 6 , 2 phase relationships of ABAB..., BABA... ACAC..., CACA..., BCBC..., CBCB...

In this case, other than for transitions between these groups, they can be effectively characterized by a single operation:

ABAB...

We have the initial AB, which is a clockwise rotation and has been defined to be a binary sampling of the "everything":

So we have a single element p0, that has a probability, p, of being true:

{p0}

Next we rotate from B back to A and this performs a NOR operation, so this evolves into:

{1-p0}

Now we rotate back from A to B and get another sample of the everything:

{1-p0,p1}

And from B to A generates another NOR:

NOR(1-p0,p1)=1-(1-p0)-p1+(1-p0)*p1=p0-p1+p1-p0*p1=p0-p0*p1=

{p0-p0*p1}

We'll continue this cycling and derive:

{p0-p0*p1,p2}

NOR(p0-p0*p1,p2)=1-(p0-p0*p1)-p2+(p0-p0*p1)*p2=1-p2-p0(1-p1-p2+p1*p2)=1-p2-p0*NOR(p1,p2) (Just to show the fractal recursion)

{1-p2-p0*(1-p1-p2+p1*p2)}

If we assume the probably of each value is 0.5, we can analyze the average effect of a transient value of 1 like this:

1
NOR(1,.5)=1-1-.5+.5*1=0
NOR(0,.5)=1-0-.5+.5*0=.5
NOR(.5,.5)=1-.5-.5+.5*.5=.25
NOR(.25,.5)=1-.25-.5+.5*.25=.375
NOR(.375,.5)=1-.375-.5+.5*.375=.3125
...
NOR(1/3,.5)=1-1/3-1/2+1/2*1/3=1/3

Note also that NOR(1/3)=2/3, so we have a symmetric fractal recursion that can have binary divisions or trinary divisions as well. This could be seen to have 6 way symmetrical properties.

If we offset things around 1/3, we can better see the exponential decaying influence of a transient (over time, in this case):

1-1/3=2/3
0-1/3=-1/3
.5-1/3=1/6
.25-1/3=-1/12
...

So the influence of any particular sample in the 2 phase relationships, ABAB... dies off exponentially by a factor of 1/2 each time period.

The difference between AB and the complimentary BA is a unit shift in time and the BC, CB, AC and CA symbols are all very similar except in how they interact in combinations, which can give the appearance of 3 phase characteristics (this could be seen similar to conversions between mass and energy).

Now we analyze the 3 phase relationships. If we take ABCABC... as our prototype, we get a continual sampling of "everything". This doesn't perform any logical operations, so has no rational representations except as an infinite string of:

{p0,p1,p2,...p(n-1)}

We could create a function X, that denotes a random sampling of n attributes of "everything", E and write it as this:

X(E,n)={p0,p1,p2,...p(n-1)}

On the other hand we have the complimentary CBACBA... sequences that recursively apply a NOR operation.

NOR()=1
NOR(1)=0
NOR(0)=1
NOR(1)=0
...

So we have a function (1+(-1)^n)/2

I'm still working on deriving mass from this, but it seems likely that properties in one specific dimensional representation can appear to be rotated/swapped with other properties in higher or lower dimensional representations. For example, the derivative of position is velocity, which I believe could be viewed as a position in a different dimension and then the derivative of that would be acceleration, which could be mirrored in a couple ways, back toward a position in one direction of dimensionality (after all, it can require an acceleration to maintain a position in space, or an orbital, which represents a constant orthogonal acceleration to velocity has characteristics of a limited position, if we continue past acceleration to jerk etc ... and apply these as a constant forces orthogonal to all lower order motions, which is similar to an exponential function, then an object should appear to remain stationary yet simultaineously appear to be in constant motion. This could be seen similar to the complex rotation of an electron - the property of spin and you have two phase relationships of this complex exponent that could alias into the property appearing to be in one of two states - though that could be observer dependent - the question would be whether or not we could communicate with observers using an alternate phase of the electron spin property? If there's fundamentally only one entirely unique "electron" in "everything", then that might not be possible as we'd likely all be using the same form of matter interpretation to communicate ... sounds funky huh? Cool, but funky

)

Anyway, I'm still working on putting this stuff together better and want to add 4 dimensional operations too. The interesting thing is that a detailed enough theory of anything should likely derive similar properties because these can be derived from thought processes themselves. Though there's still both lower dimensional features that can't be experienced except subjectively simply because they can't be communicated in 3 dimensions (so this is the "veil" beyond which science as a collective institution can't pass) and then you have the irrational as well that can still appear to exist in any dimensional format but is entirely unpredictable and can be anything and affect the interpretations of anything as well - the chaos without form.

gman

18th March 2007 - 05:28 PM

I think, as the probability of an "infinity" to exist increases, then so do the probability that chaos will be observed on every level. I think that it is the massive amount of possibilities that impregnates chaos into nature. After all there are more wrong answers than there are right ones. Right? So its easy to deviate.

StevenA although I am no math wiz I can see the logic in your post. Very cool!

Peace,AL

Janus

18th March 2007 - 10:22 PM

Hi StevenA and gman,

Hope you don’t mind my input?

Quote SA:
“I'm still working on deriving mass from this …”

Yes, this is the difficult one … the question that needs answering … Where is gravity hiding?

If we work in the abstract it becomes difficult to bolt it on somewhere true … because there are a multitude of places we can add it to … and it will work … but which is the correct place? … it becomes indefinable.

If we can somehow find the correct model then we will know where to bolt it on to … thinks … al la Higgs particle … if that can be shown to exist … then it can be bolted on to everything.

I don’t think the Higgs particle is the answer … in the same way as the photon is not a wave and particle holding hands … something like it … but more subtle.

We have to remember at the end of the day we have to show it working in the classical sense … that is … in the macro we use Newton’s theory … in the micro we use quantum theory … because we don’t fully understand the model.

So I admire your mathematical approach … but from there we need some pictures of the reality … not just patterns … and sequences.

I look at it like this, from:

Force = mass x gravity

And substituting mass from E = mc^2

g = F x c^2/E

I then see Fc^2 as equivalent to the macro
And E as equivalent to the micro

Then g = macro/micro

Looks cranky?
Just provoking thoughts.

Cheers.

Janus “knows nothing”

StevenA

20th March 2007 - 07:09 PM

Janus,

Thank you much for your post and, yes, please add whatever ideas you have (I tend to agree that there's a scaling window between the two and it could be seen to arise from 1/d^2 statistical values).

I've tried twice to add a reply to your post but I want to "get it right", so I'm working on it still, but I think I had an epiphany (well actually it's been around for a bit but it didn't quite fit perfectly, except it appears a lot closer).

Take a look at the last three posts I put on that ".9r~=1" thread.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13177&st=510&#

A gaussian window has the same representation in both the time and frequency domains (it's reciprocal space "immune") and it's a result of statistical, variance^2, operations. It also, in terms of dimensional distances, can be seen to possess a 1/d^2 field of probability for interactions between unique constructions.

So, for example, a specific element (for example, hydrogen) might represent a process with identical features in one respect, but being performed by different, yet analogous physical methods (or something vaguely like that ... it's a bit hard to describe, but for example the number 1 could be generated by an infinite number of processes and so if physical objects represented specific combinations of states and processes, then various stable combinations of these, at least relative to whatever method we're using to detect it, could appear as matter).

Check out those posts though and see if anything rings a bell for you.

I'll post again here once I have the "next move" figured out a bit more clearly.

vkamath

21st March 2007 - 05:45 PM

QUOTE (StevenA+)

Now this can also be seen as a single attribute with which to interact with the rest of the universe, though with only being connected to a single attribute you can't do this because you can't flash morse code or otherwise altering without becoming something else, and there's no extended relationship with anything else, so we can just call it a symbol - 'A'. 'A' could have never existed in isolation or spent most of eternity in isolation and there would seem no way for 'A' to know the difference.

Now you get the second symbol we'll call it 'B', and it can be considered a physical experience with a memory because it can now be seen as coming after 'A'. You can experience/draw a connection between the two an record it as an event in time, but you still have no ability to do anything except observe (or at least, only knowing of 'A' before gave you no extended directions in which you could rationally select something related to it - the only limitation for 'B' was that it couldn't be identical to 'A'). So this could be seen much like the instant of physical birth in which sensation is possible but no rational perception of a will or intelligence is available. Also, no physical 3 dimensional perception would be possible either as it would appear only appear as a line between two points - a forward motion. Also, you could alternate between witnessing 'A' and 'B' an infinite number of times without an ability to detect anything other than the start and end points. So a lot could actually happen, but whenever you can only detect two states, you're either at the beginning or the end and the number of times you cycle between them wouldn't be possible because it requires you to be able to have a representation for that cycling.

Mentally, you could see it as two point, but physically it's the first dimension - time.

When the observer goes from witnessing 'A' and then 'B'. According to the conventional view, A and B are seen as events which are independent from the observer. Let me call this the "observer independent approach".

Is it possible that A and B are both always present and it is the observer who has "moved" causing the illusion of time? (Is this what you mean by "Everything exists"?) Let me call this the "observer centric approach".

Consider an event where a observer throws a stone at a glass window shattering it. In the "observer centric approach", the whole glass window and the shattered glass window both exist. It is the observer who has moved between these "frames".

The "observer centric approach" and the "observer independent approach" may be the same, similar to A moving with respect to B physically works exactly the same as B moving with respect to A. But what the observer centric approach does is, it makes our reality inevitable. Life would be like watching a movie in which we cannot change the ending.

StevenA

21st March 2007 - 06:47 PM

QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 21 2007, 05:45 PM)

QUOTE (StevenA+)

In a sense, both views could be considered true, but ultimately there's only subjective realities. So whatever someone saw happen is their reality (include the reality that others never even knew the window existed, or if the crack was small, some might overlook it and assume it was whole).

But if we backtrack here some - how does someone come to know of windows and whether or not they're broken? They must acquire some knowledge of this, and this could take the prior encounter with houses or glass bottles etc. So then we go back more and ask how to people know of houses and bottles? Well they learned, at an early age, about masses and space and the "laws of nature". Well how did they learn of those? It seems we hit a point where somehow a source of information was present and then the "person" (though at this point it would have to be something more like a soul), "grabbed hold" of this and began trying to find something in this information and during that process unfolded a lot of relationships between different pieces of information that formed rules and these rules or decisions ended up giving them some specific perception of space at some specific future.

Now there's sort of a paradox here and I prefer to see it as "existance" handing you things and you put them together in whatever way makes sense, though others could be seeing the same information and interpreting it differently and extracting different "laws" from it. But the paradox is that there's no way to control something you have no knowledge of yet. It's only after the fact that you can integrate it with your prior experiences into a picture that makes sense to you (and this won't always make sense to others). Just as someone exploring a new island can't have entire control over exactly what they'll find there, because then there'd be no need to even go there - you'd already know exactly what was there without being there, but you do have control over the context of your life - as in whether or not you wanted to be an explorer of a new island. You might get bitten by some poisonous animals and die or live after a few days of being sick and you might also discover some new types of plants or landscapes that are entirely unique, and if you returned, you'd have control over how you presented this to others, whether it be a harsh place with poisonous animals or a place full of unexplored secrets, or some combinations of these and others. So "existance" gives you a home or canvas, and in a sense you paint a picture of yourself, or what you'd like to or feel driven to be etc., on it. You can't help it if the canvas is rough or the brushes and colors a bit dried and faded, but that's what gives it the texture and makes it something original and entirely unique that neither of you could have created alone. Now the island comes with an explorer and the explorer leaves with new colors to paint with and new stories to write.

There's also the limitation that in order to understanding something and be able to interact with it and use it, it has to possess properties that are compatible with your methods of understand, interacting and using things.

So let's say that someone else started out in existance and found some relationship like mass, but instead interpreted masses as repulsing each other. They'd be unable to remain in an environment like Earth where masses were seen to appear to be attractive and compressed. Instead, if they could still be seen as being attached to this universe, they'd likely find some other force embedded within whatever quantum entanglement exists throughout it and exist as some form of dispursed plasma spread far away from any masses, with possibly their own version of electromagnetic forces, though because they'd share very few spacial attributes with us, and likely not even exist in a very localized state in terms of our spacetime, it would about impossible to communicate or witness such a form of life other than some chaotic events bubbling in the vacuum of space.

So you could give someone more or less a total free will in constructing their own perspective of existance, but for any rational construction, if anything useful or predictable is to be extracted, some minimum rules of interpretation need to exist, such as A is A, which can't appear as B or they wold have to be the same. etc. and then you need at least some unit of logic to build upon, and then, yes, you could come up with possibly appearing wildly unimagineable, but when you broke it down into fundamental units of information, it would still very likely possess equivalents to most the fundamental laws we see (I can't say this is entirely true, and it wouldn't mean the quantities or qualities would have to be the same but that when they dug down and analyzed fundamental processes, they'd likely find things similar to what we see).

But I'd have to say there's not much choice anyone has in the laws of nature, simply because they have to be constructed first before the results of that construction are known, and then you could also say that the secondary effects of this remain largely unknown until they occur as well, etc. etc., so even if no chaos is imposed externally, it still exists in the form of limited knowledge and you still need a source of information or decisions if you have nothing, otherwise you're at the "how did it all begin?" question. So instead, I see things as a relatively random sampling of "the everything" and the particular laws of physics, as well as day to day life are, I'd assume, largely a direct result of personal actions and decisions but with many of the specifics and chaotic components due to both the requirement for external information to keep thing "powered" as well the paradox that you custom select what's new, because you don't know about it yet. So instead you've only really got control over how you construct your past, which affects how the future, which lies beyond a figurative event horizon, will appear to you. The things you do today and the thoughts you have surrounding them affect your actions in the future and the manner in which you perceive events to unfold. Yes, life can be complex and choatic, but personally I have to admit that I'm a point in my life that I can't deny I had a large part in selecting (no, I couldn't tell you what the details would be, but the general character and traits of my life are pretty close to what I've been pursuing and that's not anything that should be surprising. So a good question to ask is "Where are you going and is that truly where you'll want to be?".

vkamath

22nd March 2007 - 07:28 PM

QUOTE (StevenA+)

It seems we hit a point where somehow a source of information was present and then the "person" (though at this point it would have to be something more like a soul), "grabbed hold" of this and began trying to find something in this information and during that process unfolded a lot of relationships between different pieces of information that formed rules and these rules or decisions ended up giving them some specific perception of space at some specific future.

Now there's sort of a paradox here and I prefer to see it as "existance" handing you things and you put them together in whatever way makes sense, though others could be seeing the same information and interpreting it differently and extracting different "laws" from it. But the paradox is that there's no way to control something you have no knowledge of yet. It's only after the fact that you can integrate it with your prior experiences into a picture that makes sense to you (and this won't always make sense to others).

Yes. The person/soul grabbing hold of this information would be more like a chemical reaction rather than a conscious process. With the evolution of memory the observation were mapped against previously stored information to identify a relation. A large group of such relations along with the recognition of self as one of the elements led to a conscious process.

QUOTE (StevenA+)

There's also the limitation that in order to understanding something and be able to interact with it and use it, it has to possess properties that are compatible with your methods of understand, interacting and using things.

So let's say that someone else started out in existance and found some relationship like mass, but instead interpreted masses as repulsing each other. They'd be unable to remain in an environment like Earth where masses were seen to appear to be attractive and compressed. Instead, if they could still be seen as being attached to this universe, they'd likely find some other force embedded within whatever quantum entanglement exists throughout it and exist as some form of dispursed plasma spread far away from any masses, with possibly their own version of electromagnetic forces, though because they'd share very few spacial attributes with us, and likely not even exist in a very localized state in terms of our spacetime, it would about impossible to communicate or witness such a form of life other than some chaotic events bubbling in the vacuum of space.

So you could give someone more or less a total free will in constructing their own perspective of existance, but for any rational construction, if anything useful or predictable is to be extracted, some minimum rules of interpretation need to exist, such as A is A, which can't appear as B or they wold have to be the same. etc. and then you need at least some unit of logic to build upon, and then, yes, you could come up with possibly appearing wildly unimagineable, but when you broke it down into fundamental units of information, it would still very likely possess equivalents to most the fundamental laws we see (I can't say this is entirely true, and it wouldn't mean the quantities or qualities would have to be the same but that when they dug down and analyzed fundamental processes, they'd likely find things similar to what we see).

What is a rational construction? I say anything that matches with previous results is considered rational. If in our universe adding element A to element B creates a new element C (instead of a combination of A,B ) and this is repeatable, then this is rational to us.

So there must be something that creates this repeatability and causes things to be rational. Is it us conscious beings, who have only a few symbols to play with? Or Is it the universe which has only a finite number of patterns? Who knows.

StevenA

24th April 2007 - 02:09 PM

Here's an interesting view of how mass and the fine structure constant could arise from this system:

For a quick refresher, if we limit ourselves to using 3 symbols to communicate binary information over time, and group these into 3 phases or dimensions of space, the fundamental physical particles look like this (much like a small slice of DNA):

AAA AAB AAC ABA ABB ABC ACA ACB ACC
BAA BAB BAC BBA BBB BBC BCA BCB BCC
CAA CAB CAC CBA CBB CBC CCA CCB CCC

Now without any outside reference for time, there's no way to differentiate between two identical symbols in series, which could create the appearance of a an attractive force, so this is compressed down to a potentially detectable subset of:

A AB AC ABA AB ABC ACA ACB AC
BA BAB BAC BA B BC BCA BCB BC
CA CAB CAC CBA CB CBC CA CB C

Now we can group objects that appear identical, and I'll put they're frequency in parenthesis to show whether or not they have a hidden phase. I'll also separate these into classes of objects:

A B C

AB(2) AC(2) BC(2) (XY structure with hidden X or Y state)
BA(2) CA(2) CB(2) (YX structure with hidden Y or X state)

ABA ACA BCB (XYX structure)
BAB CAC CBC (complimentary YXY structure)

ABC BCA CAB (Forward rotating 3 phases of ABC)
CBA BAC ACB (Reverse rotating 3 phases of ABC)

Now if we define masses to be one of the complete, cyclic 3 phase structures ABC, rotating either forwards or backward, we have a total of 6 out of an initial 27 fundamental particles that are masses.

By this definition, the probability of encountering a "mass" at a point in 3 dimensions, in a uniform, random distribution of these symbols would be 2/9.

If we create a string of random 3 symbol objects, and calculate the probability of two adjacent objects being both masses as well as the probability of a symbolic interaction ocurring along their boundaries, we could demarcate a string of 4 objects as:

|DEF|GHI|JKL|MNO|

Let's calculate the probability of both the GHI and JKL objects being masses and the probability that these remain "stable" and non-interacting between the "edges" of each object at the boundaries between F&G, I&J and L&M.

Probabilty of GHI=mass is 6/27 or 2/9, and the same is true for JKL, so the probability of GHI and JKL both being "masses" is 4/81

The probability of a non-interaction at each of the 3 boundaries is 2/3.

So we have a total probability of a photon path seeing two non-interacting and stable masses adjacent to each other of:

(2/9)^2*(2/3)^3=(2^5)/(3^7)~=1/68.34

If we viewed this as a symmetrical repulsive force between the two masses, half of the force would be associated with each mass, giving each mass an inherent, non-collapsible force of ~1/136.7, close to the fine structure constant of ~1/137 (or we could view this as a square of probabilities p^2=(1-1/68.34), p~=1-1/136.2).

In this case, the fine structure constant would be more representative of not encountering a fundamental force and instead seeing a photon pathway interact coherently between two masses (the other ~99% of the interactions would become part of the chaotic diffusion of information/space associated with gravity).

StevenA

24th April 2007 - 07:49 PM

Here's another even better possible match to the fine structure constant.

If we consider for any pair of symbols, there are 3*3=9 possible combinations. A function that mapped these into a third symbol would provide a maximum information content if it used 3 of each symbol for those 9 combinations. The probability of such a function being randomly generated is approximately the square root of the fine structure constant. A 3 symbol object could be considered as being composed of 2 adjacent pairs of these and so the probability of mapping both pairs through informationally maximized functions would be the square of that (of course from an evolutionary perspective of the universe cooling, functions and pathways that didn't preserve information would tend to disappear in influence).

For the math on this, it's 3^(3*3) possible functions, of which (3*3)!/(3!)^3 generate functions preserving an equal distribution of all 3 symbols, so we get 1680/19683~=1/11.72. Whereas the fine structure constant is (1/137.036)^.5~=1/11.71.

It would be interesting to apply this recursively on a larger scale and calculate the probability of any random function within it performing an operation that conserves the information content of the system. Maybe the universe runs on trinary symbolic operations instead of digital/binary operations. When you consider properties like positive, negative and neutrally charged particles (of which a stable atom is comprised of a relative balance of all 3), it's not impossible.

OldWoman1904

24th April 2007 - 08:09 PM

wow-that was a long #1

all those words to describe "everything exists"

wow

Isee

25th April 2007 - 09:40 AM

I like to add a few idea that I been thinking all along.

First, cognitive physic should be about a system of verification. Here is a list of actions that are associated with a method of verification.

1) Looking at
2) Inspecting
3) Observing
4) Measuring
5) Detecting
6) Sensing
7) Seeing, Smelling, tasting, hearing, and feeling.

We should also note that these words describe events that are in the present state.
But here are some other actions that are also in the present state.

1) Thinking
2) Reasoning
3) Calculating
4) Imagining

The 1st set of actions require both brain power and sensor power.
The 2nd set of actions require only brain power.

Now, the question is; what set of actions (1st or 2nd) has more intelligent?

We human like the 2nd set because we have more brain power, therefore smarter. Let me warn all that the 2nd set is not a method of verification. So, unlike us, animal prefered to live with a bigger sensor and a smaller brain.
With this in mind I don't think we are any smarter than an animal or an insect. Let me give you some examples of what I mean.

Let say that Newton is sitting under an apple tree writing about calculus. But standing on Newton head there is a fly. By chance an apple fall toward Newton head and the fly. At 1/4 of the distance fall neither the fly nor Newton detect the falling apple, therefore both is said to have zero intelligent in the direction of the falling apple. Zero intelligent is equivelance to a dead being. Also, I considered this particular event and direction a random event. Thus, randomness is both unimaginable and undetectable. No human or other life form can use physic or logic to determine the outcome.
But at the same time if we considered other directions such as what direction is Newton focusing on or thinking? And what direction did the fly focus on or thinking?
In those particular directions Newton and the fly is said to have some intelligent. Newton is looking at a calculus equation or brain+sensor= intelligent. The fly cleaning it's leg or brain+sensor= intelligent.
At 1/2 of the distance fall the fly is detecting the falling apple but Newton still has
his line of sight on the calculus equation. In the direction of the falling apple the fly
has increase its intelligent level from zero to some amount while Newton still has
absolutely zero. The apple is still in a state of randomness to Newton but not the fly
therefore the fly brain can used logic and physic to escape dead.
At the end the fly fly off with its superior sensor while Newton will feel the pain of a
falling apple smashing his head. Of course once it hit the apple become real to him and randomness disappear but something else become random.

O.k got to go, but will continue..

StevenA

25th April 2007 - 06:06 PM

QUOTE (Isee+)

Yes, these would be the real conscious inputs. We attempt to construct a shared objective view of the universe but the fundamental reality is that it's subjective conscious experiences via. various senses that detect it. We could attempt to describe these in terms of energies or wavelengths or relative rates of time compared to statistical oscillations of a cesium atom etc., but in the end they're all conscious sensations and we're going to see a "color", not a wavelength or feel a "pressure", not energy etc.

I'm not trying to discount the value of gaining a better understanding of the interactions and predictable features of all these, but yes, verification and utility as well comes in the form of physical verification and I tend to think physics gets sidetracked somewhat in this regard.

QUOTE (Isee+)

We should also note that these words describe events that are in the present state.

Yes, though they have an attachment to the past as the past sets the stage for how the present is interpreted.

I say this because nothing, in and of itself, has a meaning. Any letter or word of this post has relationships to other words or concepts you've learned or prior words in a sentence and this adds a specific direction to the meaning, much like motion itself is undetectable without a surrounding landscape through which to see that motion passing through. In this way, the conscious "present" includes

QUOTE (Isee+)

But here are some other actions that are also in the present state.

1) Thinking
2) Reasoning
3) Calculating
4) Imagining

The 1st set of actions require both brain power and sensor power.
The 2nd set of actions require only brain power.

Yes, we have the appearance of a divide between the mental and physical, though they're unified consciously. Thoughts might be seen in a manner equivalent to another physical sense though it's a subjective internal sense that isn't physically witnessed by others ... that's an interesting thought because it ties in to the idea that there needs to be at least 3 shared attributes/dimensions between two objects in order for them to communicate, though this can also be seen as something that one person shares at least 3 dimensions with, but has fewer in common with something else, can't communicate that information directly. It has to be translated into some representation in those dimensions shared with something else in order to be communicated symbolically.

This also relates to the idea that even physically, we don't see the universe in its entirety or that things we observe directly are necessarily identical to the way that "thing" observers itself or other "things". One example I gave is that we can witness the friction of a ball rolling on a surface by moving that ball and seeing it slow or feeling the resistance to the motion of the ball, but this is only an indirect observation of the friction being applied to the ball. Instead we only directly sense the pressure applied by friction on the ball, but not the actual friction between the ball and the surface of a table, for example.

Now the same thing could occur between two atoms. One atom is only capable of detecting energies of specific wavelengths associated with its orbits. It can only interact in those "dimensions" and does directly "see" the energy of any specific photon or the specific "color" of the atom emitting it, except in those discrete ways the two are compatible and can share information, just as the physical senses and the existance of space itself is filtered physically by the human body and an interpretation is constructed of it over time, with learning.

Anyway, I'm just trying to say that "existance" in a broader sense could be seen much like many point to point connections, with some limited number of shared dimensions between each, in a sense much like individual neurons of a brain with specific connections/dimensions shared between some and not others, though an interpretation and understanding of things can be made on a larger scale, to an extent, can be made by each neuron watching the flow of information through itself and then extracting those characteristics of the shapes and properties on a larger scale from this flow of information (though each neuron would have a little different perspective and limited range over which it could reliably detect correlations).

QUOTE (Isee+)

Now, the question is; what set of actions (1st or 2nd) has more intelligent?

We human like the 2nd set because we have more brain power, therefore smarter. Let me warn all that the 2nd set is not a method of verification. So, unlike us, animal prefered to live with a bigger sensor and a smaller brain.
With this in mind I don't think we are any smarter than an animal or an insect. Let me give you some examples of what I mean.

Let say that Newton is sitting under an apple tree writing about calculus. But standing on Newton head there is a fly. By chance an apple fall toward Newton head and the fly. At 1/4 of the distance fall neither the fly nor Newton detect the falling apple, therefore both is said to have zero intelligent in the direction of the falling apple. Zero intelligent is equivelance to a dead being. Also, I considered this particular event and direction a random event. Thus, randomness is both unimaginable and undetectable. No human or other life form can use physic or logic to determine the outcome.
But at the same time if we considered other directions such as what direction is Newton focusing on or thinking? And what direction did the fly focus on or thinking?
In those particular directions Newton and the fly is said to have some intelligent. Newton is looking at a calculus equation or brain+sensor= intelligent. The fly cleaning it's leg or brain+sensor= intelligent.
At 1/2 of the distance fall the fly is detecting the falling apple but Newton still has
his line of sight on the calculus equation. In the direction of the falling apple the fly
has increase its intelligent level from zero to some amount while Newton still has
absolutely zero. The apple is still in a state of randomness to Newton but not the fly
therefore the fly brain can used logic and physic to escape dead.
At the end the fly fly off with its superior sensor while Newton will feel the pain of a
falling apple smashing his head. Of course once it hit the apple become real to him and randomness disappear but something else become random.

O.k got to go, but will continue..

I believe I know what you're talking about as I've had similar thoughts. The physical world appears to run on its own, with its own laws without needing any understanding of it. It's also very complex and unpredictable in many ways, as well as very precise and you might even consider it unforgiving as well - the apple's gonna hit Newton no matter what his formulas for gravity say, if he doesn't move ... but of course whether or not he moves depends upon his training/knowledge/instincts etc. of the circumstances.

The fly, on the other hand, has different skills and weaknesses. With "less on its mind", and fast reflexes it can deal with scales of detail different than a human (though I'd still guess it has the equivalent of an 8 to 5 job), but I believe we're talking primarily about the differences between the physical and mental realms, though they may be less different than people generally imagine (for example, even the perception of gravity itself is something that's learned and so exists as both a mental and physical perception. For example, if no memory of the past existed, someone could fall down, due to gravity and the fact that they never learned to stand up against it, and wonder about what a novel even falling down was, but could be standing and fall down in the next moment etc. etc. etc. and never recognize that this was a pattern from moment to moment. There wouldn't even be a recognition of a sensation of falling as that requires an understanding of space and the body and motion through it etc. It would just be some experience repeated forever and no knowledge that it did so. So truly it would be just a single instant with no understanding of time or anything, without a memory an ability to construct relationships between it and the present)

One rather defining trait between the physical and mental realms would appear to be that the physical is well defined and there's no reason to assume it contains paradoxes - something happens, and whether or not you understand why or how etc., it still happened and we could imagine a reason why it happened and try to alter whether or not it happened again (and this requires finding correlations/patterns and learning from them and determining how they influence expectations of the future).

Going back a bit, I believe this much like the unpredictability of receiving a new sample of "everything". If someone begins with nothing, then they have no way to select the next thing as they have no reference or ability to predict what it would be, but on the other hand, that next thing would be the first thing and it would also have no meaning in itself as it wouldn't be subjectively related to anything else (yet), and so your only option after that would be to get something else and then construct a relationship between the two (past-present), and you still have no real options on what to do with them or what they mean except they're now related to each other. Then you get a third thing and begin to have options on how you relate it to the prior two (you can connect it directly to one or the other, like a line or make a triangle instead). I don't know where experiences of conscious perceptions come from, though they're likely related to things beyond binary complexity, but I'll just toss them in to the unexplained bin.

If we look at how those experiences are integrated in to relationships, then we could see this as an evolution of a physical system with rules. A becomes B becomes C etc. and maybe some of these relationships loop around and form cycles etc. Though this is largely not rationally controllable in its initial construction because you can't know what something physically is until you see it and this would seem true for creating anything novel. To whatever extent something is truly new and novel is the extent to which it's an unknown. It's only afterwards that some relationship or utility or meaning etc. from this novelty can be constructed (or at least attempted) and this would seem true even for thought itself. You need a source of information in order to learn something (even it's a rather random stimulus) and you can't know ahead of time what that unknown thought or knowledge will be until you experience it, and then it's only afterwards that you can determine how it relates to other things. So again, the present has no meaning outside the past and the past is subject to interpretation and this is true for physical events, which are necessary in order to experience time (so you're forced forward through time, simply because without a motion through time, there's no experience ... so you could sit frozen in a memory of the past for eons but without any way to understand it or experience a change as time ... until the next moment, and then the eons of waiting for the next instant never existed because they were undetectable).

Ok, yes, I'm rambling again ... but basically, yes, the physical universe is very complex and will likely always contain an element of complexity beyond understanding and that's time. I'd also guess the physical universe could be seen in a few ways - 1) it's non-paradoxical, because there's no value in considering it a paradox, it simply is. Mental concepts on the other hand can be paradoxical and conflicting and so couldn't be physical to the extent they aren't entirely defined (an engineer makes something work by restricting each component of a design adequately until nothing, other than its existance is possible, or at least likely ... reality is about statistics and probabilities, though those can also be seen as mental constructions as physical things can only be seen as existing and not as probabilities. The probabilities represent past understandings and future expectations and the laws of nature don't have understandings or expectations) 2) The physical also operates, for the most part, by coherent sets of rules, not because it has to or that represents it on some fundamenal level, but because for purposes of gaining a rational understanding of it, you're going to necessarily be limited to only understanding those parts of it that can be rationally understood (the rest could be something like inexplicable raw experience) and 3) there are non-physical conscious aspects of it that will likely be forever beyond the ability of science to understand because there are limits to what's observable as an objective physical reality. This can be recognized by realizing that only objects sharing an adequate number of dimensions/attributes between them can communicate information over time and that this is still limited to what information can be conveyed symbolically using those shared attributes. (An example I've given before is that we can't use science to describe the conscious experience of smelling vanilla or seeing the color red etc., and this might be considered similar to being unable to e-mail a keyboard over the internet - the physical hooks aren't there to do it).

Well that's enough drifting off subject, for now I guess.

Isee

26th April 2007 - 07:01 AM

Thanks StevenA for those comments. And keep them coming as I go along.

I wanted to point out in the example above that the universe operate in two ways. One is determine and the other is just pure chance. And both are valid realities, a working spaceship is as real as a none working spaceship. The fact that the apple fall is purely random. But as soon as the fly detected it the reality change from random to deterministic with respect to the fly but not Newton. It is deterministic to the fly because the fly has a choice wether to move or get smash by the apple. Note that information about the apple is given to the fly through light. The apple suppose to hit the fly but it didn't.

So, I see the important of having this line of sight or line of information coming from the the apple to the eyes and into the brain. Strangely, it is the process of seeing or observing but its also where past memories and future possibilities are combined to form the present. A world lines of some sort. Strings as in String theory might be related to this world lines. But I am not sure how so. Can we make computer circuit out of strings/world lines in the future? It's a possibility.

I am out of time again...

StevenA

26th April 2007 - 05:26 PM

QUOTE (Isee+Apr 26 2007, 07:01 AM)

So, I see the important of having this line of sight or line of information coming from the the apple to the eyes and into the brain. Strangely, it is the process of seeing or observing but its also where past memories and future possibilities are combined to form the present. A world lines of some sort. Strings as in String theory might be related to this world lines. But I am not sure how so.

Something I've been thinking of is that "memory" could be constructed from natural numbers and not binary values.

If we describe a piece of information in its lowest form as just 0 or 1, yes or no etc., it's just one of two possible states (and we can combine them to describe larger sets of events), but we could construct the equivalent of the state of a system, along with a memory, by using larger numbers.

For example, let's say we have a ball spinning in space and it just has two observable states - the white side or the black side. If all we could know at a moment was just whether or not we were seeing the white side or the black side, then no perception of the spinning is possible, because we need additional information to know that it changed, and to be more general purpose, we'd prefer to be able to count the number of rotations that the ball had gone through in order to know the "history" of the balls rotation. In this case we could have both the current state of the ball, as well as the number of transitions we'd seen in order to describe the ball and maintain a history, or "memory" of the event.

If we took this closer to a physical perspective, we could consider it along the lines of the number of wavelengths, or distance something has travelled. Those are both related to spacial construction and could be seen to represent a memory of events.

So from a more symbolic/mathematical perspective, information could be seen as binary inputs to a system, whereas larger numbers represent a memory of them and provide a context in which new binary values are interpreted differently (like sensory perceptions, versus conscious memories ... a red photon could represent part of a car, a rose, or a strawberry etc. but it depends upon, at a minimum, its relationship to other photons being seen simultaneously or more likely and generally a memory of what you've seen immediately prior to the detection of that specific photon).

So counting could be seen as the basis of constructing a memory. Counting can be represented by distances or measuring statistical physical values, like an average or spread of distributions etc. (as the result isn't based upon a single detection but upon a collection), but statistics can be reduced to counting, so you might consider 0 to be nothing, with 1, in contrast to represent a unit of information and then 2, 3 ... to be indicative of a relationship or memory in a system. Quite an interesting thought.

QUOTE (Isee+)

Can we make computer circuit out of strings/world lines in the future? It's a possibility.

Yes, it should be possible to construct the equivalent of a spacetime with fundamental particles similar to those seen in the physical universe, using a rather random collection of digital circuits. Distances could be defined as the time delay between two points (or the number of clock cycles) and the particles could be seen as collections of bits passing through a point, though there are other ways of constructing measurements for distances and particles as well (if we had a second circuit analyzing correlations in the information generated by the first, there are many heuristics we could use to collect and analyze the data ... ideally though it would be a simple and intuitive process. I've messed around with this a little before, though I'm trying to find a very simple and elegant way of deriving what forms these processes should take in reality).

Isee

29th April 2007 - 08:41 AM

Let us go back and summarise on what we agree and disagree on. Or maybe its all agreeable. I am trying to be objective.

1) All things is related if and only if we know all the facts and the orders in which they are arranged.

2) Since we cannot see the whole picture we see only partial than it is logical to say that the rest of the universe is undetermine or undetectable. If it is undetectable whose care, until it too late (detection=death or injury).

3) In the example above; Newton, the fly, the calculus book, and the apple I demonstrated that there are gaps between what individual beings can see and what they can't possibly see. And that the act of seeing incorporate a working brain, a sensor, and the observed object in a specific direction. At 1/2 of distance of apple falling Newton's field of view is the calculus book while the fly's field of view is a falling apple. Note that those two field of views are live, not recorded.

4) The area of randomness or undetectible for Newton are those area that are not included in his field of view. Any actions going on these area of randomness Newton's brain can't possible uses logic, physic, or physical action to change the outcome. The apple hit his head demonstrate that point. This rule apply also to the fly. It can only see the apple in its field of view and any action beyond that is considered random to the fly perspective.

So, when can a being use logic, physic, or physical action to change an outcome? Only when the object of interest is first detected. The fly evading the oncoming apple is an example of this. It seems to me that logic and Newtonian physic was easily utilize by the fly nervous system, all though it can not tell us how it did it.

So, I have deep suspecion on the idea of intelligent and physic. I wanted to expand on this suspecion more later, but must go now.

Zephir

29th April 2007 - 08:53 AM

QUOTE (Isee+Apr 29 2007, 11:41 AM)

All things is related if and only if we know all the facts and the orders in which they are arranged

Are you related after then?

Isee

29th April 2007 - 04:28 PM

Yes, each of us have deep relationship with the environment. We record stuff from the environment and into the brain through sensory perception. And from the brain slowly to the DNA through evolution. All information is determine by definition. But of course, info is not info unless you can decode it.

So, I see there is a battle inwhich the DNA has to keep its useful info while keep up with the changing environment. Note the environment is rule by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic. And somehow it is the duties of the DNA or the order to grap hold the disorder and the outcome is a new identity. And identity is information.

MDT

29th April 2007 - 07:38 PM

duplicate

MDT

29th April 2007 - 07:41 PM

Our perception of physical reality is not just governed by sensory input but also by sensory expectation. For example, when people thought the world was flat, the same data, we currently see, was entering their eyes via the same causal laws of the brain. But their expectation of a flat earth caused them to interpret this data in a way that supported their expectation of a flat earth. To think differently, at that time, made you out of touch with the assumed reality of the consensus sensory expectation, but not with respect to the reality of the sensory data.

Data collection and the sensory input of data follows rational processes as it enters the brain, but sensory expectation, although supported by a logical line, can be based on something that is both rational and irrational. For example, if you look at the global warming debate, the two camps see the same data, but have two different sensory expectations which govern the way they wish to view the data.

Sensory expectation causes one to cherry pick the data which best supports your sensory expectation. In other words, if one sees the glass half full or half empty, rational data entering the eyes is filtered by this sensory expectation, favoring data which fulfills ones sensory expectation. The opposing data doesn't get through the filter at the same rate. In other words it is hard to be a pessimist while also drinking in all the nice things around you. Those data need to be filtered out, so most of the solid data entering consciousness is doom and gloom to meet sensory expectations. One won't hear the birds singing. If they do, this data will interpreted as noise pollution in line with their sensory expectation.

If one tried to present solid rational arguments to extremist on either side of the global warming debate, much of this analysis would be ignored, not because it would be irrational, but because it is not in line with their sensory expectation. It will be trapped by their filter or distorted by it. The emotional nature of the global warming debate shows irrational processes being part of what is assumed to be science. Even in science, one can build a scientific rational cocoon around an irrational sensory expectation. If you only look at the surface, it looks like valid science. Correlation plays into the hands of sensory expectation since correlations don't have to be fully rational. Science is not immune from irrational sensory expectation but more so than most.

The irony is if one took a middle path to make sure one is not filtering data in line with either extreme sensory expectation, to make sure all the data is treated equally, one might be considered wishy washy. This is often due to it being harder to correlate all the data, than just half of it, while also requiring one begin without any predetermined sensory expectation. With a strong sensory expectation one can demonstrate the power of conviction, i.e., one-sided in touch with half of reality and therefore half irrational. This is far more impressive than objective wishy washy.

There may have a purpose for irrational sensory expectation. Opposing sensory expectations creates a tension, with highly differentiated poles, which help assure that which is created in the middle, touches all the bases. If people weren't partially irrational we would never be able to form these type of scientific polarizations.

Zephir

29th April 2007 - 08:27 PM

QUOTE (MDT+Apr 29 2007, 10:41 PM)

For example, when people thought the world was flat, the same data, we currently see, was entering their eyes via the same causal laws of the brain.

By my opinion, the people tends to the monochromatic view of reality genetically, because such confrontation stance speed-ups their evolution. At the high energy gradient condition the conceptual polarization corresponds the vortex pair formation during turbulence and subsequent phase transform. We are utilitarian creatures, our minds are following the energetic gradients, therefore it's not surprising, the very same laws of Newtonian dynamic can be applied even on the social consciousness level.

Isee

30th April 2007 - 07:12 AM

O.K
Now, we need to define more words.

There is no such thing as sensory perception if the mind is not aware of the input. A true sensory perception is one that has the mind, the sensor, the oncoming photon, and the source or the observed object in total alignment. The object of interest could be close or miles away it doesn't matter. It's about verifying what is infront of you. Of course if someone has their eyes open and yet their mind and thought is somewhere else than this is not part of sensory perception. In this case there is a misalignment between the mind and the eyes piece. The eyes piece are usless without the mind.

Take the fly's perspective for example;
A falling apple transmit photons that travel through a distance which hit the eye piece and get absorbed by the brain.

Note this has nothing to do with how round the apple is. It's about the apple, the photons, the sensor, and the mind coming together in the same direction. Also, the apple has not made contact with the fly yet. Its a hologram.

StevenA

30th April 2007 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE (Isee+)

Ok, that sounds true, from a conscious perspective, though physically things might still be related before that relationship is known, but I would agree that this could be seen as non-existing until such a relationship is recognized (yes, just like the apple an Newton ... to Newton, the apple wasn't real until it hit him, though to someone else who might have seen it falling, the apple would be real to them).

QUOTE (Isee+)

2) Since we cannot see the whole picture we see only partial than it is logical to say that the rest of the universe is undetermine or undetectable. If it is undetectable whose care, until it too late (detection=death or injury).

Yes, though we're still discovering things so the figurative boundaries of the known universe are expanding (I mean that in more than just a physical sense, it's in terms of knowledge as well)

QUOTE (Isee+)

3) In the example above; Newton, the fly, the calculus book, and the apple I demonstrated that there are gaps between what individual beings can see and what they can't possibly see. And that the act of seeing incorporate a working brain, a sensor, and the observed object in a specific direction. At 1/2 of distance of apple falling Newton's field of view is the calculus book while the fly's field of view is a falling apple. Note that those two field of views are live, not recorded.

Something to note is that theoretically the fly might have gotten a few views of the calculus book, but it had an entirely different meaning to the fly (the fly didn't understand the symbols in it), whereas Newton might have theoretically been able to hear the apple falling from the tree but he didn't consciously notice it.

So I agree that there are conscious disconnections, though these might not necessarily be physical. They're both subtle physical influences that go unnoticed mentally.

QUOTE (Isee+)

4) The area of randomness or undetectible for Newton are those area that are not included in his field of view. Any actions going on these area of randomness Newton's brain can't possible uses logic, physic, or physical action to change the outcome. The apple hit his head demonstrate that point. This rule apply also to the fly. It can only see the apple in its field of view and any action beyond that is considered random to the fly perspective.

I'll be a little picky here 1) Newton's field of view is truly mental. The apple exists if he knows of it and that doesn't necessarily mean he has to physically sense it. If, for example, he was standing on some railroad tracks and knew a train should pass by, via. some timetable, at a specific time, then he'd have partial knowledge of this future state even though he didn't have any direct physical interaction with the train.

Also, it might not be too accurate to say that Newton's brain had no ability to alter the situation with the apple. He might have decided to sit on a rock and read and gotten lucky instead. What Newton couldn't avoid was having unknowns, beyond his range of knowledge and experience having an influence on him, so if he sat on a rock something different might have happened but it would have been in the context of him sitting on a rock instead of being under a tree.

I'd agree that this could make it sound rather hopeless for Newton, as he can only set the context for what he attempts to do, and doesn't have total control over the outcome (which I think is impossible to do anyway beyond a frozen moment of time), but that would be where he'd apply his knowledge of the physical and increase the probability of his attempts (at being able to study some calculus in peace, free from falling apples and the like) being successful. We could assume that if he had some sort of super intellect and physical senses he might have actually been able to glance at the tree and know approximately whether or not any apples looked ripe enough to be likely to fall and avoided sitting there if that had been the case.

QUOTE (Isee+)

So, when can a being use logic, physic, or physical action to change an outcome? Only when the object of interest is first detected.

Yes, I agree. There has to be both a physical channel for information as well as a conscious means to experience it and know of it.

For example, each day most people physical experience many gusts of wind, yet these experiences don't allow for much of any ability to predict the specifics ahead of time because, though a physical ability exists to detect them, the complexity is beyond our ability to understand in great detail (and of course there would be little need to expend a lot of time trying to predict gusts of wind anyway

QUOTE (Isee+)

The fly evading the oncoming apple is an example of this. It seems to me that logic and Newtonian physic was easily utilize by the fly nervous system, all though it can not tell us how it did it.

So, I have deep suspecion on the idea of intelligent and physic. I wanted to expand on this suspecion more later, but must go now.

I believe that when you break things down into information, the two views should look very similar. What is the physical universe other than conscious perceptions and whatever knowledge of it that can be gained?

For example, though the fly may have seen the apple, the fly's perspective wasn't "real" to Newton either, so the fly may have just been flying away for another reason and it was just coincidence that the apple hit Newton right afterwards. For Newton, the universe and gravity etc. were only real to whatever extent he understood them to be. A gust of wind might have blown against his arm and a million blades of grass could have been in his field of view as well, but he didn't recognize any of them either though they may have been in his physical field of view, they weren't in his conscious perceptions at the time either, so they were about as similarly unreal to him as the impending collision with the apple in the next second.

So yes, there's a physical window or filter to what we can know, but there's also a much smaller conscious one as well (though they're effectively the same thing from a first person perspective, which is the only one people have).

Farsight

30th April 2007 - 04:46 PM

I think it's quite interesting that all of our senses are some respect "motion detectors". Here's an excerpt from one of my essays:

...And it should remind you that a photon doesn’t have a colour. It has a wavelength, an oscillation, a motion.

Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.

Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. You can feel it when I shake your hand. But you know you can’t measure the pressure of an atom, because pressure isn’t a fundamental property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells us it’s derived from motion.

How about kinetic energy? A cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s has kinetic energy. If it impacted your chest you would feel it. But apologies, my mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's you. So where's the kinetic energy now? Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, and relative motion.

You can also feel heat. Touch that pretty stove and sizz, you feel heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of motion.

Taste is chemical in nature, and primitive. Most of your sense of taste is really your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But the latest theory from a guy called Luca Turin says it’s all down to molecular vibration, not shape, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again...

Isee

1st May 2007 - 06:56 AM

Let define what is a working brain and what is a working sensor.
And why does animals seems to have smaller brain but bigger sensor compared to us human?

1) A working brain has to compute and use energy. If we talking about a computer chip as a working brain than the chip must use energy to compute some data. But if it is in the off mode than it can't be call a working brain. In fact we can called it anything we wanted. If we look deeper into the working brain we see that all data is store in an address called space-time. It's not just space but also time. The distinction is that space by itself form a memory stick. And memory stick doesn't need energy to compute or it can't compute. A piece of rock can be a memory stick if you look hard enough or know what you're looking for. As far as dimensions is concern a working brain contain space-time 3d-space 1d-time. But what a working brain truely contain is the DEFINITION STANDARD. So, a working computer chip contain a DEFINITION STANDARD.

2) A working sensor is a probe or substance that connect to a working brain. Any object you can grap can be a sensor or detector if it is properly connected to a working brain. For example a simple Volt Metor, a probe coming from it world be just a copper wire by itself, but once it is hook up to a working metor (brain) than it become a real sensor or real detector. Another form of detector is a microscope and telescope or our eyes. By itself it is useless until it is connected to a working brain. So a sensor by itself is just a material but it's real job is to get the RESOLUTION STANDARD. So when we switch from a microscope to an electron microscope we merely helping our eyes+mind to get a better RESOLUTION.

The idea hear is that when we say go verify something is so and so we must speak in term of the right DEFINITION AND THE RIGHT RESOLUTION. If not confusion set in.

Isee

2nd May 2007 - 08:10 AM

Intelligent is reality and to enter it you must have a definition of and a resolution of. Just having a definition of is just theory talking about theory. The right word for this is day dreaming.
Here everything exist as a possibilities but to enter reality it must have a name and we able to see it clearly. If we are talking about a tree the word TREE is theoritical and so is a rock. But these objects become real as soon as we find one. But such word as GHOST, THE DEVIL, or GOD might not enter reality, at lease for me I haven't seen one with my eyes.
Since some animal have bigger sensor than us it is fare to say that they usually can spot us or target us before we can. From long distance their intelligent level is greater than us if we are a definite target in that specific direction. But in close proximity it is us that have the highest intelligent. Any way our sensor and brain power are adapted to work and invent things not good for finding food at long distance.

Wulf

2nd May 2007 - 08:24 AM

QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 8 2007, 10:15 AM)

Zephir. Has there been any evidence to back this up or is it informed speculation?

LoL @ 'informed' speculation.

Wulf

2nd May 2007 - 08:36 AM

QUOTE (StevenA+Feb 7 2007, 07:24 AM)

Heh, this is too weird a topic to be coincidence. The new wave of scientific theories is based on concepts taken from Artificial Intelligence and Chaos Theory. The methodology is based on modeling systems that have emergent properties. It seems a lot of people want to break away from the vacant formalism and find out what all the math is really describing.

I stumbled across it a few days ago and unknowables like the nature of superposition and wave particle duality become trivial to describe*. I'll hunt down some good references later and post em on the board.

*The cool thing is that the description can be well defined mathematically and are consistent with existing models.

StevenA

2nd May 2007 - 05:07 PM

QUOTE (Wulf+May 2 2007, 08:36 AM)

You nailed it. There's a strong correlation between information theory and subatomic physics and this isn't a coincidence. On a higher level, macroscopic and relativistic views appear to largely arise from statistical measures of aggregates of these (including gravity and quite likely mass as well).

Now consider as well that our understanding of reality includes various subjective viewers communicating via. this same medium about their varied subjective experiences and interpretations of this and then recognize that the entirety of it all is then subjected to your own personal knowledge/viewpoint/understanding/physical senses etc. and when you consider that a virtual reality could possible appear about as real as a "real" one, it makes the distinction between virtual and real, very blurred.

I do believe that underlying it all is truly a fundamental reality that effectively powers it all, but likely it could be described as purely random, chaotic, or complex enough to be incomprehensible. To "jump start" "everything", you need some information and way to organize it into various relationships ... that's subatomic physics, and you need some stability in order that those relationships don't drift or change too radically and there's the statistical macroscopic view that isn't immediately altered or susceptible to small errors, but that's extremely non-limiting. The issue is largely that whatever figurative "rulers" were constructed to measure space and mass must remain in place in order that those measurements can still be made coherently (you can't work with altered laws of physics using objects created to comply with one set), though if relationships with other objects interacting in a different manner are still detectable within these then it should be possible to at least analyze what other properties to space (or "existance" in a broader sense) should be possible to observe and interact with.

Now I admit I don't have much that could be considered solid proof that such extended physics and natural laws exist but at least on the surface it appears there's little of anything restricting exactly what reality is except for what I consider to be likely a rather random and unknown exploration of physical properties (by individual ... spirits/souls/consciousness or whatever you want to call this, pin a technical sounding term to it if you like, but it appears to boil down to the similar unknown beyond which science, as a collective institution isn't able to see), that resulted in stable, yet likely very random and arbitrary references made for precisely what constitutes specific subjective physically observed forms to mass, space etc.

You could likely try to create a software program for any form of virtual world and find that in order for it to be stable, comprehensible and capable of conveying information that someone could interact with, it would end up possessing properties that could be mapped to the equivalent of conservation laws or at least statistically conserved properties/quantities and logical interactions that could be seen as the equivalent of interactions between fundamental units/particles of information. If these were largely randomly created, then you'd likely find a predominance of 3 dimensional spacial perceptions (2-D + time), just as the human body and other forms of life basically sense via surfaces over time (that's not 4 dimensional as in 3 dimensional senses + time, but only 2 dimensions + time, with large populations communication about individual 2-D perceptions, giving an extrapolated perception of 2-D + time + multiple detection locations = 4 dimensional view of "space time", warped to fit in all the individuals observing it). Consider that we detect things via. physical forces and that at any moment in time you could point toward the source of a force in 3 dimensions as a latitude and longtitude, that's only 2 dimensions ... as time progresses you can measure the strength of that force and so it becomes 3 dimensional, but that's it. You could sum up all forces and come up with a single 2 dimensional vector with a changing amplitude over time and have all interactions, including time exist for an individual observer as 3 dimensional ... ok, maybe I'm rambling here).

Anyway, information is very malleable and light speed limitations can be largely bypassed with enough energy (assuming the universe doesn't end any time soon) because you could have multiple people travelling around the universe at close to light speed and meeting up on occasion to share their exploits, all without the problems of some stationary observer aging during the process, though you couldn't drag around an entire solar system like this so you couldn't expect to travel around the galaxy and come back to Earth and still see things similar to how you left, but if others travelled as well, little difference in subjective time would exist between them and so multiple people could go off to explore the galaxy and head back to Earth at the end of the "week" and meet up for lunch for share their exploits ... that's not really something that implied by speed of light limitations (though I admit that in practice this would be technically unrealistic, but the point is that there are few externally imposed limitations made by either relativity or quantum mechanics upon what subjective observations are possible ... in the extreme, virtual reality pushes the envelope even further).

So I guess the main point of this thread is that there may be no limits on what "reality" is except by what limits there are to having something exist in a rational form that could be seen as coherent and possessed some ability to be interactive (you couldn't see something as real that you had no ability to interact with in a mutual fashion ... even a distant star is seen to exist because you can move your head and see it "move" relative to your line of sight or you can look away and not see it and then look back and "there it is" again etc. Something that had no such ability to be seen in an interactive manner couldn't be detected as having any existance relative to yourself ... it would just become an undetectable/unprovable/unknowable absolute behind the scenes).

Isee

3rd May 2007 - 07:43 AM

There is a flaw when definition and language is solely used alone. We merely give a name to something that is made of many things or it is a composite of many things. A car can have infinite names but we can only have ones for the sake of communication. This is not a bad thing but we have to keep in mind that everything exist as possibilities until observed. So, observing unite the inner world of language with the outer world that exist as of now. Now or what we means by the present state is a gray area inwhich the random signal from the outside world colided with the definition standard or memory to form a new information.

Let describe this in a better way. The standard/memory frame collide with a new known frame to form a gray frame. The gray frame becomes the most recent, and accurate information available. Precise time and precise motion is within this gray frame. This is the only way I see time and information is created. Any other time or information must be secondary.

Isee

8th May 2007 - 07:34 AM

Let look at today inspection and metrology machines and how it is related to AI.

There are two versions that in use by the computer chip making industries, one is for inspection of defect and the other is for measuring lines of a circuit or what they called measuring critical dimension. I am not an expert in this but I like to pick on the idea of intelligent. Also I am looking for the meaning of preciseness and accuracy.

In order to make a computer chip a company like Intel must use a process machines to make a bare wafer, imprint circuitry, and put coating. If these manufacturing process done alone without any inspection and measurement the resulting computer chip will be useless. Its simply will not work. So the inspection and measurement has a final say on wether the chip will work or not. So what is the different between a process machine and an inspection machine.

1) A process machine operate in the Definition Standard Mode only. Or 4D mode in which a working brain store a program or a procedure. The machine can only act according to the internal program but it could not see its own mistake. If I assemble a pistol with my eyes close that would be related to operating on an internal program or Definition Standard Mode only.

2) An inspection machine operate in the Definition Standard and the Resolution Standard mode. This is the AI mode that I been describing. It inspect, measured, or verify a mistake made by a process machine. Basicly we create a machine to see and sense the environment. If I am assemble a pistol with my eyes open than I'll be working on a Definition and Resolution Standard Mode. This is a more precise and accurate way of getting the job done than working with both eyes closed. As far as dimensions goes this mode has a higher dimension than 4D. That just according to my theory not mainstream. I counted 10D for the way sensory perception work. This is not like the old way or the conventional of getting a ruler and measure length, width, and hieght, and declared our universe has 3D. So far I don't see any ruler being used in today metrology. It's more like a hologram.

Run out of time, got to go...

Isee

9th May 2007 - 08:54 AM

Here is how I count dimensions with respect to chip making processes.

1) An electronic engineer thought of a possible computer circuit. Here thinking and imagining is a 3D+T concept or 4D. What ever the circuit might be it is still theoritical or coming from the mind. It does not exist beyond a working brain.

2) The 4D concept is imprinted against a blank film to produce a photo mask. Note only the 4D concept is pure or has no defect. The raw material such the blank film and the resulting photo mask all has certain amount of defect and contamination. So any process that involve imprinting an idea (4D) into a product (3D) is surely going to produce defect and contamination. Here the defect and contamination are unknown factors. We should not call them information until it is inspected.

3) Since the process tool above could not see what it is doing we need an inspection machine to verify what possibly when wrong during the imprint. One way to inspect the photo mask/sample is to use an electron microscope. If a person is using an electron microscope to inspect the sample that would qualify as an act of real intelligent not AI. Here the human brain contain the definition standard while the microscope act like an extended eye piece for better resolution. But using human is somewhat slow we need speed, accuracy, and consistancy. We need AI.

The most powerful tool to detect defect and contamination is an electron microscope that is hook up to an image recognition board. The electron microscope (eye piece) will provide the resolution while the image recognition computer (brain) will provide the definition. The eye piece or electron microscope contain the electron source, the column to condense and manipulate the beam for scanning, and a photo diode detector. The image recognition board contain all kind of fancy programs and algorithem to translate incoming signal into useful information. The important idea here is that AI is about the making of precise, recent, and reliable information. This is different than saying AI recognize information.

Isee

10th May 2007 - 08:17 AM

So, far on the process side;

4D brain imprint a logic circuit on to a 3D matter called a photo mask. The collision between a 4D abstract world with the material world 3D creates defects and contamination that are unknown to the 4D brain world. A method of verification is needed.

On the inspection side;
We put the sample or 3D/photo mask under an electron microscope that can automaticaly detect defects and contamination. This look simple but all the alignment and calibration is extremily hard. Recalled that in order to have a good view of something we have to have the brain/mind align with the observing object. For human visual this can be off a couple of inches or so and that is fine. But for a machine that looks at something less than one micron in size the alignment or the line of sight is super tight. Surrounding this tiny but definite line of sight are the mechanical parts of the machine, which must be extremily accurate. So, if one looks at the outer structure of the machine it is big and bulky but if one look at the machine's line of sight it is small but full of detail and sophistication.

From the line of sight come the idea of dimensions and hologram;
In the line of sight, a stream of electron coming from the gun and column, hitting the sample and backscatter into a detector and into an image recognition board. But I counted the dimensions this way;
A 3D matter/sample emit a 1D electron which travel through a distance/time and collided with and got absorb by the detector to form a 2D field of view and got stored in a 4D brain world. If I sum up all the dimensions that existed in the line of sight I got 3D+1D+2D+4D=10D closed loop. Also, the only time dimension I see is in the 4D brain world. The rest of dimensions are space.

Now, as I said this sort of AI is big and bulky. We create machine that work in a molecular scale while nature, somehow, able to form intelligent much smaller, or in the sub atomic scale. I need to go back and analyze Newton, the fly, and the falling apple again. Hopeful find that trick of the traits.

Isee

13th May 2007 - 06:18 AM

How does the machine sees defect and contamination?

First it scan one frame over the sample. Than this frame is compared with a standard or no defect frame in its memory. The resulting frame or gray frame will tell it if there is a change taking place. A change is a different in gray level and the gray level in a frame also relate to the sensitivity of the machine. So, any change is considered a defect or contamintion. The machine can scan over a sample quickly and the amount of information created over a 300mm surface is quit stackering. The machine has to find and give each defect a location. And if needed can analyze farther the size and discription of the defect. Once certain defect is detected the machine operator can take corrective actions to fix the cause of the defect. As you can see everything is working toward the circuit designer concept or theory. It is this that made a theory as powerul as any realities.

In the electronic industries;
For every process made there must be an inspection of the resulting process. The faster the proccess equipment works and the faster the inspection equipment/AI works the cheaper the computer chip can be made. Thus, the price of computer chip go down but the company that made the chip can still make money. But at some point down the line of smaller and smaller the uncertainty principle become apparent, the act of detecting or measuring, can destroy the true size and property of the sample than we must go boilogical.

Isee

6th September 2007 - 07:34 AM

So, what is the mind?
What is nature?
What is the universe?
What is a theory of physic?
What is AI?
What is real intelligence?
What is dead and alive?
And how do we persue perfection?

A mind is an outcome of an internal computation. Internal here means it must be inside a cell or a cavity such as a brain or a computer chip. A mind consist of programmable codes. The mind can be self program internally or externally. The outcome of an internal program mind is the mind itself. But a mind that has been tuned and programmed by external forces or information goes through a brief intelligence mode during in which it decide to use a sensor such as an eye or an extension of the eye such as a radar to seek out samples in the immediate environment. Thus, intelligence is the transfered of information between sample to eye piece and to the mind. When these three objects are fully aligned and functional that is when the observer/mind get the most accurate information. The observer is indeed in the act of observing. For those who trust their memory or whatever theory or mindset you'll have, watch out, Dark Matter is coming.

Run out of time. Got to go...

Majkl

6th September 2007 - 12:40 PM

So, what is the mind?
What is nature?
What is the universe?
What is a theory of physic?
What is AI?
What is real intelligence?
What is dead and alive?
And how do we persue perfection?

These kind of questions are hard to answer because they apriori differentiate things without actually knowing is there a real boundary and what that boundary is and so on. Its like you are looking backward as if these concepts are the first thing there was. That it seems to be problem most of the time when approaching any kind of description of reality. For example-If you look at Topic:What do you think? and read the first post and see what happened with a FPGA chip you can at least get some feeling what we are dealing with. The experiment resulted in i think completely unexpected and random utilization of genetic algoritm. The chip started to use EM-noise. This is of course completely random phenomena and i think it is pointing directly to evolution. At least I myself see a large piece of evolution in that »anomaly«. By taking into account billions of years of very reactive or hyper-active substance which makes all kind of non-sense and some accidental continuations which resulted in ourselves. Continuation being an event out of which »desire to multiply« came. What is desire to multiply? Its a totaly random event which happened obviously and is evolving into all kinds of things. This momentum if one would call it like that is a descendant of the very basic-all matter vibrates- thing. It morphed completely irrationaly into what looks like a »survival advantage«. Of course i dont beleive in survival advantage as such. But it seems there is no other way for us to give at least some kind of explanation to a curious purpose beleiving mind. It is a completely random event and it randomly mutated itself into irrationaly vast diverse things. Why am i talking about evolution when discussing questions that you ask yourself? Because i beleive all the answers lie in randomness and random constraints. To me reality is randomness. It can be described by more or less simple abstract models because it is so much more complex. This makes logical sense to me. And simplified descriptions are much more appealing or comprehendible to a brain. Thus the brain itself as how it works it seems sees some kind of simplified reality. As i was pointing out in the begining i beleive there are no answers to your questions if you assume that concepts you are questioning are pre-existant which means you take them as being here before we were. I beleive you have to look the other way around. Look at the world from a very small child perspective. Look at the world without reason and you will see randomness. It is that much more fasinating to be what you are because it all makes some kind of sense which is the random-coherency eastablished within this all pervasive randomness. Try to look beyond yourself. You will see pure noise. No questions are needed. To me it all points to a direction-what can you do with this stuff and where do you want to go with it. Since i am here and since we are making things up as we go along (social systems, what reality looks like and stuff, music you name it) why not get busy with it. What is possible? What are the boundaries?
I dont know how far we can come with-what is randomness made of, but i am sure that we can go far technologicaly even from nano-scale perspective. Thats why i guess we study these things and make all kind of »weird« combinations of them and so far it has worked.
But to make another point. How does that change the environment around us? That might be one of those more serious questions. We are not environment-independent creatures and we are not food-chain independent creatures. Our inventions and everything we are are worth nothing and become nothing if there is no environment to live in. And our lives depend on other creatures. We all i guess ask much less important questions than the ones that are staring at our face.
Because our local circumstancial situation is pleasant.
They are all important questions but if you have a flat tyre or a broken bone you are not actually concerned at that particular moment with what existance is. As if one could calculate it

StevenA

6th September 2007 - 05:01 PM

I'll take a shot at some these, though I don't know where the sources arose from:

QUOTE (Majkl+)

So, what is the mind?
What is nature?
What is the universe?
What is a theory of physic?
What is AI?

The mind should be correlated with constructing or detecting patterns. The mind takes events that can contain random elements and creates a rigid structure based upon them. Though there might be some randomness to the mind, it seems best to assign that elsewhere as either a part of the will or an external physical reality, though you can also see that if the mind creates logical structures, then that creative process itself can appear to possess qualities that add chaotic properties, but let's say that the mind itself is just a perfect computer that never makes a mistake and always computes some single optimal function and its goal is to understand everything, which implies it constructs a mental model of the external world and can use this model to make predictions. This is closely correlated with the function of artifical neural networks or other machine learning. It would seem best to just say that the mind does this "perfectly", as in it will always give the best possible predictive answer, given some set of information - the randomness could then be seen to arise from factors outside the mind - such as the quantity and quality of information presented or the ability to act upon that information.

We might assume the value the mind attempts to optimize is "happyness" or some emotional reward, but if happyness is also an input to the mind and the minds sole purpose is to attempt perfect prediction of the future, then prediction of happyness would also be included in this and we could assign something else as utilizing the mind in order to pursue those predictions of happyness. So in this way we could say that mind is emotionless, but attempts to predict emotional outcomes along with physical ones and all other forms of "knowledge" or information.

Then we have a question over what is this information and what is it trying to predict.

We'll assume the information can't be in the future. So the future provides a natural mechanism to place the unknowns and randomness. We're still left with the present and past, but in terms of information, there doesn't appear to be much difference between the two - you can combine the present with the past as included in the structure of memory that the mind uses as information to predict the future (and in some ways we'll end up not needing to actually predict anything as the predictions can be seen to become the future).

So we have the future, as an unknown, feeding into a memory that contains this new information as the present as well as being part of the past and the mind processes patterns in these and constructs predictions of future information. Though we'll need something else in order to make selections among those predictions.

So then we have the 'will' which takes all possible predictions from the mind and selects some optimized one, and then we need to be able to act upon that selection. Now this can get a bit tricky, but consider that prediction itself is useless without an ability to alter the future in those predictions. So the mind, without an ability to select actions could only make perfect predictions in a string of events leading to an infinitely far future (ignoring uncertainties in the future). Instead, the mind needs to provide a range of predictions based upon some variables (this is often referred to as a 'landscape' in that you can see it similar to a mathematical surface in which the height of the function represents the result of that function given some inputs, so imagine the mind takes information and constructs such a landscape from information and that information includes a range of possible actions that were taken during different states in the past and so this produces predictions of likely future states, given the current 'state' or present conditions, based upon various actions and the predictions include expected future happyness.).

So we have a model like this:

future->memory+choice of actions->mind->predictions of future and happyness

memory=(collection of present and past states, in chronological order, in order to to allow for predictions to be made over time. These remembered states not only include physical states but emotional rewards and actions taken)

Now we still need to derive where the supplied 'choice of actions' comes from. If we look at the mind it takes in memory and processes it generate predictions. The memory can be seen as very closely related to space and physical objects.

As humans we don't "see" space or memory directly as it just encompasses too much for consciousness to experience all at once, but an alternate explaination is that the space we experience isn't the same as the true physical memories in the universe, but that instead we extrapolate and predict upon this (which creates things like optical illusions and fractal patterns etc.), so we're seeing a mentally processed version of a real underlying reality.

To give another example, in a fractal image, you can zoom in to any point you want and always be able to find details on all scales. The formulas that can construct fractals are simple, but the formulas themselves don't represent any specific image. It takes an input that describes a specific location and scale to observe it and then the formula converts these inputs in complex and chaotic ways into an alternate representation.

Now if you look back at the above sequence and compare it with this fractal process:

future->memory+choice of actions->mind->predictions of future and happyness

You can see 'memory' as being a fundamentally smaller physical representation of the universe that's very tightly knotted and complex (the fractal formula) and the 'choice of actions' as being the selected viewpoint (note: you can't select a specific viewpoint without a reference as to where that viewpoint resides). So when you look at a tree, you aren't necessarily seeing the tree as it exists in some fundamental sense, but instead are seeing the evolution of "tree algorithms" and because consciousness only processes some fixed amount of information each unit of time (which is another issue as individual observers have their own time reference), there's always additional detail available beyond what's presented at any moment.

We can also see memory as a program and 'choice of actions' as operator selected inputs, the mind is a computer that executes the instructions precisely and the predictions are the conscious output.

The reason why faster than light effects and entanglement are possible is because the (predictable) universe (I say predictable, because that's the components in memory) isn't necessary as large and far apart and independent as perceive it to be. What makes it appear far apart and independent arises from the processed perspective that the 'choices of action' and fractal processes in the mind create a diverse array of possible futures - ultimately you're only going to be whereever you are, but you can extrapolate on the past and see a future that extends off indefinitely into space and these are disconnected because you have a choice in where you can decide to go and things appear unrelated because those choices influence what relationships will be constructed, but physically these locations are still interlinked in a smaller memory.

If you compare this to the FPGA, though the information flowing through the FPGA appears random but, in itself, it's not. The hardward is fixed and the general characteristics of such a structure we refer to as the laws of physics and these are the predictable components that aren't actually random. If you trace through the path of a single bit flowing within this circuit, after you've let it run independently for a while, you'll see it trace out a potentially long, but repeatable pathway and this might be compared to a string in string theory. I believe the most defining traits in this case aren't the specific processes that it undergoes along the way (as we typically tend to think in terms of) but instead the length of the pathway and what other pathways it intersects with (this is where I've been trying to fit the pieces together recently). The reason why is that, after everything has stabilized for a while, you can see things similar to the idea of the Big Bang and then the information doesn't change and the specific computations performed aren't very relevant except in what pieces of information are preserved and which aren't. Though a large number of small operations are performed they're rather irrelevant in a closed system as you could describe the entire system as being in a single state and whether or not two pieces of information can interact would depend upon their cycle lengths and whether or not a computational element along the way allows for them to interaction, the number of interactions isn't important though (which is something I see as very interesting and important to simplify complex systems).

So we have something very similar to a string theory here. If we have an intersection of two pathways in which information flows and each is say, 6 units of "delay" long, then bits of information continually flow in cycles within each pathway and whether or not two pieces of information can interact depends upon whether or not they're aligned in phase (so each bit or element within each path will always be present every 6th time step at some specific location and if that location is a computational element that combines the two "rings" then we have a limited number of information preserving functions possible (like swapping or complimenting the bits, but nothing that can destroy them or they would have already been destroyed last pass - hence conservation laws and wavelengths of interaction). Now if one pathway was 6 long and the other 7, then every full cycle they'd experience a phase delay of 1 unit of time and this would eventually "smear" all information in one pathway into interacting with every unit in the other pathway over a total time of 6*7=42 units (if you look at the formula for the spectrum of atoms 1/e1^2-1/e2^2 you can convert this to e1^2*e2^2/(e1^2-e2^2). The numerator matches this operation, to an extent though the subtraction in the divisor adds some problems (but if two path lenght share common subdivisors, such as 20 and 25, then they won't interact with a period of 20*25 but instead with a length of 20*25/gcd(20,25), and we find that prime numbers play a role in the periods of such wavelengths and there are semi-fractal patterns within prime distributions and you can automatically derive the equivalent of an infinite number of possible dimensions of interactions based upon each dimension representing a wavelength that's a prime period. Numbers in that case represent points in a multidimensional space, depending upon what primes they factor into and objects with space represent the interactions between the factors of sets of numbers ... and basically you can construct a multidimensional geometric space with a virtually infinite number of possible objects in relative motion via. phase measurements and sizes via. periodic lengths ... and from basic arithmetic operations! In fact you don't even need basic arithmetic! You can just take a single type of logic element and chain a whole bunch of them up and you've got a universe, and an observational point would also be a number

... but that's still not all of the story)

...

There's more to this because consciousness has qualities that aren't quantifiable and I still didn't create a very good model in the description above as there's still a vague 'future' input as well as a need to tie in will as the 'choice of action' and then the question over what is the happyness being pursued (I don't think all the unknowns can be eliminated but it seems very likely we can at least construct a well defined model that agrees with most all the qualities of consciousness and the physical universe and only leaves a single unknown input).

And I could always be half wrong on all this (but I don't think so. There are just too many things that agree with the general characteristics of all this).

I didn't respond yet to the rest of your thread, Majkl.

Here are the next few questions you posted (and they look like good ones):

QUOTE (Majkl+)

]What is real intelligence?
What is dead and alive?
And how do we persue perfection?

And then you have more, but I'll post this for now before it becomes a book

Oops, that was Isee that posted those questions.

NeoNo.1

6th September 2007 - 05:31 PM

Good work StephenA... Keep it up!

Zephir

6th September 2007 - 05:49 PM

QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Sep 6 2007, 08:31 PM)

Good work StephenA... Keep it up!

Can you review the most important/interesting points/ideas/insights of the latest StevenA's post for us, if you liked it so much?
It would be nearly as creditable service, as the writing of the original twaddly post...

Thank you in advance.

Majkl

6th September 2007 - 05:52 PM

QUOTE (Isee+Sep 6 2007, 07:34 AM)

So, what is the mind?
What is nature?
What is the universe?
What is a theory of physic?
What is AI?
What is real intelligence?
What is dead and alive?
And how do we persue perfection?

I just wanted to say that these questions were supposed to be a quote in my previous post, so they are not my questions originaly but none the less the questions got a long reply by StevenA and i can see we can write a book on this one

Isee

7th September 2007 - 08:22 AM

Thanks SteveA,
My sensory perception really hurt, especially the eyes.

It's looks like we have different view on the idea of randomness, pre-determind, and information. Again I will used the concept of intelligent to describe these. Intellgent here is simply sensory perception. Here is what you and here is what I see. Seeing as visual not a mental picture. Now, think of your sensory perception or your line of sight in a sea of darkness. No matter where the observer turn his line of sight will be surrounded by the sea of darkness.

What if the observer decide to close his eyes? Than, the sea of darkness will simply surround his mind. What if the mind shut down? Than, the observer is considered dead.

Now, replace the words sea of darkness with the word randomness. Here I decleared that no observer can ever visually see randomness. You can ask all the creatures in this planet like so. The price of being alive is that the observer will never see darkness/randomness.

In the example about Newton, the fly, and the apple SteveA seems to think that the fly can see what Newton sees and Newton can see what the fly sees. This is wishfull thinking and in some way hand pick the situation and dennied accident was never existed.

Majkl

7th September 2007 - 09:38 AM

QUOTE (Isee+Sep 7 2007, 08:22 AM)

Now, replace the words sea of darkness with the word randomness. Here I decleared that no observer can ever visually see randomness. You can ask all the creatures in this planet like so. The price of being alive is that the observer will never see darkness/randomness.

I am actually a little messier than that. I am saying that there eixsts a point of view which says that everything is randomness. WHat you are, what you think what you see, beleive. One can argue about this claiming that lots of these things are environmentaly caused and therefore you are acumulation of this things and so you are full of patterns. But the idea of randomness that i am refering to goes much deeper than that. Patterns are random formations. There is no mistery and meaning in them. Such a point of view exists. Its the one i like the most because i cannot even make sense out of simple choices humans make. I just cant make any sense. Its got to be randomly driven. Because we would make so much better choices if it were not so. I see this thing on the simplest of levels - of us just being what we are. I dont need to go to a molecular level to see this for example. And deep inside (molecular) its even messier. Yesterdays average is tomorrow norm. Its all over our history all the blunders and accidental discoveries. Our predictions were not correct not even in one case. Every discovery was forced to make finer and finer approximations. I may be labeled as crank but i take nothing for granted. Not even if it repeats billion times.

The price of being alive equals the price of being dead

. In randomness at least there is no price for anything.

StevenA

7th September 2007 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE (Isee+)

I believe we're not seeing exactly what the photoreceptors of the eyes detect, but instead that this 'raw' information is preprocessed physically before we're consciously aware of it. There are many optical illusions that show evidences of this and I know if I look around, I don't immediately see every detail until I focus in on something and try to pay attention to it (and other senses similarly filter and reconstruct information).

I've also occassional had vivid dreams where things appeared almost real including vivid colors as well or sounds that were very clear etc.

In this case, I believe what's occuring is that the senses collect a large amount of information and then preprocess this to extract the major features (edges, contures, textures, periodic features etc.) and this allows the information to be highly compressed, so likely 99%+ of the raw physical information that exists we don't detect (you can compress image and audio files in some cases by well over 90% and still have the difference virtually undetectable, and we haven't even perfectly compression technologies yet).

Then this compressed information is in a different format that the external world and so a virtual reconstruction is internally performed within the brain and compared to the real world, in order to learn how to compress the information without losing much in the process. It's this reconstruction from the priorly compressed information that I believe is what we perceived consciously.

So the senses themselves could be seen to differ from our conscious perceptions of those senses - there's the real world and then there's the part of the real world we consciously recognize and the two are likely not identical (though in the end, I'd agree that only the conscious observation is detectable and so we'd have to call that reality as it's difficult to try to say that some imagined external perspective is real).

QUOTE (Isee+)

What if the observer decide to close his eyes? Than, the sea of darkness will simply surround his mind. What if the mind shut down? Than, the observer is considered dead.

Now, replace the words sea of darkness with the word randomness. Here I decleared that no observer can ever visually see randomness. You can ask all the creatures in this planet like so. The price of being alive is that the observer will never see darkness/randomness.

Yes, I agree that pure randomness is incomprehensible from the perspective that nothing about it can truly be known, but consider that we can still assume we know something about it and then those asumptions become real.

This of course requires not "seeing" everything at once - or there's nothing specific to see in that case, so we have to have some specific observational perspective that takes samples of "everything", one at a time. So in this case, it's not entirely random as we're limiting things to a specific random subset of "everything".

So in this case, by selecting a specific vantage point, you're creating something specific out of nothing specific. I'd agree it's still easy to then ask why things happen to be as they are specifically, but it's easier to do this than to try to explain how something comes from absolutely nothing at all. Personally, I'm willing to assume something must have always existed.

QUOTE (Isee+)

In the example about Newton, the fly, and the apple SteveA seems to think that the fly can see what Newton sees and Newton can see what the fly sees. This is wishfull thinking and in some way hand pick the situation and dennied accident was never existed.

I don't believe that's what I said. If I recall correctly (it's been a while) I said the fly can't read Newton's book and Newton doesn't have the reflexes of the fly. Newton on the other hand could have likely been able to more accurately predict when an apple was going to fall beforehand, because of various knowledge of seasons or the wind etc. if he'd have applied himself to this, whereas the fly doesn't likely bother spending much time pursuing thoughts like that but instead has others skills in other areas, of course their perceptions of the world differ as well. You probably just misunderstood my comment.

StevenA

7th September 2007 - 06:49 PM

I'd like to add that you have two extremes - both are effectively invisible to our perceptions 1) absolute order is perfectly rigid and unchanging. This can be seen as pure logic or mathematics (not the often conflicting human versus of them but a truely complete deterministic relationship where every input is a certainty and every output certain - note: the inputs and outputs change, so they aren't representative of this rigid state) and then 2) absolute unpredictability where nothing has any certainty and anything is just as likely as anything else and then not at the same time

.

So on one end you have the instant before the Big Bang (I don't want to imply the Big Bang can only be interpreted as a single event) and on the other you have a perfectly crystalline structure and in between we can see an equivalent of varying levels of temperature/chaos.

The crystalline structure can't view itself as it's already exactly what it is and there's nothing 'else' to see. No change = no time and it's frozen throughout time from an external perspective, whereas internally it would be the undetectable frozen instant between moments of time.

Within the absolute randomness there's no structure and nothing to know though time could be seen as prevalent everywhere - everything rushing around and nowhere to go, simply because 'places' require a a structure or relationship to exist.

If we view this in terms of a network, we have points on one end unconnected to everything - random dots that could be potentially a part of anything and then on the other hand we have a structure where every such point is already rigidly connected into a relationship and there are no degrees of freedom left for motion (sounds like absolute tyranny

)

Anyway in the middle we have varying degrees of linear and fractal relationships and it's along that edge where the contrasts between these two exist that we see both constants and changes existing. We need the constants as references to measure things, so I tend to see the "observer" or the mind as representing the 'order' side of the equation and then looking out from this order it effectively sees properties of its own order imposed as attributes upon the randomness it detects relative to this. So imagine looking into a diamond - the various faucets don't exist without both air (highly chaotic) and a rigid diamond edge adjacent to it. If the universe was a perfect diamond, there would be no contrasts and similarly if the universe was a perfect fluid, again no contrasts (that's not exactly correct but close enough ... a 'fluid' implies some detectable structures), but when the two meet, the contrasts between them create a visible structure that can appear to extend beyond the solid - reflections within the diamond create a fractalline structure that gives greater detail and can appear to extend beyond the boundaries of the diamond.

That's not likely the complete story as it doesn't really address consciousness but it gives a good picture of the general qualities science is able to detect in physical systems, but individual attributes extend beyond this rigid realm that's shared in common - so in some ways you might see multiple transitions across this boundary as individual consciousness could lie as a more choatic form and then make observations into a rigid structure representing physical laws and then having those reflections returned to various conscious observer lying on the more chaotic end. The rigid structure allows for chaos to communicate with itself and the features inherent in it limit what communications are possible and the general 'resonant' properties of such common communication. (I know my wordings sound like pseudo science but there are real mathematical algorithms and physical systems in which we can demonstrate similar effects as being real and not just 'hocus pocus').

Isee

8th September 2007 - 07:27 AM

Hi again,

Instead of saying randomness creates everything we should say that for every million of disorders there is one order. Thus, order is a matter of statistic. Definitely the idea behind the observer is all about order. The DNA, the mind, and the sensory perception are all highly organized.

Again we can put all these rigid and highly organize mechanism right into the line of sight. And again you will see that the line of sight will always be surrounded by undetectable randomness.

How nature able to creates real intelligent is through the use of cavities or environmental structures. There is the universal cavity, the global cavity, and the local cavity. It is the shape and side of the structures which determind or pre-sellect the quality of the particles in which they can grows into cells.

So, if we are talking about randomness we should put it with respect to sensory perception. But order and disorder we would put it with respect to evolution.

StevenA

8th September 2007 - 07:45 AM

It appears there may be a way to convert between order to chaos and extract some possibly new order out of the chaos as well (truly this would violate ideas in information theory, but if we assume the universe isn't bounded ....)

Here's an awesome link I found where it appears there are prime number relationships that can be extracted out of chaotic functions and these prime numbers occur in the form of periodic orbitals. It even agrees with the model I was recommending in which a single dimensional string/space, with a single non-linearity feeds back on itself at various tap points (which creates a resonant structure and has many nice mathematical properties), though in this case he's using a single chaotic function and the 1-D is just a real number (but a real number can be seen to be composed of a large number of bit, which is similar to the various taps along its length):

Chaos (Resonance/Orbitals) and Prime Relationships
http://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0601/0601517.pdf <-click here!

My bet is that this Looks like string theory can begin with a 1-D string instead of 3 (or 4) dimensions of space, and then progress off into a potentially infinite number of dimensions (though higher dimensional interactions become very rare in this case).

Isee

8th September 2007 - 06:45 PM

SteveA,

I am trying to invent the most advance AI machine.
What you give me are stuff made in China.

You know all of them are flooding the market these days and they almost never work. The quality are horrible.

But thanks again.

freethis

9th September 2007 - 06:24 AM

I was just noticing this thread was started in february.

I'm glad I read it.

I would like too contribute also. Based on the time frame of the thread, this may take some time, LOL.

freethis

9th September 2007 - 07:11 AM

QUOTE

Also, I'll try to use an example of "everything" being viewed physically, specific by specific from the inside, whereas the mind attempts to find correlations and fold or compress observations into their smallest representation - from the physical inside things can appear vast, while from the outside they can appear very small.

Now let's start finding some symmetry first to show how "everything" can appear physically and mentally.

Because everything is constructed of all possible relationships between "things", including their compliments, each thing has a unique opposite and all possible relationships are filled entirely. There is no missing "thing" in everything and so you can continually fold all relationships in half, matching one thing against a complimentary aspect it could be seen as perfectly uniform and mentally compressible to a point.

The formation of abstract views, and physical views are different, the correlation too mind, between a given process of thought. The eye is used too see, prospective color, depth of field, and in a sense truth, and beauty.

The mind on the other hand will transfer images into relationship, each picture can be related too a specific observation in the past. the representation to the mind can process relationships observed in these objects. Feelings of happens can give joy through observations of something that is beautiful, or pleasing too look at.
Color can bring gloom, or disparity in relationship too how the brain has stored information. The brain is constantly changing making new links, and referencing them though the observed eye. Once a function of the mind is open to calculations it preforms well, but the mind is not a physical object. Its a function of yes, no.

Instincts, and structure is brought on by relationships to feelings, and sight.
Sounds play a roll in making observations as well. The problem is the brain works so quickly that before you have a chance to make the proper determination
in any given system, the mind has made it for you. Action is governed by the impulses, you body reacts too, because of it. (Random yes)

For instance what is right, and what is wrong. Now the mind has made a determination based on knowledge of observations, and feeling. When it make a mistake, chances are even though the mistake was discovered, you make the mistake again, and again.
The mind is acting in one instance, and the body follows the next. when problems are faced it is best the mind does randomly spit out a solution, but its through refinement that the best action is taken too fit the needs of the goal, or intention. When a mental picture is drawn with no predetermined function of the mind a visualization, is allowed to take shape, and be created from nothing, a random thought is given. (ART, music, poetry) The random function too the formation of thought is refined, therefore even if you allow the mind too be open, it creates a random starting point for you to follow. Brain function tries to simplify complex processes too increase knowledge, for the mind too understand it uses any given method that is allowed, too determine the best course of action quickly.

Still Steven A was able to refine the process of thought even further. Relationships, and function are not limited by the physical sense of reality, but by refinement. The nurturing of processes, functions of mental pictures interpret entire books, and the methods the brain uses evolve .

StevenA

9th September 2007 - 07:44 AM

QUOTE (freethis+)

Yes, the conscious qualities of the senses don't appear to have any manner in which they can be described as binary yes/no values, though the information they convey could be described in terms of binary values.

For example, it wouldn't how many yes or not questions you answered, you can't describe the conscious sensations of aromas associated with smell, though we could construct a physical model of smelling that relied upon yes or no information regarding whether or not smells appeared similar to each other. So in this case we could model the relationships between odors, but not actually perceive the sensation of smelling by doing so.

QUOTE (freethis+)

Instincts, and structure is brought on by relationships to feelings, and sight.
Sounds play a roll in making observations as well. The problem is the brain works so quickly that before you make have a chance to make the proper determination
in any given system, the mind has made it for you. Action is governed by the impulses, you body reacts too, because of it. (Random yes)

QUOTE (freethis+)

For instance what is right, and what is wrong. Now the mind has made a determination based on knowledge of observations, and feeling. When our make a mistake, chances are even though the mistake was discovered, you make the mistake again, and again.

Yes, that's possible if it's something that's physically reinforcing and the mind doesn't have an ability to apply enough pressure to alter it. You might see it similar to being physically unable to lift a heavy weight. In this case you can still see it as a process that the mind created but positive feedback led to unexpected or undesired results.

Maybe a good example of this is with a microphone. Someone could create an amplifier and hook up a microphone, but if the volume/gain is too high you get feedback and the system oscillates at a single frequency until that physical reinforcement is removed.

QUOTE (freethis+)

The mind is acting in one instance, and the body follows the next. when problems are faced it is best the mind does randomly spit out a solution, but its through refinement that the best action is taken too fit the needs of the goal, or intention.

I think that's the way things are initially regarding something that isn't yet understood. So you can see unknowns as arising from ignorance or lack of knowledge of the environment or similarly that the environmental contains unknowns that we experience. Either way the end result is the same in that even the more "rational" decision can still be "wrong" simply because you don't have all future information available to make a decision.

QUOTE (freethis+)

When a mental picture is drawn with no predetermined function of the mind a visualization, is allowed to take shape, and be created from nothing, a random thought is given. (ART, music, poetry) The random function too the formation of thought is refined, therefore even if you allow the mind too be open, it creates a random starting point for you to follow. Brain function tries to simplify complex processes too increase knowledge, for the mind too understand.

Yes, if some mental relationship hasn't already been filled in, the mind tends to imagine something there and fill in the blanks (if it later turns out not to agree with physical feedback, then some alternate mental relationship is constructed to try to describe it until there's little disagreement between what reality is expected to be and what we sense it to be. So we might see this similar to building a virtual mental model of what reality is and having the properties of it mirror traits existing externally.

freethis

9th September 2007 - 08:01 AM

Thanks for the setion doc> How much do I owe you?

QUOTE

I don't think this is entirely random though.

It's true you can't change reflexes or habits instantly, just as you can't change what operating system you're running on a computer instantly. The body develops over time and changes slowly, so you can see something similar to an inertia, but you can alter your reflexes over time and adjust habits etc. It's just not an instantaineous process (it appears necessary that changes can't occur to quickly or you lose the ability to maintain a coherent structure and build upon it).

(random yes) was inserted too strengthen what you had already said, but it was through lack of structure, and the random insert that took the paragraph out of complete context, Because I was trying too find a structure, and relate too a previous post

All I have too do know is find it.

Here it is, (random) was also referenced again.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

All I have too do know is find it.

Here it is, (random) was also referenced again. The mind should be correlated with constructing or detecting patterns. The mind takes events that can contain random elements and creates a rigid structure based upon them.

random as too, events that can contain random elements and structure based upon them.

freethis

9th September 2007 - 02:56 PM

QUOTE (freethis+Sep 9 2007, 08:01 AM)

I don't think this is entirely random though.

It's true you can't change reflexes or habits instantly, just as you can't change what operating system you're running on a computer instantly. The body develops over time and changes slowly, so you can see something similar to an inertia, but you can alter your reflexes over time and adjust habits etc. It's just not an instantaineous process (it appears necessary that changes can't occur to quickly or you lose the ability to maintain a coherent structure and build upon it).

Here it is, (random) was also referenced again.

random as too, events that can contain random elements and structure based upon them.

Afterthought:

QUOTE

Your reaction to the phrase (random yes), strengthened what you said, as too not being entirely random. It was your minds reaction to this phrase (random yes) that lead the mind to find a starting point, and relate too the paragraph you wrote, and the paragraph I wrote that was taken out of context.

The focal point was on yes, or no of brain function. Refinement is necessary, and science becomes precise.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Random as too, events that can contain random (elements) and (structure) based upon them.

Can you see the implication, as too random thought processes?

Isee

10th September 2007 - 07:42 AM

Guys,
You are jumping all over the place again. What's in your mind can not be random. As I said randomness must be thought of with respect to sensory perception. It is outside the mind and not part of your field of view. Wether the field of view light, sound, tast, and smell I don't care. The area surrounding the field of view is undetectable or un-imaginable.

For example:
Yesterday I drove to my favorite restaurant. But before I got there I stop at a red light. I turn to my left and saw my friend John going somewhere.

Did I saw John by chance or what?

1) I decide to turn my head, therefore it is determind.
2) John is in my field of view and I recognize him. Since he is in my field of view it is determind.
3) Randomness must be everything before I see John. If John is the target then everything that not John is randomness. This is as simple as saying at any moment in time you are both dead and alive. Although you might think you are always alive this is not true. Or else accident would never exist and you must be God.

StevenA

10th September 2007 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE (freethis+)

Thanks for the setion doc> How much do I owe you?

(Yes, I can see why I might sound like a psychologist ... actually though a lot of these thoughts came from working with artificial intelligence and trying to create systems that would learn. It's amazing how the body does so much that we don't intuitively understand, yet on the other hand the types of operations preformed aren't necessarily too complex ... it's just that a whole lot happens in the body/brain and it's not easy to break it all down into simple rules. Also, despite the fact that computers are thousands of times more powerful that they were maybe 20 years, the computational power of a PC in some ways is not much more than a small insect. In the end though, we should be able to have machines that could be considered intelligent, but I've come to think that consciousness doesn't operate in the typical mechanistic/physical manner people have come to believe. Likely consciousness does provide the brain with additional abilities beyond what is inherent in a more classical view of physics and likely quantum mechanics plays a role in this. It might end up being that a real super computer must be conscious also ... definitely an interesting thought. Though that would also tend to imply that it has will of its own and you can't necessarily program it but need to let it learn on its own as well)

That goes along quite well with some forms of computations in mathematics being potentially exponentially faster when we allow them to be slightly random and don't necessarily require it to always give the perfectly correct answer, but if we can live with being 99.99%+ certain of something, then you can improve the time it takes to calculate something much much faster. This could also be related to quantum computing where large increases in computational power come from a system that possess a slight uncertainty to it.

Anyway, it's interesting to see this same phenomenon arise in various fields and they all likely share a common foundation in something like the uncertainty principle.

This also shows how there's an analogy between randomness, information and energy. A classical physical system uses energy and is altered by it, and we can see this as performing a computation, like a computer. But the energy doesn't disappear after this, it simply changes form into some "result". We can translated this into a more quantum/mental realm (which might be appropriately described in terms of higher dimensional spaces) where information is a physical object and randomness is energy. In this case we can perform a computation faster when we allow some randomness to enter the system and this could be seen similar to allowing an acceleration to increase the speed of physical interactions (though accelerations allow for non-linear/chaotic interactions to occur that are difficult to control and understand, in a similar manner that randomness is seen as unpredictable and energetic, in terms of information and computations ... that last analogy isn't very accurate though, but hopefully it gives the general picture - we're working with the same thing as physical systems but outside a 3 dimensional space)

QUOTE (freethis+)

random as too, events that can contain random elements and structure based upon them.

Yes, you need a 'flow of information' in order to see something as occuring and we could see the 'information' as being fundamentally random but the 'flow' implies a structure through which this randomness is molded.

The way I believe this works physically is that we begin with something like the Big Bang (though it can be a continual process instead and still likely appear the same when we look out into space) and this effectively exists as an infinite dimensional space or non-dimensional space - it's just a random collection of every possible thing that could exist (likely the state of each "observer" determines what that random ordering is - you can see this randomness as being either an external physical ratsnest and the observer travelling in a straight line or alternately a perfectly uniform structure and instead the observer, without a prior understanding of this structure, moves 'ignorantly'/randomly through it, at least whenever a new piece of information is encountered.

But this motion interconnects those objects into a network of memories of relationships between them and encountering a new physical object in this structure, likely leads to a chain of observed events as this new relationship propogates through this network of memories/associations.

This propogation of events along those pathways of memories creates what can appear as resonant patterns with preferred frequencies and wavelengths and those create a reference for matter and mass to exist (in some ways you can compare this to how a specific musical instrument has a specific "timbre" or how you recognize a specific voice out of a crowd etc.). Two observers that share similar structures can then use these as references for communicating (similar to using the same wavelength/protocol/language in order to communicate) and those common properties we see existing as matter in the physical universe - space is matter that we don't see because it doesn't use the same references/wavelengths/language that our references for matter share and appears invisibly chaotic relative to matter.

(There's a lot more but that's basically how it all begins, in my opinion. We can take these ideas and break them down into very simple forms and begin to find things like subatomic particles and repeat them and prime numbers and galactic arms etc.)

StevenA

10th September 2007 - 05:25 PM

QUOTE (Isee+Sep 10 2007, 07:42 AM)

Ok, how did we learn to recognize John? Well we had to see something like John before we could learn to recognize John. If we go back really far we could imagine a baby trying to learn to move - it does "something" that isn't understand yet, and then feels its arm touch something. After a while of repeating this it learns to understand there's a space through which its arm moves and it learns how to predict the feedback from its actions and this results in perceptions of motion and space.

If we rewind all the way to the beginning then it should be that there was just an action - and that action was just to do/have/reach out/connect etc. to something/anything/the first thing etc. but there was no space or time or anything at that point to use a reference in deciding/controlling/selecting what it was as well as no ability to form any expectation/knowledge/predictive understand etc. of what it would be. So we could say that the act/will etc. was entirely determined, but the result was not at that point. (Note also, that an action without feedback doesn't allow any sense of 'self', separate from anything else, to exist)

Now that's where some lines of thought might stop and we can say that this just repeats in a chain with us forever unable to control anything because there's always the next unknown and we can't ever know what it is until it happens, but that's not how it really works, because we have to go forward two more steps.

After the first thing, you just have something, it has no meaning in itself - it could be considered 'you' (and later become the fundamental reference for subjective time) at that moment.

Now we reapply the "action" and we get a second thing - A becomes B and we see a contrast - this would be the first moment of physical time, as we experience a change between two contrasting states. Selecting B was predetermined, in a sense, because we have no knowledge outside of A to understand what B is yet. So we just get something and it's like the beginning of mathematics with 0 and then creating the 1.

But when we reapply the "action" a third time, we now have a choice in how we want to associate it with our "AB" self, because we could either consider C to be associated with either A or B (or maybe even both). It's a branch in the road and we have a decision. Now we tend to normally assume that physics imposes laws upon us, but that's not necessarily true. There are logic laws that must be followed in constructing anything that we want to be able to use usefully over and over again and one of those rules/laws is that it can't change whimsically from moment to moment or give different results, so once you lay down a piece, you can't go back and pick it up again without destroying all the chains of logic that have already been built upon it. Hence why the laws of nature don't vary much from moment to moment, and if they did we'd likely not exist (or at least we wouldn't be able to walk around under the influence of gravity and communicate with each other via. physical laws and the semi-deterministic units/properties of matter etc.) What these A B and C events would be the qualities of conscious perception - those were just handed us without control, but how those conscious perceptions perceive reality to be is largely self determined, even if we're generally ignorant of the consequences, though in this respect it's not impossible to predict the outcomes of an action, it's just very difficult and time passes while actions occur so there are questions of efficiency involved (though it appears you're "stuck" with having conscious perceptions with specific traits unless you stumble on another one or nature hands you a new one. Of course, these are just my opinions from my experiences and I know not everyone might agree).

So an analogy with language is that you can't control what physical letters nature hands you (or alternately all these letters are perfectly aligned and not random but you can't know what a letter is before you see one, so they're still randomly selected out of ignorance instead ... the two views are the same except one implies there may be some possibility of finding a structure within the most extreme randomness there is, but then you come back to the question of how does something (specific) come from nothing and how can we experience change and time if everything has always been predetermined and effectively rigid?) ... oops I drifted, so you can't control what "letters" nature hands you but you can control the language you construct from them and this language molds the properties of how you "communicate" with reality.

freethis

10th September 2007 - 10:11 PM

Your a smart dude, thanks for the intelligent conversation, it is a relief from some of the nonsense in this forum.

Have you read my theory of everything? Its a stupid title, but I have used random thought, well partly. Still I had the focus on my intentions. Although structure was difficult, but through refinement taking a second and third look. I have feel I made some very interesting realities that physics will be unable too change, because physics is unchangeable.

I have added too the concepts, through the identification of a problem that are still questionable too me. (others too) With careful predetermined thought, and the unknown thought, I have discover a portion of the paper very much correct. Now everything is falling into proper perspective. The identification of problems, and systems without having been diluted from physics, and my initial thoughts:o

Physics was a wonderful tool in making some conclusive contributions, but not all.
PS. Now I really understand physics, its step by step processes of past determinations of physicists. I prefer the short cuts myself. The scientific method.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=17313

quote...Alhacen (Ibn Al-Haytham 965 – 1039.
Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough.

freethis

12th September 2007 - 12:19 AM

How do you interpret this paragraph?

quote..
First of all the inquiry, by the aid of the microscope and electrical instruments of precision, into the nature of our organs and senses, and particularly of those through which we commune directly with the outside world and through which knowledge is conveyed to our minds, has revealed their exact construction and mode of action, which is in conformity with (simple) and well established physical principles and laws. Hence the observations we make and the facts we ascertain by their help are real facts and observations, and our knowledge is true knowledge

Fist the inquiry too find truth, or the initial idea, that leads in the search for truth.

though the use of instruments, computers, voltage meters, radio receivers, electrical wire, etc. (The search for the nature of things. truth, and the knowledge too understand it.

It was through these words that he seeks truth in nature.

he understood the nature of this, in such a way he found truth.

He found the exact cause, and effect, in the study (action, mode of action).

Through the relationships he made too known established physics. (simple Physics)

The final outcome is truth, or knowledge, if that is what you seek. applying the mind in this way, (And observation) he need not look any further for truth.

When this guy talks about the full understanding of light, you better belive him!

StevenA

12th September 2007 - 02:53 AM

QUOTE (freethis+)

How do you interpret this paragraph?

I'll give it a shot.

QUOTE

quote..
First of all the inquiry,

I called this the initial action (it's directionless initially and has no reference without a memory or history upon which it can be oriented with the past and expectations formed of what the result will be a prediction of)

Though you could also consider this an inquiry later, but initially I'd say it was be an action because an inquiry implies you're trying to know about something, but nothing would exist to inquire about initial so you'd just have an uncontrolled/random action.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

quote..
First of all the inquiry,

Here he's saying that if you have a prior history of knowledge then the action is based upon that knowledge - hence, once you've later built a memory of observations and knowledge, then you have a wider choice of actions as you can select anything within that knowledge to build upon - for example, learning what you see through a microscope. In this case it's not possible to do so until you learn to see and then learn about a microscope etc., but then after that you can select to create a new structure related to seeing and microscopes. So you connect the action of seeing and associate it with the microscope and then you look and nature gives you something new to fill in the gap (though you can also see it the other way around, that nature showed you something and you decided it was related to seeing and microscopes - so you created a new piece of knowledge that represents the interactions of the two)

Here's another interesting possibility. If the action comes first, then you must have decided to see something (and we'll just assume it was some tiny organism), then you check your memory and know you were looking in a microscope and so attach that new "seeing an organism" sensation with the action of seeing and the context of the past as the microscope.

Later on if you see a microscope again you'll likely indirectly associate it with seeing and organisms and so following experiences with microscopes will tend to be built upon these concepts.

To compare this closer to physics we can see this similar to an atomic nucleus where various positively charged concepts (a.k.a protons) are bound together via a relationship of associations (neutrons) and have wavelengths that can be seen to represent predictive features or expectations, which are matched with a detected truth (a.k.a.) photon and stored in a specific relationship with this atomic core (the specific oscillatory mode surrounding the nucleus).

You can't see a photon if you either don't have a prior concept to attach it to, nor if the phase of the photon doesn't match the atom either (in which case you could see this as expecting a true or false result and getting the incompatible complimentary physical result ... the photon keeps on going looking for something else to match it)

Notice that not all photons are detectable by this though as matter determines what wavelengths it will interact with and so you can see this similar to matter wearing it's own "rose colored glasses" and ignoring the rest of reality in many ways.

Yes, I know I'm using rather abstract relationships here but I don't want to nail the pieces down until it all fits together.

QUOTE

, into the nature of our organs and senses, and particularly of those through which we commune directly with the outside world and through which knowledge is conveyed to our minds

Now here he sounds like he's talking about logical processes. Some people see these things in terms of subconscious processes but in some ways it's difficult to draw any specific line of separation between the external world and ones senses or mind though.

Consider that legs need something to walk on and the Earth (or something to stand on) is just as important as having legs and that what you see isn't solely a product of the eyes, but encompasses objects that reflect light and even the surface of the Sun to provide light etc.

So in some ways it's all connected as a single channel that filters information into having certain characteristics and you can't tell easily what parts of this channel impose what characteristics, though you can determine the likely order by looking at how distortions interact - for example if you put your hand up in front of your eyes, you can't see whatever is behind your hand so this represents a channel in which your hand lies between some source and your eyes - you can perform similar tests to build up an understanding of what layers of processes occur before you become consciously aware of them.

Anyway, I'm rambling but I have fun digging into all this stuff and trying to come up with really precise models. The body normally does much of this for you and you don't have to think about it, but it can be amazing how much intelligence the body possesses in a subconscious manner that generally goes unnoticed. The processing power of the worlds largest super computer likely has little more raw computational power than the instincts of a small mammal.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

, into the nature of our organs and senses, and particularly of those through which we commune directly with the outside world and through which knowledge is conveyed to our minds

Here he appears to be saying the same thing, though you can break it down into 3 basic rules and they match the 3 dimensions of space - you need information or 0-D points (particles), you need lines (1-D operations - linear space) to connect them together and route them where needed and then you need a way to combine them together to make new structures (2-D non-linear operations or warped space). Of course when you add time to the mix, these all move up a dimension.

The properties these result in can be described by "universal computation" http://bottomlayer.com/bottom/banks/banks_commentary_01.htm - basically the idea is that given enough time and resources, all computers calculate algorithms that any other computer can compute also, if they're both capable of universal computation and basically this encompasses most anything we could consider to be scientific knowledge. The extremes of these types of computations end up appearing very fractal and chaotic and life like (in fact hallucinations tend to create these images as well, so they represent the basic building blocks the mind uses to understand and model things) It's hard to describe all the possible complexities of these processes because they represent any possible program a computer could run but here you can see some of the general properties http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=frac...animation&hl=en

QUOTE

Hence the observations we make and the facts we ascertain by their help are real facts and observations, and our knowledge is true knowledge

Yes, they represent true knowledge because it's the processes that build knowledge and in their pure form, they have no randomness at all but are purely rigid logical structures that only appear to vary over time because the mind connects them together in various ways and nature runs some noise through them.

Likely you'll find a single 3 dimensional mathematical operation that is capable of computing everything (though you'd likely need to allow it to create higher dimensional structures) and that could be seen to represent the limits of knowledge, if not physics also (there's still a question over whether the limits imposed by nature and the ones imposed by the mind could end up being the same, though still there's stuff beyond this and little of it appears to address individual subjective things like consciousness, nor does it directly address non-deterministic things that possess an inherent uncertainty).

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.