This Masterpiece had been put into the Rant House of www.ilovephilosophy.com:
Pleas copy and post elsewhere also.
Skip to content
Board index ‹ Social Forums ‹ The Rant House
E-mail friend
Print view
User Control Panel (0 new messages) • View your posts
FAQ
Members
Logout [ nameta9 ]
View unanswered posts • View unread posts • View new posts • View active topics
Information Relationship
Moderator: Staff
Post a reply
39 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 12
Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:46 am
Troll Alert ! Troll Alert! Warning ignore the following blocks of text, they are a Troll.
Information Relationship
Definition of Information Relationship: A set of bits (Observer - Processor) interacting with another set of bits (External Reality).
A set of bits (particles, atoms ? granular chunks of Matter - Mass Energy as distinct moving independent parts interacting and talking to each other) as delimited and defined and assigned as an Observer (a Processor, a brain, or in our case a Man Brain) interacting, colliding, being conditioned by another set of "external" bits, (but external is assigned arbitrarily, there is no in or out, no observer and reality, just a smooth continuous monolithic slab of Matter fooling itself, making believe that it is something else, or something more than what it is, inventing and forcing self delusional relationships upon itself so as to become alive and produce a state of Experience (consciousness, logic, pain/pleasure, you name it), in other words Matter decided to go out and play while it should be sleeping in bed (aka DEAD)) acting as the external reality, the external physical world, the external constraints of an imagined "absolute" physical world acting as the input to the Observer, furnishing signals through sense organs to confirm an external reality (but I have issues with the concept of external reality, since the relationship is not anywhere, is not in any space or time, in any reference system, it is just reciprocally defining itself and interacting with itself, no absolute reference or background hence, there is no external reality, only interactions).
So an observer - processor can be any set of bits having any kinds of connections amongst themselves, any hard wired connections between some bits or groups of bits and the external reality can interact with the Observer (the chunk of Matter designated to undergo a state of Experience and Existence (phase transition into Matter becomes Experience ?), since experience must have some slight intersections with some slight and vague identity principles and non contradictions)) through another set of bits assigned the role of input; external reality through sense organs.
So the possible combinations of these bits, the Observer and the External reality defines all possible ways Matter may undergo the phase transition into Experience. Since the observer can be so many different things and combinations and so can the sense organ inputs in terms of representing the external reality, the number of possible new minds, brains, and essentially Information Relationships is truly infinite.
Just 800 bits, 100 slots of numbers, representing the Observer set of bits can be in 10 ^ 100 different configurations; and a set of 800 bits representing the External Reality can also be in 10 ^ 100 different possible combinations. And the Information Relationship set, the interaction set, the possible - potential interaction set of both groups of bits can be in 10 ^ 200 combinations of possible Experiences and Event states, event phase transitions. And considering that a Man Brain has billions of bits and so does the external reality, you can see how large the combinational state space can really get; and then considering all of the possible delimitations, possible arbitrarily assigned connections between sets of bits both externally and internally, and all the possible rules in terms of cause and effect, or symbols imposed upon the contraption, sequence of signals meanings, possible emotion/feeling/pain/pleasure states, and other ever higher denotations, and indirections and pure inventions, the more wild, impossible and abstract, the more totally incomprehensible and totally mysterious, the better, you can see that there could be trillions upon trillions (a very small number) possible new minds - brains. so the concept of BRANIUM is correct; everything you see and think and anything at all could be the representation of a new brain.
I was thinking about death, about time, about how the age of a person, born 1950 died 1998 for example conveys a sense of reference system, inserts the dead person in an abstract comforting absolute reference system, the illusion of knowing where you are, knowing where the dead are since they are delimited by symbols, symbols keeping a numerical score of that set of experiences that matter underwent when it was "alive". But interestingly the delimitation and reference system is valid only for another mind reading those symbols, inserting them in a system of knowledge etc. It is not valid for the pebble next to the grave, or to any other chunks of matter you see around you, only for those very rare chunks of point like particles considered alive and conscious and considered Man Brains. But then what makes that different from any other arbitrary make believe invention ? If it weren't arbitrary and make believe all particles of the universe would have to be alive and know what those numbers mean, the system would have to be an absolute reference system but this is not the case. So all of our reference systems are make believe phony constructions, hose them they are all telling us lies and make believes.
Parallel time dimensions, partial delimitations, multidimensional space, wildly contradictory logic, the goal is to lose yourself and all reference systems and not find yourself anywhere. Even just two bits are infinitely far from each other, totally non related, we force a relationship and look at them as one, as being something but they are both lost forever and infinitely far away from each other and completely disjoint.
Wow, and who on earth is so insane to actually read that huge pile of drivel, trype and self delusion...?
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:17 pm
Scroll over these blocks of text.
The entire idea of a parallel universe is not even important since the Information Relationship equivalent to visiting a parallel universe can be assigned and imposed upon matter by the exact same configuration of set of bits that that event would have onto a machine (the Processor ? Observer ? the Man Brain ?) that executes pure Information Relationships (the substrate of the machine and the bits is irrelevant, just the relationship is relevant). So it is with space travel and time travel, you can visit anything simply creating the exact same combination of bits corresponding to the equivalent experience.
And as a corollary this demonstrates that space and time is irrelevant, there is no external world since the sequence of configuration of bits that transit from point A to point B can be a sequence of different pictures in time, or space, or any other sequence of pictures defined according to any other kind of rule of transportation, even completely new kinds of transits from a picture to the next, not only through time and space, but through X and Y and invent another trillions of new dimensions, transit paths, transit rules (any sequence of pictures can be mapped upon new transit rules and properties, just because) defining new imaginary "external dimensions" hence external worlds, so then we go in the opposite direction, not only does an external world exist, but a hyper external world exists even compared to the standard external world, and so on, hyper hyper external worlds constructed upon the basis of the rules of transit arbitrarily assigned and equivalent to physical dimensions or analogous to physical dimension of extensions like space and time, etc.
Corresponding correspondence of bits.
Words are tags, a set of tags is a thought, concept, meanings, but words can be associated to any delimitation of bits (and notice we don't use the words particles or electrons or atoms, as it doesn't matter how matter is subdivided, or how many subparticles may be discovered, a bit is simply a small chunk of matter); but the bit itself can be a macro item, a story, an event, anything, and anything can be defined within and as a part of or being part of anything else. Reductionism no longer applies, something is not composed of something else, or associated with something else, all is just put in a bag, a bag of tags that can be read in any sequence at all, or in parallel, or partly parallel and partly sequentially, you name it. So the composition of a denotation of an indirection doesn't necessarily have to be a sequence of symbols, but a set of tags, like reading a trillion page book in a jiffy, in parallel, etc. Now, what did I want to say ? I don't remember, or maybe I didn't have anything to say ? And why does it matter if some other chunk of matter reads this drivel ? why must something be confirmed in another point of space and time by another observer ? is matter not sure of itself ? does matter need ever more security to really believe that it is valid in more than one mind, that a multitude of Observers, observing and decoding the same or similar things is more comforting for matter that decided to go out and play ? Or wouldn't it be more comforting if every observer was completely different and totally disjoint form any other, a multitude of Information Relationships not communicating.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:40 am
Uh, oh, someone is sh*ting on the Internet Again...
Please scroll past these blocks of texts. Please erase all of my posts from the Internet. Please erase the Internet. Thank you.
The transition from fixed brain to variable brain (the brain is no longer an independent variable) from the invariant word we live in to the new invariant world for the new world the new brain lives in disconnects the two universes from each other: history no longer exists, space and time no longer exist, the two affairs are disjoint, cannot communicate between each other because they are not supposed to, by definition, the two things having nothing to do with each other. And so, even in this case we see how our arbitrary structures, history, space and time and all of memory segments designing reality are just toys, are just signs written on a slab of matter to make believe that they are somehow real, that they correspond to some absolute reference system when all they are are make believe crystallization of rules and experiences so as to furnish a constant path of navigation of reality to the experiencing brain and nothing more; as the brain gradually transits from one design to another, from one configuration to a new configuration it cannot follow its own transformations, it must relinquish control and it must stop being a free will gadget: it doesn't know who or what designed its invariant parts, something external, outside, something independent from it designed it, but that independence is disconnected from its internal memory hence reference system and so it always has a partial view of the universe, nay, there is no global view, only so many different partial views since in order to see the entire view it would have to be a variable brain gradually transforming itself into all possible brain designs and remembering all the paths necessary to obtain each new brain designing and comparing them to what ? to nothing, since you always have to arbitrarily choose which memory segment will become the invariant, the reference system.
As a new design is produced and that brain still contains a free will gadget that is in relinquish mode, it is unaware of its past history, of its origin and story as understood in the designing brains reference system ( but just like we will be always unaware of the past history that designed our brain as understood in "Natural Evolution's" reference system (and how can blind forces have a reference system ? wow that must be so totally disjoint from us!)).
Each memory sign is a new reference system to which each new memory sign will be compared to and will reinforce a virtual make believe "reference system" to which that brain - Matter Undergoing Experience is anchored to; the memory segment, no matter how long, how perfect, how well tuned and synchronized to the pain/pleasure/feelings/cause and effects that arbitrarily designed contraption possesses, is always just a short story, only a partial story, so partial that the length of the story is vanishingly small, as the number of combination of new possible brains is so huge.
So when you go to the cemetery and see born 1944 died 1978 remember that that is just a short memory segment as defined by our reference systems: that slab of matter was never born and never died, never lived in any geographical position and never even lived, we are just petting our memory.
And as you see, I am like the first DNA molecule, the first molecule to which then all the other molecules of life evolved to: the idea of the brain becoming a variable is like the first DNA molecule of life: it will open up so many new universes, but also close ours up forever and forever shatter all of our certainties as no certainty will ever be possible again, unless you erase you memory, which can be done and should be done since the memory sings creating reference systems are simply a kind of write only memory: anything can be written to your or that or any memory and create a new reference system and anything can become absolutely true or false or anything at all.
I know, I understand, would you relinquish control and stick chips in your brain ? would you choose to end you existence as a free will gadget ? no way jose' ! we (or you ? or it ?) are our reference system, we are our memory and rules of engagements and interactions, etc. By sticking wild stuff inside the contraption we have at the top end of our body we would become something else, or something unknown and who wants that ?!?! but it has been done, everything you see is a modified brain as in Brainium, or it is being done gradually with all of these electronic gadgets surrounding us, or maybe it started as soon as we started writing down our memory and as soon as we started executing abstract logic upon the material world.
But this is simply the end result of thousands of years of increased rationality: sooner or later reason and rationality will want to dismantle itself to see what is inside of itself, it is the natural outcome of our present universe, as our universe is only us using and describing it and nothing else.
Now, is that what I wanted to say ? I don't even remember.. and I thought I had something else to say, a whole bunch of other things to say, but I get confused and forget or remember something that I never thought in the first place, and I loose a lot of these blocks of text, I erase them and they go away...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:25 am
Please scroll past these blocks of texts. Please erase all of my posts from the Internet. Please erase the Internet. Thank you.
Indirection
Be cryptic, be hard to understand, dazzle and confuse people, make it seem as if you are saying something deep (what a joke, deep doesn't and can't exist as all is a segment of logic, a set of associations, a sequence of symbols, hence a painting, a picture nothing else) making it seem as if you know oh, so much more, you have constructed complex logical segments that have made you see through all and understand all: in essence make them worship a logical segment that they cannot understand fully, as that is what we all want, something that is unclear and mysterious, that leaves open the door to some further, deeper, unknown and therefore more exciting and adventurous and mysterious meanings that can imply so many other things and activities and behaviors and causes and effects and possible pain/pleasure segments and sequences, etc.
The indirection starts from birth since you have to become aware that an outside world exists with its logical consequences, the first and strongest indirection, something that exists although you don't touch it (strange I said that ? but touch is the most concrete thing between baby and mommy, actually that is the real justification and reinforcing of all other more abstract and indirect pain/pleasure events!), is your mommy and all the interactions with this thing outside of you starts to create a complete logical map, you realize that you are not some independent purely subjective entity that is sufficient of itself and can live in a bubble of its own self, it needs to and starts to interact with external signals and symbols and behavioral patterns, you start to know that that thing outside of you is similar to you in some ways, and you slowly learn that it is like you just different and just a multiple image of yourself, another version of another contraption that has pain/pleasure/logic/cause and effect, etc. And so the master denotations and indirections and signals and symbols become engraved on the Man Brain and its memory and behavioral pattern circuits, etc.
Like an atom, an electron and nucleus already have a slight indirection they know that they are a reciprocal reference system to each other, each defines the other in terms of how they are related and how they are hard wired to interact and behave between each other. Each becomes aware that the other is outside of itself, is an external chunk (of logical segment ?) of matter, and indirect external world where they don't touch but know that each other are there otherwise matter would disintegrate. But it has very few degrees of freedom within which to move whereas interactions between complex large chunks of matter like people have many degrees of freedom within which to move and interact (and you can see how the limits of degrees of freedom becomes a variable from one extreme to another and can be anything in between and anything can be set up as an indirection to anything else, etc.). And that is the indirection, you know that something outside is there, but you cannot touch it, but through contorted signals the something outside can respond and deliver some small events of pain/pleasure and such, and you project your own pain/pleasure on the outside device and feel for it, you become aware of the importance of that other devices pain/pleasure but it is just a ghost an indirection since when you fight a war you disconnect those logical circuits and go with it carelessly (or when you fight your "enemy", as friend and enemy are designated only through logic, logic is what defines our reference system but logic disintegrates itself if pushed to the limits of itself).
I saw the priest talk about Jesus and he loves you and you love him and so on, he was completely worked up on all of this insane BS, he was worshiping a logical segment, a sequence of symbols, a set of associations, not the content of his words, which really have and are no content, but just as the first denotations justify themselves, so do all the others, ever more detached and abstract, ever more degrees of freedom, ever more possible associations, meanings, abstractions all connected to imaginary (and occasionally real pain/pleasure events as to become finally real, as the only thing that is not a denotation is the pain/pleasure event, not all the rules and logical segments and rules of engagements necessary to obtain small pain/pleasure events).
And when you contradict the religious types they will reply: do you love your children and things like that as to say, do you believe in an indirection ? how can you believe in something invisible ? if you believe in that indirection than you can and must believe in the other indirection that god exists, that other people exist, that good and bad exists. Or also, if you believe arbitrarily in one indirection how do you justify not believing in any other, no matter how far out, indirection ? because you choose to believe in A and not in B, but it is not justified in any way, it is an arbitrary choice not based on anything at all but your free will and random, fluke quirk choice that has no better or deeper value than the choice of believing in god.
If one indirection exists and is justified then all of them are justified, if one indirection is operating all of them are operating and each can reinforce each other, you believe in god, hence in good and bad hence in helping the poor and so on and each becomes a tag of a logical segment reinforcing itself, worshiping itself as indirection really means worshiping some special logical segment but most of all we worship logic, the association, the cause and effect (and the confirming occasional events of pain/pleasure (and the further occasional invented pain/pleasure events in terms of internal feelings and emotions? but these are really make believe arbitrary connections with no justification whatsoever)) and how it is connected to outside elements and events and entities, we are constantly fascinated and dazzled by how logic makes us clearly interpret and decode indirections.
Of course all is logic, in war you kill someone, another will power gadget, another person, but you don't kill your son, but the difference between them is all based on the principle of identity and non contradiction: you are not going to get confused and make a mistake between an unknown soldier and someone you "love", and yet the action is simply the elimination of another human with all that that should mean in terms of denotations and values: and yet, it is ok, we create and reinforce differences, we worship our subjectivity (that is what everyone does, so it is a rule of engagement of society).
That was from:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/01/murmuration.html
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:46 pm
The idea that Modified Brains imply a new Universe with new laws of Physics is a kind of extreme Anthropic Principle. In this model, the universe is only the way Matter is decoded by another organization of Matter, there is no view from nowhere, there is no external objective observer and view, all views are 100 % subjective as dependent on an entity that appears invariant (the Man Brain - the Observer - the Processor) as compared to all the variants ("external" signals and symbols and sense organ inputs) that entity interacts with, but it is itself a variant, although frozen in a fixed configuration so as to be the "Measure of Everything".
This kind of extreme Anthropic Principle implies that essentially, There is no "External Reality" (or Matter, or World), there is no Inside and Outside with regards to Matter in general, only a subdivision of Matter in a chunk assigned as Inside and a chunk assigned as Outside, a delimitation of one chunk of Matter is Inside (the Observer) and another chunk as Outside (the place from nowhere from which all the signals arriving at the Observer come from); in other words the Observer cannot be separated and placed in some kind of place from nowhere where it can make believe that it is "Objective", Matter cannot arbitrarily be divided into two parts only because it seems so convenient from our point of view: reductionism doesn't work anymore at a higher and more general level of abstraction that now includes the mind itself as a variable, it is now either all or nothing, either you admit that the Observer is not independent from its substrate and design and arbitrary situation in which it finds itself or that the Observer is some metaphysical - abstract - spiritual entity looking at the universe from the "Outside"...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:57 pm
Within this framework it can be said that Science is Wrong. That's it. I said it. Science is Wrong from the outset, what we do have is a local logical segment that is sufficient for our uses, we have found the many repetitive patterns and have found out how to apply them (and we may find others in the future), but the Metaphysical - Spiritual - Abstract properties that we apply to Science are Wrong. There is no "Objective Reality" and "Objective Science" or "Set of Patterns" as applied to an "External Reality" such that justifies this other new subtle form of Religion: as even Science has properties of Religions, the faith factor, the belief factor, only in this case you have faith in logic and reasoning and you believe that reality is outside of yourself, that the Observer is independent of the Observed, that the Observer can be separated from the Observed: nothing further from the truth, there is no way to split the Observer from the Observed, it is all one, a confusing monolithic slab of Matter, nay, symbols talking to themselves.
In fact Science tries to find repetitive patterns by comparing things to what it already knows, by formatting new events, patterns, causes and effects, observations into the language and words and symbols it has already created: the past conditions the future in this sense, the memory of what you already know creates the reference system, reality is just the memory of all you have seen and all the patterns you are used to and have been solidified into expectations where very few really surprising events can happen. And as such since the Universe is only the way Matter is decoded by another organization of Matter, and since Matter is only Information Relationship Events, hence Symbols, it is more correct to say the Universe is only the way a set of Symbols are decoded by another set of Symbols.
What does probability have to do with it ? It is said that there is a probability that your quantum atoms align up in such a way that you can walk through walls, or there is one chance in a very large number that atoms just align up and make a dead man live again for maybe a week and such. Do we expect such things to happen ? Not really, but they are not 100 % excluded from what official Science tells us. And that is the point: if these things can happen, and they can, then anything can happen (and even if they can't, it doesn't matter), there is no longer any need to explain anything; the event is the explanation, it needs no further investigation, the observation is the science and the explanation, science becomes a very short story, it is only that which we see, the entire idea of explaining, relating, connecting a long chain of causes and effects and such is no longer necessary, the simplest explanation is no explanation.
So how did Natural Evolution create the first living cell and a Man ? No explanation, it just happened, end of story, the very long complex number that created the end point is just a number that has been selected out of a very large bag of numbers just because, for no reason at all.
And in fact, No Reason at All is the Best Reason Possible, No Reason at all, Just Because, It is just a randomly assigned number.
And such for anything else: does God exist ? I don't know, but if yes he exists For No Reason at All, just because. Does anything else, no matter how wild and insane exist ? I don't know, but if it does it exists For No Reason at All, just because. But even saying I don't know does not really do justice to the idea that Science is Wrong: we must take it further, and leave the entire concept of "truth" behind as it implies external realities, true and false, imaginary spiritual properties entities have and such so we can say: Does anything at all exist ? Yes, anything at all exists (an oldsmobile that is a brain and talks to little children) everything exists For No Reason at All, just because.
And taking it even further does nothing at all exist, is everything a temporary ghost and illusion ? Yes, nothing exists For No Reason at All, just because.
Coincidences, no matter how specific and far out no longer need to be explained. They just exist and happen.
Last edited by nameta9 on Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:50 pm
To clear a point up : the reason why the Universe is a set of symbols decoded by another set of symbols is also (amongst other more abstract reasons) because our reference system in terms of logic, cause and effects, patterns and especially the memory of all that knowledge (as has been established by Science and the Man Brain's accumulative knowledge) is a kind of fixed language, fixed formal system of symbols decoded by other symbols and defined according to other symbols etc. synchronized and associated according to how we interact with "External" Matter. But since all of this is just Matter talking to itself, therefore symbols talking to themselves, it cannot be considered really objective, but in fact the exact opposite; the most extreme subjectivity possible, as it is just like a large number assigned for No Reason at All, Just because, and something totally arbitrary and random is something totally subjective and outside of the process of our imaginary Objective Science.
As a small correction of a block of text above:
This kind of extreme Anthropic Principle implies that essentially, There is no "External Reality" (or Matter, or World), there is no Inside and Outside with regards to Matter in general, only an ARBITRARY subdivision of Matter in a chunk assigned as Inside and a chunk assigned as Outside, an ARBITRARY delimitation of one chunk of Matter is Inside (the Observer) and another chunk as Outside (the place from nowhere from which all the signals arriving at the Observer come from); in other words the Observer cannot be separated and placed in some kind of place from nowhere where it can make believe that it is "Objective", Matter cannot arbitrarily be divided into two parts only because it seems so convenient from our point of view.
As a corollary Science does exactly this: it arbitrarily separates the Observer from the Observed, although Quantum Physics started having issues with this...
And Wow, I think I am starting to take myself too seriously with all of this...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:44 pm
Interesting to see how something dead is anything you see, any combination of objects you see, since everything you see is dead (in the sense at least of not having self consciousness at least as far as we can tell ? ...), but only one very specific organization of matter, configuration of matter, combination of matter is alive and that is Man (or better the process of his Man Brain interacting with his external reality, etc.(but didn't I say that there is no external reality ? yeah, but I fooled, you, ha, ha, ha (lose any hope in trying to find coherence and non contradiction in all my BS))). So imagine what could be all the intermediate steps ? imagine a limit of matter going from dead to alive (but not in our scientific or biological sense, in an imaginary metaphysical sense) look at all the dead things outside of you and imagine combinations of them that become a little self aware and so on, an entire linear scale, and then maybe the scale can go even further in both directions more dead than dead, more alive than alive, so if dead is 0 (but corresponds to trillions of different objects) and alive is 100 and corresponds to only one, imagine the scale going from minus a trillion to plus a trillion and each state of existence (from super dead to super alive but much more, etc.) can correspond to trillions of different objects, combinations of matter, etc.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:22 pm
From:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/01/murmuration.html
Science is worth zero because it is dependent on an imaginary invariant, the Man Brain, it is only valid within the process of interactions that a Man Brain can have with its environment hence it is only a local logical segment: a real objective science would have to investigate all possible Man Brain permutations and designs and rules of interactions with all possible memory organizations, emotion and pain/pleasure circuits, logics, sense organs, you name it: obviously the number of different kinds of Man Brains (or simply Processors, Observers ) possible is astronomical hence even investigating many and many, the amount of Real Science that we could write down is always vanishingly small, hence it is the entire idea of Science that is false and wrong.
It only works in our puny world, so then any set of symbols that are assigned to process any other set of symbols is a completely new universe with a completely new science, etc.
Design your new Science, make it wildly interesting, design your make believe, don't be shy, we are only at the beginning of Real Science...
TOBOR AN 8 MAN
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:33 am
So going back to the idea that everything is dead except you, then you are the invariant particle as compared to all of the dead variant particles, an invariant in a sea of variants, could also be a definition of an Observer, a Processor: but since that invariant has a free will gadget attached to it, it sees and uses all the variants as tools, as items to manipulate, as words to put together within its language constructing a syntax according to its random, arbitrarily assigned numbers associated to its completely random and arbitrary free will decisions.
But if there a number of point like multiples - instances of the same invariant (a Man Brain for example) within a sea of variants (all the dead points of a volume of space time and all of its possible combinations even if disjoint and separated in disconnected spatial and temporal chunks) you can imagine all of the possible combinations and degrees of variants and invariants point like or diffused, having multiple instances of the same or similar invariants or / and many different invariants (a sea of different designs of Man Brains - a monolithic slab of substance designated as BRAINIUM, that which everything you see conceive, invent, all signals and symbols and sense inputs and pictures and designs are new kinds of brains) and variants that are gradually becoming invariants (hence all dead items that are slowly becoming processors or contraptions that resemble a Man Brain), just like a solid state crystal with each vertex having an atom on it within a sea of electrons (in this case each atom is a brain, or even different new brain designs) or an ocean with each atom of water being a brain or vice versa, each atom of water is the dead variant and the forces moving them are the brains, and so on, every conceivable configuration and mix between dead and alive brains and tools, variants and invariants and maybe transforming themselves into each other constantly or reciprocally becoming a variant and an invariant between each other and all others, and all possible combinations of such entities you can imagine...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:47 am
Interesting to see the difference between Theoretical Physics and Philosophy - Metaphysics:
Theoretical Physics:
Essentially states How far can we take logical and mathematical structures and still make them somehow be tied up to the real physical world, still have some kind of connection, even though very weak or indirect with physical reality ? An example could be Superstring Theory.
Philosophy and Metaphysics:
Essentially states How far can logical and mathematical structures be pushed operating on items as far removed as possible from the physical world, items as abstract, absurd and impossible as possible, hence having zero connection to the real physical world, but still being connected to each other though any form of logic, mathematical or thought processes and sequences ? An example could be the invention of a new state - meaning - concept expressing it as "the square root of the word thought".
But whereas the theoretical physicist and also the mathematician still has some constraints upon what he can do by some connection, no matter how weak, with the real world, or at least with some possible logic that is somewhat non contradictory and that somewhat still must follow some sense, the metaphysical and philosophical "Inventor" no longer has any constraints whatsoever, is free to investigate anything at all, make up any connections he wants, invent anything he wants, doesn't have any possible constraint operating upon his tasks. But then items as contradictory and absurd as possible can always be connected to each other or invented, just their existence, their delimitation in our mind, their presence already provides them with a minimum of logical and mathematical structure as in order to exist, in order to contain them in our mind, in order to even speak about them they must at least follow the basic principles of identity and non contradiction..
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:19 pm
You can see it as a kind of Content Invariant Machine: it operates the same mental computer program, the same operations (non contradiction, identity principle, some others ?) on any content at all: a Content Independent Machine that generates new content from mixing and matching and combining other older content: only that Theoretical Physics uses content that is somewhat tied to something somewhat real, Metaphysics uses any content at all, nay, the nature of the content is irrelevant, but the more colorful, far out, wild, absurd, the more the content teases our logic and our "Normal and Common Way of Looking at the World", the better, the more fun Metaphysics can have juggling the oddest possible content and processing it in the oddest possible way, just for fun, just to have fun, just because, "For No Reason at All".
And, as usual, you can extrapolate the two limiting tasks, put it on a scale, and say that if Theoretical Physics is 10 and Metaphysics is 50, then what is 23 ? what is minus 2000 ? what is plus a trillion and so on, extend and challenge, invent and create, forever (and then, is that scale digital or linear ? is that a gradual transformation of what tasks into another or does each number correspond to something completely different from anything we can conceive and Contain in Our Mind ?...).
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:13 pm
Alarm! Alarm! Warning! Warning! Mental Disaster Area ! TILT ! PLease Ignore these kinds of Posts. Thank You.
Words as Logic ?
The fact that the Grand Unified Theory of Everything is being sought after in terms of Mathematics and Logic, structure instead of words is interesting. And very strange since words are much more powerful than any possible mathematical structure (although it seems that one can be formatted and translated into the other in some way), can be many times more abstract since for example in Mathematics you do not have anything that can represent the following application of logic to words: The Square root of the Word "Thought" multiplied the word "Space" Divided by the limit of the word "Forward" for the word "Sky" tending to the word "Absolute".
So ((Thought ^1/2) * Space)/(limit Sky -> Absolute of Forward).
Now what can that mean ? How is that related to anything else ? How many inventions of this kind are possible and how many other abstract complex absurd structures as such can be invented, etc. But especially, the very fact that words are ambiguous, are not very precise, can mean and be applied in so many different ways, you can make them change meanings, suggest something but then peedle back, you can lie, deceive, you can do a lot with words and such.
And especially, words seem closer to how a modifed brain would like to process concepts, wildly modified brains having parallel circuits, confusion all connected in very odd networks of understanding and experiences and such. And then compare that to the one bit logic mathematical structures imply as compared to metaphysical boldly and proudly fake and artificial and lying and deceiving structures composed of words.
As a test, could anybody write down the mathematical equivalent of the above blocks of text ? You see, you would have to assign too many arbitrary symbols having arbitrary meanings, so the entire deal of mathematical precision would be void of substance.
The Grand Unified Theories will be composed of mental structures expressed in very much more abstract items than words or sentences: and then the entire program of Science is False from the outset, it wants explanations, it wants relationships between things, it wants more symbols than are necessary (and why, what is the end reason ? the "Intentionality of Use" ? to solve problems ? to execute new experiences ? but these can be achieved directly modifying the Man Brain and directly obtaining anything you want).
So when they ask: why these equations (of physics) and not others ? the reply should be: Just Because, for No Reason at all. No reason is the Best Reason and also the Simplest Reason. Those equations were just a wild number chosen randomly, that is all.
You can also reply why not those equations ? why not anything ? why not accept what random chaos gave us for free without any further explanation or deeper relationships ? Why should there be any further relationships ? And even if we find millions, at a certain point they must end, or maybe we want them to go on forever ? (We can always force them to go on forever...)
Also because a reply different from that would generate an infinite regression of symbols, other questions and answers, a never ending sequence of symbols until finally you have to assign an end point, and at the end point you must assign some final Symbol which really means No Symbol at All, No reason at all.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:12 am
...
Also because a reply different from that would generate an infinite regression of symbols, other questions and answers, a never ending sequence of symbols until finally you have to assign an end point, and at the end point you must assign THE LAST SYMBOL which really means No Symbol at All, No Reason at All.
...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:14 pm
Alarm! Alarm! Warning! Warning! Mental Disaster Area ! TILT ! Please Ignore these kinds of Posts. Thank You.
Extreme Subjectivity is the Only Science
In a sense, it is the entire process of Abstraction that is being questioned: we go from the particular, to the general, eliminating information that is not pertinent to the model. And we generalize, get rid of quirk "initial conditions" and quirk "single cases", and set quirk arbitrary fixed parameters (speed of light, mass of electron, etc.) from measurements without questioning them in order to go forward, in order to find that which is in common between many different instances of similar events, repetitive patterns, etc.
In short we try to eliminate forms of subjectivity, the specific details of specific experiences, the never ending amount of information needed to describe something real, that is happening, some real configuration of matter in which it finds itself in.
And this is the general program of Science: but as soon as you start to change the design and manipulate that which has always been invariant, and namely the Observer, The Processor, the Man Brain and start putting the emphasis on specific experiences such a newly designed Man Brain can undergo, we go in a completely different direction from where Science has always been going: we accept, in a sense, that there are no more generalizations operating, only instantaneous point like events occurring by matter being set up in some unique and arbitrary configuration (random events occurring in a specific point in space and time) and self manipulating, talking to itself, interacting with itself, exchanging Information Relationships within itself.
And of course, generalizations and abstractions presuppose a common ground, and common reality, something a multitude of similar Observers have in common, the common way they interact and behave and the communication amongst them: but in a modified brain, common ground is no longer there and you can have a multitude of similarly modified brains exchanging some forms of communication, but you cannot know if they perceive a common "external reality" amongst themselves: and then who says that there must be multiple copies of similar man brains ? there could be many different specific, one time designs, it is just as good, there are no longer "Objective Rules" or "Intentionalities of Use" to follow (aside from the fact that multiple instances of a specific Man Brain (like ours and our Society) can be assigned as just one specific design of a Man Brain diffused in space and time and connected through communications of symbols and denotations and the imaginary "common external world" instead of being connected by hard wires in direct neural circuits in a small volume like any other specific design that is local and sufficient for itself ( a solid state civilization ?)).
In short, that which our present Science eliminates from "Science", and namely subjectivity, actually becomes the only and total Science (Extreme Subjectivity as the only possible rules of engagements with Reality, hence all kinds of lies and self delusions are actually more real than any reality we have ever experienced) possible in Modified Man Brains, new designs of the Observer, new designs of the Processor...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:07 pm
[blink]Alarm! Alarm! Warning! Warning! Mental Disaster Area ! TILT ! [/blink]
Please Ignore these kinds of Posts. Thank You.
But that is the point: Reality is only Pure Subjectivity, Extreme Subjectivity, nothing else, no one else exists, you are finally your own boss, be yourself, don't have any kinds of considerations anymore (OTHER PEOPLE DON'T EXIST, USE THEM AS A TOOL, THEY ARE JUST DEAD PROCESSORS IN A SEA OF DEAD PROCESSORS TRYING TO "CONDITION" YOU), don't be part of a circuit, be you own circuit, be your own Solid State Civilization: as the way our Man Brains are presently configured, we are like a diffused multiprocessor system (each person is a similar but distinct processor) and the data bus is the external reality, the communications and the sense organs inputs etc. But this is just a machine, and we are just a processor in a multiprocessor machine, but the entire machine as such is a single entity, a single monolithic slab of matter (the ball of matter of the earth with these puny processors interacting on its surface, go figure) : So just remove yourself from the machine and be your own universe, you can do it, go man go, do it...(Also because if you "Abstract" away the apparent, but virtual separate processors and just consider them all as just one entity, which they really are, then you see that the entire ball of matter of the earth with these processors on its surface is just a single Man Brain, a specific design of Man Brain simply occupying way more space, time and items than are necessary: you could probably condense the entire equivalent Information Relationship Ensemble of our Civilization into a small cube measuring one meter across, in width and height (1 M^3 of volume) assign it as a specific new Man Brain, and hence just as one of many trillions of other possible new designs of Man Brains: hence you just decide that you are a new specific design of Man Brain as opposed and different from that one meter cubed monolithic cube of interactions, you become your own Solid State Civilization and you make up all the rules and "Science").
The entire program of Science and Objectivity is based on simply being part of an artificial machine that has no higher value, or metaphysical value or necessity than your own self programmed as wickedly as you want: for you to participate within the machine you must learn all the rules of engagements and all the Objective rules of Interaction both with other processors and with the communication formats entering you as an Observer, but especially the rules of interaction and engagements with those communication bits according to fixed internal Mental Programs incrementing the pleasure circuit events as opposed to the pain circuit events according to the reference system of pain/pleasure guiding the behavioral and interaction and output/input choices the processor executes.
And then, there is no higher or metaphysical or Spiritual or Abstract value of Objectivity as opposed to Subjectivity: they are simply different choices of interactions, they are just one and the same, only one has to follow rules of decency and constraint (and the rules of communication and somewhat survival (as defined simply as lasting as long as possible and avoiding executing too many pain circuits)), the other is mostly free of most rules.
TILT ! TILT !
TOBOR ATE MAN
TILT ! TILT !
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:19 pm
From:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/01/murmuration.html
They reply:
"I'm a human being, damn it! We are social animals. We are not isolated processors. We are not lonely islands to ourselves. We are human beings, damn it!"
"OTHER PEOPLE DON'T EXIST, USE THEM AS A TOOL...
if they don't exist, how can you use them
this type of philosophic sounding diarrhea gets you exactly to what state/accomplishment?
it's merely endless loop rubbish, you will be spouting this till 3099 A.D. to no effect."
I answer:
Ok guys, I take it all back: I was all wrong, I am wrong, please erase all of my posts, erase all of those kind of posts, you all have win, I am a loser, a sore loser. End of Story.
To Juletta who says "My husband and I have six children. Five boys and one girl."
I answer:
Hey Juletta:
Pray, tell me, how do you manage economically to have 6 children ? Does your husband make a lot of money ? I am only asking because of a comment I read on another website (the one above of the ex-socialist who says that there are "loads of jobs", etc.), and so just to have a feel of how varied the "real economy" really is...
May I venture to guess ? I phanthom you have a few houses rented out and make good cash there, you both came from families with some cash and have inherited some houses, your husband is a doctor and makes more than 200,000 dollars a year, and you are a stay at home mom...
Just curious, I am always amazed at people that have more than two kids, how on earth do they ever pull it off money wise!?!?!
You have a pretty name, I bet you are hot !...Do you want to be my girlfriend ? Pretty Please ? I promise I will not talk about my insane theories...Pretty Please ? Or better yet, be my Mommy, I need a Mommy more than anything else (and a Spanking!), you already have six kids, what's one more extra ? just leave me playing in the backyard with my imagination, while you cook in the kitchen...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:48 pm
It is in fact the fight between theories and details, abstractions and all the little details of reality: and in fact both Science and Religion and Thought itself with all of its models, predictions, the perfectly under control world of rules with no surprises that is then always contradicted by the random details of reality: the same reason why Communism doesn't work is the same reason why Capitalism doesn't work or the Global Economy doesn't work: on paper and in theory everything is under control and predictable, in reality there are a never ending array of contrasting, contradictory and contradicting forces going in all directions and always contradicting your model, your prediction, your perfectly under control world in the comfort of your mind. And so it is with Physics,its equations are perfect except try to predict the next wave on a shore, the perfect equations don't work anymore because you need too many initial conditions and there are no analytical solutions to non linear partial differential equations; same with the three body problem.
A kind of balance, the more the theory is abstract and can predict reality the less details are present in it, but the less it can be applied to a concrete reality; whereas the more details you observe and include in a descrition, model or theory the less they can predict, the more you are just dealing with an observation and measurement. But Modified Minds can extend the entire range; from extreme random details only to extremely perfectly theoretical contraptions.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:28 am
[blink]Alarm! Alarm! Warning! Warning! Mental Disaster Area ! TILT ! [/blink]
Please Ignore these kinds of Posts. Thank You.
Enemy of Science
Thought is the Sickness, Measurement and Observation is the cure. In a sense, there is a reason why Natural Evolution didn't develop Intelligent Thoughtful minds always finding and establishing Patterns: because it would have been useless, in Nature it is the Details, Random, the often totally unpredictable or at best the probabilistic (with no guarantee of precision) that is operating. Animals, insects, fishes are in an environment of constant change, constant threats, constant surprises, no need to develop models here, only what happens momentarily and if you momentary survive win or lose counts and that is just a pure chance guessing game. The details are all there is. The history of what happened is all there is, there is nothing deeper, no other patterns to discover and use. But in another sense Natural Evolution was the process that discovered all useful repetitive patterns and possible "Intentionalities of Use" without having to think about it, the accumulation and crystallization of all of those patterns in a coherent whole, but always ready to throw it all away and start over, always just a temporary stability surely destined to be overthrown by Detail, Random, pure Chance. And our Science with the accumulation of its laws is somewhat similar as a process although our Science ends up being mostly a toy we use for ourselves and tied deeply into a specific, culture and value system although we are unaware of this (you have to desire and consider rockets a valuable goal before you produce Rocket Science and such...)
And with Thought comes Science and its Models, Abstractions, its desire to make you be on top of something, the constant comparison of reality against your models, and the constant frustration of seeing all the discrepancies, how reality always contradicts you, always makes fun of your models and ideas and general Laws that are operating: as if we are constantly just looking at our Models and General Laws and How the World Should be because our Model Imposes that the World should be like that, as if we are always looking at our models and imaginary general laws and getting angry at the world for disobeying what we think is Right, metaphysically and spiritually correct.
But this mistake all came from far away and this mistake saturates almost all we think: all of our Indirections and Symbols and Denotations are anchored to models of reality, they are all belief systems, abstractions of reality from the details and what happens and how random and free reality is compared to what we would like and think: this sickness is called Religion and God and it is called Science, since they both love their Mental Models, their Laws, the containing of reality in the comfort zone of your mind.
Abstraction eliminate details and tries to find the general and then assigns that general as the Law, the Master Pattern, but Reality is actually only the details, it is not a comfortable mental model, the mental model illusion that makes us think that we are on top of things, that we can somehow control them if we have a platonic mathematical mental model of reality. But it is not so, it is only the details that make up reality, only the measurements, only the random: point in case, what is the equation that predicts the exact form of a given mountain ? Oh, you will say that we have "General Equations" that predict how they are formed, we know what is going on (just like in Natural Evolution, the general rules, but then the real debate is on exactly what sequence of events lead to the first living cell and in this case the number of random details and events is so high that no mental model, no "Scientific Explanation" will probably ever come close to really explaining it (but even this sentence is a Mental Model, and Abstraction that wants to make believe that it is True, since abstractions make believe that they are true by just declaring themselves, so I MAY BE WRONG and that is 100 % OK)), but then we will have to assign initial conditions, measurements and so many other variables and things that in the end the model reveals itself for what it is: just a comfortable way to contain that which is uncontainable in a limited device as our Man Brain to make us feel that we are in control, on top if it. And anyways, our perfect models of reality, our mathematics breaks down immediately just as soon as you have to calculate the three body problem: that is nature that is trying to us something.
But Science does work and is effective when we need to design an Engine for example, we only have blind forces opposing us as opposed to Free Will Gadgets: and also because engines and chips and many other items are all within a very strictly controlled environment the goals that they have to achieve are very clear, etc. Compare that to economy, politics and sociology where so many random fluke and quirk positive and negative feedback loops are operating (and in these cases the Observer is also the Observed, you get the idea).
And the models in economy for example are always forcing cause and effect: like in economy they want to force the idea that more free market, more competition and changes and more dynamic markets will increase job formation, money exchanges and such: is it true ? maybe, maybe not, maybe more correctly it is just a very vague, rough approximation of the idea that if people are pushed around a little and forced to keep on always changing and interacting things will move by themselves. As opposed to my idea of large public private projects that will create the jobs from above : is it true ? maybe, maybe not, maybe more correctly it is just a very vague, rough approximation of the idea that if people are given a large scale goal many jobs will be created. The entire idea of innovation is the illusion of trying to use the same success that we had manipulating matter, by projecting that success into a reflection so as to improve society also.
Free will compensates the random details found in nature, an ensemble of minds all using abstract mental models can only create random details by interacting through free will.
Funny how the extreme limit of science, the Instant Singularity and modified brains reaches the same conclusion of what natural evolution reached for most living things: that no models or thought processes are necessary at all, the model, the abstraction is a falsification of reality, is a make believe toy, only details and subjectivity exist, only the present flow of interactions are operating.
Like when you feel pain, all of your models and all your past abstract thoughts seem like a joke, almost as if you want to say, how wrong I was and what a waste of time, the only true reality is Now, Instant, Random, No model only Event and Sensation of Pain/Pleasure.
Metaphysics is more honest, it says lets just invent models and have fun with them without pretending that they correspond to reality in any way.
Check out:
http://212.13.195.254/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=145936
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93111
http://74.86.200.109/showthread.php?t=86378
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:08 pm
In a sense, you don't fight yourself anymore, you don't fight random, events, that which you have no power over anymore, you accept that the world is governed by forces you have no control over, you don't Model it anymore according to some Law or Laws, you just accept it all and deal with them day by day as they come. Since only the history, what happens, the observation is reality, the Models don't work anymore, you can't predict much, you can't force the world to abide to your model, especially you give up fighting or wanting to manipulate other Free Will Gadgets (impossible to manipulate and will always contradict you and even if they don't contradict you, you will contradict yourself, since the Man Brain will force random, quirk, will break the model on purpose, for fun, (maybe unconsciously ?) by itself while fighting desperately to uphold a model that was always false).
In other words, the conflict is between mental Models, desire of control through such, desire to predict and what actually happens, what actually is, history, the details, the random, etc. And obviously all events that deny your expectations are breaking your models of reality: so you are really just fighting yourself, you are fighting your models (which are mostly false) and reality which is mostly independent and random and keeps on making fun and teasing any model of reality you try to contain in your mind. The conflict is between Theory versus Details, Models versus Events, and this is mostly an internal mental conflict within yourself, why doesn't reality abide to my model (or really my commands ?), and you get mad at reality and others when you should just forget all and any models, rules and laws, expectations, desires, and plans, etc.
So that is the deal: either you accept anything that happens just because, or you fight anything by trying to impose the world to conform to an impossible and false model from the outset.
And these models are most models we have: they are the Religious Models, The Scientific Models, the Political and Economic Models, etc.
And strangely Scientific models perform a positive feedback loop on societies by making people aware of so many different measurements and new scientific facts and making people embrace a given model against other models creating more will power conflicts etc.: as in Atomic Energy is Bad according to some Science, it is good according to some other Science, and the conflicts increase because people have more models to embrace, more belief systems...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:11 pm
Also From:
http://212.13.195.254/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=145936
"And in fact atoms do have random details and matter is composed of an infinite number of levels each having random details all the way down to the plank level. Therefore there are no laws of physics and matter is based on nothing. That is why quantum physics is based on chance, "random" probabilities, to reflect this state of things.
Random details are all those intricate little quirks you see in everything around you, like the stones on a road, the casual tree alignments, cracks and all the quirky patterns of car seats and textiles etc. Look at anything very closely and you will see all kinds of odd details. The beauty of the universe is in those details. Now if these details are no longer present for the atom, then what is left is a perfectly abstract item or should I say a perfectly mathematical item. In fact when we abstract concepts we are IGNORING the details so we can manage them logically and mathematically. So if the atom is a purely mathematical item, it is no longer a material item and hence matter does not even exist. If those details are present for an atom, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be since we are biased towards thinking the atom is just a set of equations, then the quirky odd details go on forever at all levels even at 10^-100000 mm and hence there are really no physical laws at all only approximations and "chaos". So matter is based on nothing anyways.
On one hand the entire basic assumption of science is that we can simplify reality by ignoring the details and creating logical models. On the other hand, science does investigate exactly the many details that philosophers and artists have often ignored because considered "too low level and not worth the human spirit". But we are simply within a quirk range of size levels where the simplification - ignoring details method of science seems to work, but at the many infinite smaller levels there are no simplifying principles and in fact there may be an infinite increase of complexity and chaos and science would actually be inverted in the sense that the simple is based on the infinitely complex."
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:11 pm
From:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/1256 ... e-fiction/
"IF QED (quantum electrodynamics) is not a hoax, then matter truly does not exist and all we have is logic-math. The electron according to QED is an infinite set of interacting virtual particles described and understood only in terms of their feynman diagrams which are nothing more than integrals and series. The center of the electron is a GEOMETRICAL point with no extension etc. Since there are an infinite number of diagrams according to an infinite number of possible interactions and decay modes (electron emits virtual photon that becomes virtual e+e- pair etc.) then matter is truly reduced to pure mathematics.
If we could control matter at their virtual particle level, we could create an infinite size computer inside an electron by associating and provoking interactions with corresponding feynman diagrams that map one to one with AND and OR circuits, and creating infinitely complex circuits. With an infinite computer we could then simulate any kind of universe governed by any kinds of laws as complex as you wish, since an infinite computer would be unlimited. Hence another simulated universe would be just as real as ours since the building blocks of our own universe is pure math-logic.
Of course this may not be the case and virtual particles could be made up of something else at the distance of 10^-100 or 10^-1000 . Actually the limits of the observable universe is not how large it can be but how small. What is there at the distance of 10^-100000 ? Alot of room to speculate.
QED may be a hoax if the sums where made in such a way as to force them to correspond to experimental observables, but I think it is true, you never know though... "
and
"You can always say there is a phenomena in the case of the NSE (Navier-Stokes) equations for turbulance since a material substrate is always present in the form of a large ensemble of particles upon which the equations are operating. In the case of QED, there is no longer any material substrate, we are at the end of the line. The virtual particle and feynman diagrams are all that is left, a set of numbers (mass, impulse, energy etc.) related to another set through a series of mathematical operations. The description coincides exactly with the material, that is why QED is so precise. If you add the remaining corrective terms, there is no longer any difference between the measurement and the prediction, hence matter no longer exists, it has completely evaporated into equations.
Physicists ask why this particular set of equations and laws govern our universe. Well in fact any set of equations will do, the set we do have just happens to be an arbitrary starting point. Any other set would be the same. The "virtual particle electron size infinite computer" could then transform our starting point set of equations into any other conceivable set of equations by appropriately configuring it to let the feynman diagrams execute a given set of AND and OR circuits that transform one set of physics laws into another. From here we can have any universe governed by any set of equations, and it would be just as real as ours.
Bottom line, matter is mathematics, and I think some other physicists have come to a similar conclusion by saying everything is information "IT FROM BIT". The only doubt would be if virtual particles where composed of something else. But you would have to look at distances like 10^-100 to see any fine structure. An interesting thing happens talking about sizes since if you look at the solar system at its size reference the planets are just point like particles executing equations in their motion. But if you go down to the meter size you will see all kinds of complex structure like on earth. If you go smaller you end up again in a very simple world of particles (electrons, protons) executing equations. By continually going to smaller and smaller sizes you go constantly from simple to complex then simple again to complex etc. A bit like looking at traffic from far away, it is mostly a simple process, but if you look at the mm or micron range in the brains of people driving it is very complex. So if virtual particles follow this trend then they may be made of extremely complex fine structure. And then maybe there is no end to small sizes and the cycle of simple to complex to simple at 10^-1000 and then 10^-10000 etc goes on forever.
If matter is not mathematics, then mathematics is a subset of matter meaning matter-physics has metaphysical elements within it. "
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby Flannel Jesus » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:20 pm
you're just quoting yourself. usually the purpose of quoting somebody is to add credibility to the argument. but just quoting yourself doesn't add credibility to yourself. you are yourself. you're not more credible than yourself.
http://8tracks.com/flanneljesus
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
Philosopher
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:32 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby Tork » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:30 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote:you're just quoting yourself. usually the purpose of quoting somebody is to add credibility to the argument. but just quoting yourself doesn't add credibility to yourself. you are yourself. you're not more credible than yourself.
Technically addressing yourself through any means is equivalent to adding credibility to yourself.
Hence, quoting a post adds credibility to both the argument, and self representation. You're forced to credit yourself for acknowledging credit to another understanding.
User avatar
Tork
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:05 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby Flannel Jesus » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:52 pm
huh? i have no clue what you're saying.
so, if I come up with theory X, and I post it on one forum, I start out with a certain amount of credibility, but then I go to another forum and I post a link to the previous forum I posted on and quote myself, and I add some credibility, and then I go to another forum and link to the one I just came from and quote myself again, and slowly and slowly I can build up credibility for my ideas just by quoting myself countless times? is that the idea here? Just quote yourself until people believe you?
http://8tracks.com/flanneljesus
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
Philosopher
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:32 am
Top
Next Display posts from previous: Sort by
Post a reply
39 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 12
Return to The Rant House
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: nameta9
Board index
Subscribe topic
Bookmark topic
The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC + 2 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Skip to content
Board index ‹ Social Forums ‹ The Rant House
E-mail friend
Print view
User Control Panel (0 new messages) • View your posts
FAQ
Members
Logout [ nameta9 ]
View unanswered posts • View unread posts • View new posts • View active topics
Information Relationship
Moderator: Staff
Post a reply
39 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 12
Re: Information Relationship
Postby Tork » Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:10 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote:huh? i have no clue what you're saying.
so, if I come up with theory X, and I post it on one forum, I start out with a certain amount of credibility, but then I go to another forum and I post a link to the previous forum I posted on and quote myself, and I add some credibility, and then I go to another forum and link to the one I just came from and quote myself again, and slowly and slowly I can build up credibility for my ideas just by quoting myself countless times? is that the idea here? Just quote yourself until people believe you?
The credibility is achieved just as you explained, believe it or not. Really you are looping a resource that my lead to less public credibility, but if done self beneficially, you can trick the play to self credential. Its really just part of the mind.
If you gain from your own doings, did you lose? Yes, is what you're saying.
In this specific case you are right... This topic will not lead to self credibility, and is a ramble, if not pure self admire.
User avatar
Tork
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:05 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:39 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote:you're just quoting yourself. usually the purpose of quoting somebody is to add credibility to the argument. but just quoting yourself doesn't add credibility to yourself. you are yourself. you're not more credible than yourself.
Ok, OK, I take it all back. I am wrong. I am a loser, a sore loser, I am sorry I have wasted your time, please forgive me, I like to be a jerk ! Please erase all of these kinds of posts from the Internet, Please erase the Internet. Thank You.
Oh, and by the way:
From:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/01/murmuration.html
From:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=155045&start=50
From:
viewtopic.php?t=145936
"So atoms are perfect mathematical equations. Matter is mathematics. So a completely simulated universe on a computer is just as real as ours. So reality is base on pure logic-mathematical systems and there are no other "metaphysical" aspects to matter-reality. Well then this reality is completely abstract and senseless, it is just a series of Feynman Integrals describing particle interactions. No, I think this is completely wrong, atoms have cracks on them, just like walls, and the level of details and complexities of the real world is infinite. What is at the center of an electron? what is the world like at 10^-100000000 mm size level ?"
Atoms are full of wild cracks all over them, they are crazy entities, so much crazy and wild random detail and all of those bozos want to describe them with equations!?!? I can't believe it...
TOBOR THE 8 MAN
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:58 pm
Another huge logical mistake is when they ask what is the probability of Life or the first cell and things like that: well it doesn't matter what the probability is, It Just Happened. End of Story. There is nothing to explain, a random sequence of events occurred and created the first living cell, and then Man and whatever. But even if it were a one shot creation from nothing, well, there is nothing wrong with that either, It Just Happened, For No Reason at All, Just Because, For Fun.
And even if it was God who just did it, well who cares ? Anything goes, it is all just a random event, just a wild number picked out of a bag full of wild numbers, there is nothing left to explain, no relationships to discover or invent or uncover, etc.
This is real science since the simplest explanation is the correct one and no explanation is the correct one and best one. But even if this explanation is wrong, well who cares ? Be Your Own Boss.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:26 pm
Please scroll past these blocks of texts. Please erase all of my posts from the Internet. Please erase the Internet. Thank you. No Rights Reserved, all of these blocks of text do not belong to anybody since they were not written by anybody; they are machine generated; feel free to pollute the internet by copying them and posting them anywhere, but please DO NOT POLLUTE THE INTERNET ANY FURTHER ! Thank You.
The Laws of Indentity and Non Contradiction are Impossible
Uh, oh, here we go again. I know, you will all say but you are using those laws to demonstrate that they are not true: but we always use things as though they were outside of themselves to pretend that they are false, eveything is outside of itself and disjoint, everything is using itself outside of itself to contradict itself and such (add as much confusion as possible, the confusion and vague mode of thought will set you free), everything is the outside looking in and using itself, or better instances of itself as distinct entitites, etc. (and the imporant thing is only if the block of text, the sequeuce of symbols "makes you feel good", as if "you have achieved" and "won", and you force it, just win and feel good, just do it, ignore all the clowns who want to contradict you, they are jealous and envious that you have won and feel good (and we can even just feel good independent of any sequence of symbols, just because, for fun, and then associate that feeling with any sequence and make yourself win and feel better ever more as in pure delusion of self, ever more pure delusion, lie, as in lying to yourself, illusions will set you free, ever more illusions..)).
If something is always different from other entitites and distinct then nothing could possibly exist because all entities would have to be ever different and not even separate space or points in time could cancel the fact that at least something, somewhere must be pure contradiction acheived, must deny and contradict the laws of identity: if you take the limit of any entity as space and time and any other properties tend towards zero and consider all of its constituent parts as those limits tend to zero, as the constituents become ever more smaller, but always distinct, you would reach a point of the entity simply vanishing since it could not support the rule of identity past a certain point, it would have to be a pure monolithic slab of contradiction and identity denied in order to simply exist, the algortihm and computer program of the law of identity and non contradiction must abruptly end in order for it to even exist, the monolithic slab of pure contradiction would have to be a distinct, disjoint delimited section of existence somewhat analogous to the limits of the observable universe, to a black hole event horizon and such, it would have to be a kind of reference point against which the rest of the ensemble of existing entites would compare themselves in order to exist, it would have to be a point zero in a reference system of reciprocal definitions...
But this slab of pure contradiction isn't in any point of space or time, isn't anywhere, but exactly for this is everywhere in a sense, of course, the abstractions and denotations continue to be ever harder to comprehend for our puny mind, but the sense of all is pure contradiction, pure non identity, all is the opposite of itself, all is a contradiction of its own existence, the laws of identity and non contradiction are the greatest lie and hoax in history, are totally impossible and crazy. There. I said it.
Now go on, and say I am wrong, go on and don't make me win, but I win always, I win! I win! there, go away cray babies, I win! I win!
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:03 pm
From:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/01/murmuration.html
From:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177939&start=25
So,now that the Laws of Identity and Non Contradiction have been totally refuted, have been finally demonstrated to be false, we can finally solve all of the "Unresolved Internal Conflicts" Reality (and Man Brains, especially) have: we can now invent all and have fun, we can transform reality into what we want it to be, no longer slaves of logic, and fixed circuits, now we are finally free, free your mind, you are free, God has finally set you free.
THis implies that making things up, saying lies, all kinds of lies is the truth, lies are all true now, you are allowed to SAY THINGS WHICH ARE NOT TRUE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BECOME THE BOSS OF REALITY, YOU HAVE BECOME YOUR OWN BOSS!!!
PLease, tell me lies, please lets create a new fake reality full of lies, please all lie, lie forever, make it pretty, make it better, I don't care if it is true or false, just lie and make it pretty, pretty please, will you ?
And Jesus Speaks to Little Children and
BEWARE OF THE MARK OF THE BEAST
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:48 pm
There is a simpler way to refute and demolish the laws of Identity and Non Contradiction: In order to state them, their opposite must exist, they must be compared to what their reciprocal would state, they must create their own existence by measuring themselves (and being measured by other entities and Other Observers ) against what they would mean if they weren't true. But since all Metaphysical Items and Entities have existence because they are independent of any kinds of constraints, those laws are false.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:53 pm
nameta9 wrote:
This is real science since the simplest explanation is the correct one and no explanation is the correct one and best one. But even if this explanation is wrong, well who cares ? Be Your Own Boss.
So just sh*t on the Internet as much as you want, write anything at all, no matter how wrong, idiotic and insane, just BS forever on the Internet, it is all OK, it is all fine, it is all good...
Write as many false and wrong ideas as possible, be creative and colorful, go man go, you can do it, just do it....
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:39 am
From:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/01/murmuration.html
The Laws of Identity and Non Contradiction (should more correctly be named the Principles of Identity and Non Contradiction, since they are the very first principles from which all else is derived from) is in truth a Momentary Lapse of Reasoning "Matter" or "Mass Energy" or more correctly the "Monolithic Slab of Pure Existence as Delimited by Logical Entities" has in order to momentarily observe itself, contradict itself and then vanish again to where it all belongs, namely a place where all contradictions are operating, nothing is identified as distinct from anything else, all is real and fake, and so on, the more absurd and crazy the closer we get to some very remote and vague and indirect approximation of what all of reality is.
Obviously, the above block of text has absolutely nothing to do with what I wanted to say, it is 100 % unrelated, disjoint and not connected or associated with what I wanted to express...good luck in trying to figure out what I wanted to say...
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby Tork » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:47 pm
nameta9 wrote:From:
And Jesus Speaks to Little Children and
BEWARE OF THE MARK OF THE BEAST
So sad that you're the only one that is realizing your on to something....
Love the Diary/Journal.
User avatar
Tork
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:05 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:41 pm
Is Reality Physics - Mathematics ?
The unreasonable precision with which mathematics describes reality has always puzzled physicists. The reason is most likely because the reality described is not really a reality and is much more so a Technology: an invention, mostly a machine, as most of those equations and interactions and experiments and laws have been furnished by how machines and devices interact with some kind of detached reality, a reality that is in essence pretty far away from nature, if with nature you mean the pure random blind forces operating under nature like inside stars (plasmas), the forces modeling the earth (earthquakes, mountain formation), the weather and most of the random natural events that occur like ocean waves and their exact form and design (can you predict them with mathematical precision ?). Of course we know and can apply mathematics to all of such, we know the general forces and such, but the precision is no longer "unreasonable".
So what scientists do is confuse technology with nature, confuse a mathematical model and description and design of technological machines with nature, as if the technology is nature: but it is not so, technology is a very specifically configured slab of matter that closely follows and abides to mental, linguistic and especially mathematical models: what came first the technological machine and interaction or the mental mathematical model ? Mostly the other way around, the mental mathematical models influenced what kinds of contraptions we would design according to clear cut needs and functions according to how we interact with reality.
SO in essence, there is no "unreasonable precision" of mathematics to reality, but only a mostly reasonable precision of mathematics to machines that interact with reality and confuses us into thinking that they are reality. Like a particle accelerator: are they simply studying an engineered device or really studying the laws of physics ?
Matter is set up so as to express mathematical relationships, so as to emphasize mathematical relationships. Our mathematical models are more than anything mostly machines, mental models of machines that are providing us a function and as such easily lend themselves to models and especially mathematical models. Since the functions and operations the machines must provide have been defined and created within a mental model of reality through language, they already, from the outset have properties that imply models and eventually mathematical, precision models, models where you can apply equations and predictions and perfect them accordingly, but because the function is clearly defined and clearly delimited by language and the model and then mathematical models further delimit and perfect them: and then machines are designed and constructed and experimented within a very controlled and predictable environment, no free wills opposing their forces to what the machines must do, no random forces and quirk details messing up models like what happens in most of real natural systems and not modelized and forced systems carving their function out of reality, by force.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:52 pm
At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science" so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.
The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.
When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.
So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now...
TOBOR THE 8 MAN
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Amplify Random
Nature alone does create random, quirk, details, fluke details and chaos, turbulence and such. But by creating Free Will Decision Points flung upon the sea of random (through Man Brains and similar structures and Interactors) it can create even more Random it can amplify and create even more hard to predict and patternize details and noise: so many individual and independent logical segments interacting (sometimes ? every now and then ? always etc.?) and colliding, each with their own special mental model or assumed mental model of the world and what their goals are (or sometimes as just an instant reaction in an action reaction circuit ? or sometimes deeply meditated and pondered upon (maybe for years just for one small Decision Point ?)) as in opposition and sometimes as in contribution and accumulation and all the intermediate mixes create a strange mix of random and pattern, strange artificially higher randomized configurations of Matter: as if Matter needs free will decision points to create even more contorted patterns, just look at all the details (cracks on the walls, designs, pebbles on the street, etc.) in buildings in cities as a result of the forces of random and people, etc.
AN EGGMAN
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:13 pm
As an example, all places have the Standard International buildings, boxes, midrises, suburb houses and such. But many cities have a structure where everyplace, every street or corner has a signature, is different from any other street or combination (in same city) as opposed to others that are very monotonous like London. Tokyo or Seoul or Paris have each place and street with a signature, London most places are the same style houses so very few signature.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:57 am
Also, in brainium, if everything is a brain, then there are more brains than information for those brains to process, it is the other way around, there is not enough information for the brains themselves to process, hence they process other brains, and even the information becomes brains, etc. all reciprocal.
nameta9
Philosopher
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Top
Previous Display posts from previous: Sort by
Post a reply
39 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 12
Return to The Rant House
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: nameta9
Board index
Subscribe topic
Bookmark topic
The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC + 2 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
