Loooking for philosophers

[Meem]

What kind of "god" system would you suggest then? If not uni, and not "all purpose" then what? Many? Variety? The diversity which makes the univers-ety' a beautiful place? That seems just as dangerous as anything else in this day age if so. What will it take for people to come together as one, with respect for one-another? "Only ... "god-s" know-s?"

[SteveA]

Can we imagine that this coin, per-say, exists in space? Would the result of a spinning, fairly balanced coin, "stand" on it's edge with nothing to stand on? A "sphere" comes to mind for me, or even a "bubble," maybe even a spinning string? Who knows? If in space, like we are on this spinning blue/green/brown/etc bubble we are on ... no-thing would stop the coin from spinning but an "outside" force. Would you agree?

Let's say we could flip some "perfectly random" coin - what specific sequence would be "perfectly random"?

If some form of absolute randomness could exist, there's a tall order in all the properties it would need to possess and it may be that it's impossible to simultaineously fulfill all the characteristics a random source should possess (that would be interesting if it was impossible for something to be a perfectly random source - at least from the perspective of being able to fulfill all the expected properties of a random source).

Let's consider some of the properties a serial binary stream of information would need to fulfill in order to meet the expectations of an ideal random source:

1) It should ultimately generate all possible binary sequences. (This immediately determines that it cannot repeat and must be infinite as even the segments containing these sequences can grow arbitrarily large)

2) It should generate them in equal distributions according to a probability determined by the bitlength (2^-n).

Notice that, in the simplest case, it would need to generate an equal number of 0s and 1s (it would also need to generate all 2 length sequences in equal abundance for 00, 01, 10, and 11 and all 2^3=8 combinations of length 3 sequences etc.)

3) We should also be able to select any pairing of symbols and by weighting them appropriately, compute the difference of their weighted representations and find a decaying probability of this value "crossing zero".

As a simple example, if we continually add 1 for every binary 1 seen and subtract 1 for every 0 encountered, this accumulated sum should cross zero an infinite number of times but proportional to a density of 1/n^2 and we should be able to select a specific constant k, for which any combination of weighted sums in the stream at the point k/n^2 is equal to zero (which is trivially impossible because we can simply show that there's only a single representation its current length, q, when there should be 2^q representations of length q and even overlapping these requires a minimum length of 2^q+q-1).

Anyway, all that's necessary to prove such a sequence is impossible to construct is to show that it always requires a larger sequence to satisfy the requirements of a shorter sequence and this appears very simple to do, so there is at least no binary sequence that could be described as "perfectly" or ideally random in these respects.

With regard to some of these, there doesn't appear to be way to use a larger symbol size to remedy this and a mixed base won't work.

A sequence that would work, if it was possible to define would be to use an infinite "base" and never repeat a symbol - at any point in time a sequence of length q would always have a single presentation of each of its q elements, but that's nothing that could be interpreted as a material object, though it could resemble properties of a light speed motion.

But if we ignore the last case, for finite bases there would appear something similar to a requirement that for any set of "ideal" or "perfectly" random sequences, there exist (a larger) set of non-ideally random sequences (as only a subset of the properties could match all the properties expected of a random source, leaving behind a lot of "other" stuff), so it would be interesting to consider that randomness may inherently create non-random things in a manner similar to creating stable references in order that randomness can be detected relative to them.

Along similar lines, if we only select a subset of features that we'd expect for randomness, such as that a sequence contain an equal number of length 3 elements, then a sequence could be constructed to fulfill this, but it would again have other properties that would not match the ideal characteristics of a random sequence - these closely resemble the forms of randomness observed in nature where randomness is only seen via. its influences on otherwise non-random objects.

(BTW, regarding the sphere comment, if we had something randomly diffusing along a dimension, we get a gaussian distribution (bell curve) and if you extend this to higher dimensions, you get an object similar to a 2-D blurred point or 3-D ball of gas etc. - every dimension appears statistically as a gaussian distribution - it's not literally that form, but the expected statistical window is. If there are biases to this diffusion, then it results in other statistical windows but a gaussian is the basic form and it comes in a nice little equation e^-a(d^2), and if we took a logarithm of this, it could be written similar to G*M/d^2 and matched in form similar to gravity or any other form of 1/d^2 falloff. If d is a complex value, then we can observe properties of wavefunctions in the result and if we had this diffusion on a lattice/grid/matrix of points, the gaussian form still arises and we can find properties similar to Relativity arise, including internal aging with time dilation and expansion of objects giving a perception of gravity when relative scales of size are considered and subjective distortions in spacial sizes over large distances because the density of this diffusion is not uniform over the observed space - you can also tie in quantum mechanics with relativity by recognizing that there's nothing contain quantum events from diffusing outward into space (with space diffusing inward as well)).

[jim barlow]

What kind of ´´god system´´ would I suggest?

Two themes come to mind here. The first is a reality theme, the second ?

The universum is not human-centered. There may be advanced creatures (Einstein standing next to an ant) who are not interested in us. The scales in differences I am very sure of. Everyday human life too is many-sided. Our species is breaking up before our eyes and we are not talking millions of years. Even internally the ego reflects this many sidedness.

Finally, if we are honest with ourselves we have to admit we are the ones trying to be gods. Not the omnipotent, loving, moody masculine parental projection (that is not real)but creatures who live 500 years plus, project themselves in multi-corpular environments, merge minds etc etc. Come close enough to the thing to do whatever gods can do.

Who said that if there was a god I would die of envy for not being like him?

[MJA]

I'm curious what others might consider to be the foundation of all truth, or alternately we could consider something that must be true if there's any value to a "Theory of Everything".

Wow SteveA,

What a great mind you have. I had to actually think whilst reading your post. And although I must admit I had difficulty keeping up with you and your ideas, I think it only because your mind is faster than light and mine, well, for humility's sake, lets not measure ok.

That said, for me there is but one singular foundational truth of nature that the infinite eternal universe of all things resides or is built upon, and that is the absolute true universal Oneness of all. It cannot be argued that any parts of the universe no matter how we uncertainly micro or macro measure or divide them from another or from the whole, are not still the universe itself. The universe in part or in whole is still the universe. And if One thinks there are other universes, well then they must change the name from universe to multiverse and that seem quite impossible to me.

A theory of everything might include the impossibility of multiverses, or big bang theries, string theories, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and all the other what nots, but the truth of everything (TOE or UFT) is simply and universally One.

Thanks SteveA for a great post,

=
MJA

[Meem]

SteveA,

like I have said elsewhere, I'm not a fan of math, too arbitrary for me. But my simple idea is that 0 is the base/place holder. The idea that someday the universe, maybe this one, or some other one will crystallize doesn't bother me. It reminds me a lot of the process water goes through due to temperature change. I have an odd view I suppose, doesn't bother me though, shouldn't really bother anyone else. I think of space as "air", then we have the earth as "ice", and on it we have air, ice, and water, and when you get into the core "ice/water/ice." I mean I know ... it's "rock" solid/ice, magma liquid/water, "solid"-metal iron/ice.
I mean, just because I like to think about it that way, and it "makes" perfectly good sense to me ... doesn't mean that I do not have the basic commonly understood knowledge of what it "really" is? I wouldn't teach it like that you know, unless I heard something like that coming out of the kids mouth, and then try to relate it to the "commonly" accepted version, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy? The sun, if you would is like a "water fountain" it rains light ... diffused water equals gas, equals the air we breath? It is a silly idea but it's complicated. I am not so sure about everything forever being "truly random." It seems too much can be predicted already.

Jim,

What does the god system have to do with rather accepted common knowledge that the earth is not the center of the universe or universum? Too many sided lives? How many sides should it have, is there a specific? Many paths, one mountain?

I like to think of steel, I don't know why. In the shape of say a sword. Swords break, and can be reforged, through heat and a little hard work? Are you giving up on the human race, or are you just frustrated? Do you give up on yourself, friends, family when they are having tough times ... or do you try to help ... sometimes even if it costs you?

It's kind of funny though, the thing is I think there is almost something to the old ways, and the days of kings. I just don't see how that would be possible to revert to, with the mess we are in now. It would take a miracle.

[SteveA]

Wow SteveA,

What a great mind you have. I had to actually think whilst reading your post. And although I must admit I had difficulty keeping up with you and your ideas, I think it only because your mind is faster than light and mine, well, for humility's sake, lets not measure ok.

It's interesting that you made that correlation (were you referring to a comment I made before regarding correlations between intelligence and faster than light motions?).

If someone is holding an apple and then drops it, you don't need to wait around to know that it will fall - your mind figuratively "sees" ahead in time to make the prediction and similarly, tachyons are faster than light objects in Relativity, they can create events in which the cause and effect can appear reversed in time (a faster than light bullet can be seen to hit a target before the gun was seen to have fired).

Via intelligence we can also determine events to have occured in an objective reality that were not physically detected in the same order over time. (For example, if you hear a "tweet" and look up to see a bird, you can intelligently assume that the bird made the sound and then you heard it, but the physical events occured in the opposite order - you heard the sound and then you saw the bird. Your mind is creating an objective reality that is not physically experienced and it does so via properties that are similar to faster than light objects in Relativity.

That said, for me there is but one singular foundational truth of nature that the infinite eternal universe of all things resides or is built upon, and that is the absolute true universal Oneness of all. It cannot be argued that any parts of the universe no matter how we uncertainly micro or macro measure or divide them from another or from the whole, are not still the universe itself. The universe in part or in whole is still the universe. And if One thinks there are other universes, well then they must change the name from universe to multiverse and that seem quite impossible to me.

A theory of everything might include the impossibility of multiverses, or big bang theries, string theories, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and all the other what nots, but the truth of everything (TOE or UFT) is simply and universally One.

Thanks SteveA for a great post,

=
MJA

I would agree that there must be at least one property shared by everything in universe, but if things do not share a sufficient quantity of information to allow them to be localized in 3 or 4 dimensional space, then there can exist other exotic features, though I can agree that calling it a multiverse may not be ideal if they're still connected in a manner that allows bidirectional communication, but I currently assume that most anything in the wildest imagination of (wo)men could exist ... it's just a matter of time, complexity and definitions etc. that make some things more pursuable than other, but when you break it all down, there's little of anything that is actually impossible, (consider the possibilities of virtual reality for example - now if it looks and tastes and feels "real" etc., then calling it virtual is just semantics ... but there remains an unknown and could be differences between the evolution of a "real" and "virtual" system - if you constrained the virtual system, it would only be finite and limited, but if you didn't constrain it, then it's not much different than something "real", but you don't get to specifically pick what it becomes).

As usual, I ramble!

[Meem]

Just my two cents, multi-verse/mega verse ... I wonder, who's to say that we are not in it right now, not in some unseen way, but it's been right in-front of our face the entire time? My possibility ramble, swap what we think we know to be our "universe" with multi-verse/mega-verse and swap "galaxy" with "universe." It seems like it would make sense ... does it? what appears to be 3 dimensional objects existing in the 4th dimension of time? Does it have to be more complicated then that? How do we know that it ever "began," and that it will "end?" Maybe it is always begining and always ending ... somewhere out there?


The "really" big bang, that never stops? It's like the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going and going? Do "we" have any proof the big-bang ever stopped or started?

[SteveA]

SteveA,

like I have said elsewhere, I'm not a fan of math, too arbitrary for me.

I prefer logic because the details are visible (and if some logical statement has a weakness, it tends to be more obvious in my opinion).

When infinities or infinitesimals become involved in Mathematics it's easy to overlook conflicts and push them into properties where noone can physically or logically analyze them (just take the idea of a perfect circle - if we had discrete units to try to built it with, it would be impossible ... the best mathematicians intuitively understand these problems and simply skip past them, but oftentimes these details are hidden in reams of equations and not immediately obvious, so the old ideas keep on going as the education system doesn't have much of anything motivating it to do anything different - if people believe they're learning something valuable, they'll keep going, so the education system needs to simply convince people that what they're learning is valuable. Don't misunderstand me. I love of ton of subjects, but you can't take everything at face value and if you think something is funny about some statement or it just doesn't sit well in your gut, dig in, there's probably a good reason why your intuitive doesn't want to accept it, it just takes time to learn why).

But my simple idea is that 0 is the base/place holder. The idea that someday the universe, maybe this one, or some other one will crystallize doesn't bother me. It reminds me a lot of the process water goes through due to temperature change. I have an odd view I suppose, doesn't bother me though, shouldn't really bother anyone else. I think of space as "air", then we have the earth as "ice", and on it we have air, ice, and water, and when you get into the core "ice/water/ice." I mean I know ... it's "rock" solid/ice, magma liquid/water, "solid"-metal iron/ice.

I also see those correlations (and I tend to use similar analogies), though an additional though could be that we're seeing a fewer layers in a potentially unlimited quantity of unique physical properties at various stages. The analogies appear to have correlations on all scales of space. Alternately, those forms represent some of the general aggregate properties of intelligence and the brain containing it would project/extract/cognize those features in a simpler manner than possible other qualities of interaction.

I remember trying to think of what some "being" inside a neutron star might be able to perceive and there are likely ways that magnetic fields could interact in complex ways allowing got an intelligence to exist in such an object and it's quite possible they could physically interact with the universe in ways that would appear wildly different from how we physically interact but in the end, the perceived results may be quite compatible with our view (instead of seeing light, you could have acoustic shockwaves inside the material transmitting information at high velocities - they would perform the same function as light speed limits for us as the being would likely not be able to "move" within the structure, and definitely not as fast as the velocity of sound within it, but that wouldn't mean that a perception of motion could not exist as the being could potentially use non-linear interactions in the field to focus upon specific locations within the neutron star and "see" at a distance, though something like the etherial space beyond its intense density and photons from space would appear a lot like a signature of a Big Bang for its neutron star universe. Intelligence builds perceptions of physical space - if there's something to think about, it likely already possesses logical properties just like matter has specific physical traits.

I mean, just because I like to think about it that way, and it "makes" perfectly good sense to me ... doesn't mean that I do not have the basic commonly understood knowledge of what it "really" is? I wouldn't teach it like that you know, unless I heard something like that coming out of the kids mouth, and then try to relate it to the "commonly" accepted version, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy? The sun, if you would is like a "water fountain" it rains light ... diffused water equals gas, equals the air we breath? It is a silly idea but it's complicated. I am not so sure about everything forever being "truly random." It seems too much can be predicted already.

Yes, it can't be entirely random or there would be no way for us to even communicate, but the presence of an unknown over time also appears inevitable - as a physical analogy, notice that a diamond is visible by the interface or contrast between itself and the surrounding air - the interior of a perfect diamond is not visible nor would the air alone (assuming it was also perfectly uniform - no heat waves, for example) be visible. The interface or contrast between this highly ordered state and the highly chaotic state is what forms the detectable outline and edges of a diamond.

[Meem]

It's funny you mention the neutron stars, one of the most amazing things I have seen is a video of the crab nebula ... sheer amazement. To me, it looks like a heart beat. That's the best metaphor in my "mind."

I think this particular picture is a combination of every-type of view, we know of.
X-ray, optical, infared, and radio.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/crab/
This is the video ... wild ... I would like to see with the "full" view.
Hubble
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080217.html

Video
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...24&mi=7&trs=10
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/hubble-crab-nebula.html
A "white" hole?
Nasa collection
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...b+nebula+video

Pulsars, the heartbeat of the universe! =)

[SteveA]

It's funny you mention the neutron stars, one of the most amazing things I have seen is a video of the crab nebula ... sheer amazement. To me, it looks like a heart beat. That's the best metaphor in my "mind."

I think this particular picture is a combination of every-type of view, we know of.
X-ray, optical, infared, and radio.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/crab/
This is the video ... wild ... I would like to see with the "full" view.
Hubble
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080217.html

Video
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~8~8~13443~113984?qvq=q:crab+nebula+video;lc:n asaNAS~10~10,nasaNAS~5~5,NVA2~14~14,nasaNAS~20~20, NVA2~1~1,NVA2~13~13,NVA2~23~23,nasaNAS~16~16,NSVS~ 3~3,NVA2~8~8,NVA2~22~22,NVA2~19~19,nasaNAS~8~8,NVA 2~4~4,nasaNAS~6~6,NVA2~21~21,NVA2~18~18,nasaNAS~4~ 4,NVA2~20~20,nasaNAS~2~2,nasaNAS~13~13,NVA2~17~17, nasaNAS~12~12,nasaNAS~22~22,NVA2~16~16,NVA2~9~9,NV A2~25~25,nasaNAS~7~7,NVA2~15~15,nasaNAS~9~9,NVA2~2 6~26,NVA2~24~24&mi=7&trs=10
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/hubble-crab-nebula.html
A "white" hole?
Nasa collection
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...b+nebula+video

Pulsars, the heartbeat of the universe! =)

Wow, that's beautifully intricate and complex. The view with the tendrils and "leaves" is amazingly detailed (the quality of the images of deep space have definitely improved over time). Some of the fractal forms I was messing around with generate images with similar properties.

So is it the death of something, of the birth of something else? Depending upon the context, it could be both or neither, but whatever it is, it's cool.

If you enjoy those, you might also enjoy these (these are fundamentally based upon simple mathematical operations but they're iterated over a large space, not unlike watching the forms generated over time by a collection of simple particles interacting via. various fields over time and plotting their trajectories and the density of the "cloud" or the number of interactions a particle experiences etc.):

Buddhabrot Exploration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsWEbx2wOBM

Similar to the above
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTS7F...eature=related

Dynamic variations in a Mandelbrot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wqr...eature=related