Intelligent or unintelligent?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The 2/3 and 1/3 was division, where 2 divided by three equals 0.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6^r, meaning repeating to infinity, and 1 divided by 3 equals 0.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333^r, meaning repeating to infinity__this being the reason no symmetry exists in numbers.... This is why I use absolute fundamentals to view the most basic motions and units of our Universe. Something mechanically has to make charge__What is it...?

This was my point of symmetry and asymmetry to you also Austin...

Not at all Lloyd. I agree, my thoughts have come to nearly the same resolve. Your 666 number is interesting, I have not read it. Link me . Years ago I found that Gods number is incomplete, as good is 3 and evil is 6 they are both not complete unless the number is 9. My thoughts fell upon 81, 9 squared as being the number that unites both dimensions and chemistry (27*3). But that would be 81 motion vectors max before a brake down in motion vrs other dimensional perspectives. I'm not so sure any more but its interesting that you came to an inverse number being 18.

I do think there are asymmetries due to a brake down in symmetries vrs symmetries. Like I said individuality is only part of the whole and so it misconstrues the whole. As it is not the whole so it can't be the whole. 2/3 is a brake down perspective of 1/3 and they both define 3/3 to a finite point. Yet looking out word 2/3 and 1/3 are infinite in perspective to any other. The real structure comes from it being 3rd's.

I think what it really is, is asymmetries arise from a symmetry being placed in perspective to any other symmetry, even the same (the half of half you were talking about Lloyd). Like you said 2/3 and 1/3 are the minimum perspectives to define all of reality.

This really isn't deviating from this original point. As I would relate it this might be along the lines of God creating reality and us defining it, which is funny because thats what we are really doing, trying to define reality in TOE.

[greenbug]

They define each other, alone they maybe infinite/abstract or even absolute. Yet they wouldn't be any thing if they weren't defined by them selves or the whole.

If by perspective .666^ was analyzed by .333^ then .333^ would see .666^ as finite.. That is 2/3 is finite to 1/3 but infinite to 3/3.. Along the lines as what I was saying the symmetry is off because of other symmetries. .333^ is half of .666^..

.333^ * 2 = .666^ .666^ / 2 = .333^ The wholeness is in the symmetry of all the numbers not a single number.

Like adding all the numbers from 1 to 100.. its easy to add 1+99, 2+98, 3+ 97.. and so on left over 50 and 100 =5050.. The symmetry is dependent on the numbers with in a system.

Asymmetry is in individuality, as I was saying.

[labelwench]

Asymmetry is in individuality, as I was saying.
Originally posted by Greenbug

Asymmetry in individuals is also expressed as 'handedness', with very few persons being ambidextrous, and even then, showing a marked preference for one side in the utilization of fine motor skills, and likewise in animals, with more horses being inclined to favor travel to the left, at least in the northern hemisphere.

A cute codicil to the post on 3's.

In retail, some price combinations are exceedingly uncommon. Last night, one of our frozen food lines came down priced at $3.33 per unit. I'm trying to recall when in 5 years of pricing, if I have ever seen that price come down on any item in the store. It was just too unusual of a coincidence not to mention.

Regards,

LW

[austintorn@aol.com]

That is a good deal for buyers, for they got money off of what was supposed to cost 3.33333333…

[Stella]

Greenbug, to your original post: I've thought, in light of Hawking's revelation that God is unnecessary, that the essence of the problem is a lack of congruence in the definitions of God (and there also seems to be 1 per mind, everevolving). For instance, if we use Buddha's definition, that our sense of separation is illusory, that everything that exists is [from] One [point] but manifesting spectrally for the very purpose of physical existence, then we don't have a disagreement with the current scientific view of the big bang and what evolved from it. Define intelligence...because we have no scale other than that we have experienced...nonetheless assume mankind is "intelligent"...glancing at any aspect of nature we find so much repetition that we know we are not the only intelligent creatures in the universe and that it is likely to be a universal element of nature. As you put it, "a reflection of what already is". So your question is, what began it? My thought is that an initial point of One cannot actually "exist" without passing through the prism of the physical realm. There, we are tethered securely to the realm by opposities. Each opposite balances and collectively equals the 0 from whence it all came. Intelligence is part of the equation. Existing without life, without consciousness and intelligence is not existing, and without intelligence, life will fail. Incidentally, in terms of neuroscience, I wrote a paper about indications that REM is a kind of autonomic intelligence guaranteed by nature for problem-solving and survival. This includes our animal kin. So intelligence albeit in variable scales is absolutely necessary for life.

[austintorn@aol.com]

My thought is that an initial point of One cannot actually "exist" without passing through the prism of the physical realm. There, we are tethered securely to the realm by opposites. Each opposite balances and collectively equals the 0 from whence it all came.

Hey, Stella, this is great! This is what Nobody and I have been saying.

See Nobody’s thread (maybe go near the end, for now, or maybe 10 pages back, since Nobody just returned from the grave):

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...-now-here.html

and also the more recent parts of Bogie’s thread:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...gy-my-toe.html

The lack of anything is the none, which, obviously didn’t happen, and can’t happen; but, evidently it tries to happen, but is perfectly unstable, as the simplest state would have to be, for, of what else could existence be made of but the negative and positive distributions of opposites that are the balance of ‘nothing’.

So then, since Nothing(the none/0/a lack of anything) can’t be (or stay), then something has to( which is all very real); thus, there is a connection there—a link of nothing to everything; yet, the completely solid everything(the one) cannot exist either, which is the back link and the connection, again, to the in-between, which is the something, better called the sum-thing, that necessarily finite mid-point, as seen, for example, in one of its instances: the exact center of infinite largeness and infinite smallness.

Why is the universe so large? It is because a point is so small.

(I don't think Greenbug is around much anymore, but he comes along sometimes)

[Nobody Nowhere]

Hey, Stella, this is great! This is what Nobody and I have been saying.

See Nobody’s thread (maybe go near the end, for now, or maybe 10 pages back, since Nobody just returned from the grave):

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...-now-here.html

and also the more recent parts of Bogie’s thread:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...gy-my-toe.html

The lack of anything is the none, which, obviously didn’t happen, and can’t happen; but, evidently it tries to happen, but is perfectly unstable, as the simplest state would have to be, for, of what else could existence be made of but the negative and positive distributions of opposites that are the balance of ‘nothing’.

So then, since Nothing(the none/0/a lack of anything) can’t be (or stay), then something has to( which is all very real); thus, there is a connection there—a link of nothing to everything; yet, the completely solid everything(the one) cannot exist either, which is the back link and the connection, again, to the in-between, which is the something, better called the sum-thing, that necessarily finite mid-point, as seen, for example, in one of its instances: the exact center of infinite largeness and infinite smallness.

Why is the universe so large? It is because a point is so small.

(I don't think Greenbug is around much anymore, but he comes along sometimes)

"...yet, the completely solid everything(the one) cannot exist either..."

I think it's possible that we're all on the same (blank) page! I can't wait to see the final picture.

[SteveA]

Regarding randomness - how can a specific instances of something be considered to be random?

As an example, consider the question of determining which of these binary sequences is random or not, or more random than another:

a) 000000000000
b) 101010101010
c) 111011001011
d) 111111111111

Are any of these specifically random or not. Alternately, what's the probability that any of these aren't random? (Sort of a catch-22)

Can randomness be something that's an arbitrarily assigned property? If so, could it be the designation of randomness or non-randomness itself that random (or non-random)?

Consider this - if we let go of an apple and it falls, that appears a cause and effect relationship that's quite predictable and non-random. On the other hand, the fact that apples, gravity and the ability to pick things up and release them could be something more random/arbitrary/undetermined from some larger perspective - the question appears to be whether or not things could have been different and if so, what caused a selection of one specific form to be present versus some other form? (It's also interesting to consider what form of united (and non-random) structure would appear to have to exist, if such a selection was possible)

Something else to consider is that if things are fundamentally free (or perfectly constrained) to be what they desire to be or are self-determined to be, then it could be that such a determination arising from those self-imposed aspects that have no significance relative to those desires, or unchanging aspects of self, are "free parameters" that can be altered.

In other words, let's say there are 3 possible actions that could be done. If A and B are both equal in value and costs, but C is less desirable, then a freedom with respect to the selected action would appear to say that either A or B can be selected and any form of self-determined properties would not apply to which of these two possibilities occured.

So it could be interesting to look at the possibility that "random" influences either supply some desirable quality or affect things that have no fundamental significance (for example, it could be that predetermination would be unable to create all combinations of the equally valued A and B states, which might be in some ways preferrable to a rigid determination as either A or B. Is there value in creativity and exploration? If things are driven by the equivalent of desires, and those desires cannot be enumerated or if there exists a desire for a form of growth, creativity or exploration etc., then randomness could be a useful source of entropy - for example, how could any of A, B or C be known to exist or any useful selection made, if no prior experience or learning was available? If something begins with nothing any number of unknowns would appear indistinguishable from the one selected. It would only be in hindsight and relative to the past or memory that any form of bias would appear available. Any values outside that would appear to have to be preexisting and could be potentially embedded as components of that process itself)

[SteveA]

As an addition to my last post. There's a fundamental trade-off in artificial learning algorithms and that regards the costs of exploration versus the benefits of taking advantage of previous knowledge (exploration versus exploitation).

In the short run, it's overall better to skip exploration and take advantage of beneficial states that are already known. As the window of time over which things are evaluated, this shifts more toward a value in longer-term views or exploration.

Now imagine that we had a scale from 0 to 100% (or a real numbered probability from 0 to 1) in which a binary decision was made to either explore some new actions or take advantage of currently known beneficial actions.

As we approached infinite scales of time, this value should move toward 100% exploration (this is made under the assumption that there exists a persistent system with predictable benefits that can be repeated realized).

On the other hand, simply setting this to 100% would appear to gain nothing as no acquired values are every utilized, and ultimately this percentage should drop near 0%, but never precisely reach 0% if the complexity of the system and time are unbounded (unless there's some manner to know that an optimal state is reached).

If we look at what forms of algorithms could provide such forms of dynamics over time to generate such binary sequences, these, in themself, could grow quite complex in generating larger and larger period structures and could be quite complex and chaotic in themselves.

Here's something to consider from a more conventional view - if there was any evolutionary benefit to this, could and would nature utilize it and what factors could influence the classes of optimal forms? (I'm certain this is already a part of genetics and we can see it in life itself - children tend to explore and take more risks than adults and are more naturally adept at learning new subjects than adults - the ratio of exploratory versus exploitative actions is much higher in children)

Another interesting extrapolation here - if we allowed this window of time to be infinite, then what would the most intelligent choice be? Without any exploration the value of an initial state would be absolute and relative to nothing. With solely exploration, the value would be a pure "mean" of whatever existed. Any finite window of determination involved would lead to finite control of those probabilities - in that case, it would appear that an optimal decision could be to minimize the exploration component to its minimum, non-zero value possible and so that would be like stacking everything in favor of the most beneficial circumstances possible, but allowing the possibility of a random event nonetheless.

I wonder what form such an algorithm could appear as ... how long a period clock can be made with finite resources? That's probably another science in itself.

[greenbug]

Greenbug, to your original post: I've thought, in light of Hawking's revelation that God is unnecessary, that the essence of the problem is a lack of congruence in the definitions of God (and there also seems to be 1 per mind, everevolving). For instance, if we use Buddha's definition, that our sense of separation is illusory, that everything that exists is [from] One [point] but manifesting spectrally for the very purpose of physical existence, then we don't have a disagreement with the current scientific view of the big bang and what evolved from it. Define intelligence...because we have no scale other than that we have experienced...nonetheless assume mankind is "intelligent"...glancing at any aspect of nature we find so much repetition that we know we are not the only intelligent creatures in the universe and that it is likely to be a universal element of nature. As you put it, "a reflection of what already is". So your question is, what began it? My thought is that an initial point of One cannot actually "exist" without passing through the prism of the physical realm. There, we are tethered securely to the realm by opposities. Each opposite balances and collectively equals the 0 from whence it all came. Intelligence is part of the equation. Existing without life, without consciousness and intelligence is not existing, and without intelligence, life will fail. Incidentally, in terms of neuroscience, I wrote a paper about indications that REM is a kind of autonomic intelligence guaranteed by nature for problem-solving and survival. This includes our animal kin. So intelligence albeit in variable scales is absolutely necessary for life.

Well my original idea, for this thread, is to question how well we understand intelligent or unintelligent design. Something that is natural might seem to be intelligent, but you cant call it intelligent if no one thought it up, or so to speak. The prism that keeps us here, action and reaction, is simply a reflection of what is. When something becomes so diverse singularly that it no longer defines its self.

“Define intelligence...because we have no scale other than that we have experienced...nonetheless assume mankind is "intelligent".” I think you got what I was saying.

“So your question is, what began it? “ I wouldn’t say that I know what began it, my questin is more… Is the simple action of reflection intelligence? Which is strange to think. Reacting upon what has happened or what exists, isn’t reacting at all but merely accepting that there is difference. The acceptance is to look inward and know that one is different. I guess that all comes down to three points, as you put it all tethered together to equate 0. 3=0 is a strange concept and the difference between intelligent and unintelligent as well, the strange thing is that they are the same. Well not so strange it just changes our concept.

Oh and I’m here in the background I read the threads maybe two or three days a week but I just don’t have a whole lot to say. Some conversations are just a little out there for me and sometimes my points of view seem repetitive and I don’t want to annoy any one …