Going to try out this forum

[SteveA]

Hi all,

There was another forum I had posted extensively on for years, but it was (in my opinion) overrun by a group of self appointed "crank busters" who basically recited dogma that they viewed to represent current science.

In many ways their views were typical and truly "scientific" from the perspective of many of the current social beliefs in current educational institutions and I had initially joined in with reciting the status quo in "accepted" science until a few years ago when I decided to do something more entertaining and actually dig into many of the generally accepted current views and look for flaws and problems that have been overlooked or radical perspectives that the same beliefs allow but are not generally considered.

Anyway, I began to find quite a few areas that appear quite lacking consideration as well as areas where supposedly "rigorous" proofs are truly not rigorous at all (rigor can be a relative term - it depends on which ruler you consider to be the immobile reference, though in many cases there isn't even a solid reference to tie things together).

Though I don't have a complete "Theory of Everything", I do have quite an extensive "map" of how much of conscious experiences can be tied into mathematics and how the appears of physical laws and objects can arise from these. Basically you just need discrete perceptions over time and the assumption of a memory and logic making predictions of these experiences in order to extract an infinite structure of incredible complexity that mirrors the millenium problems in terms of the dynamics of a discrete vortex that contains properties defined by the relatively prime characteristics of resonant pathways of information within it and I believe it quite likely that, similar to Universal Computation, any problem can be mapped to such a structure of computation and that there are likely simple physical phenomenon that could be used to accelerate these forms of computation (for example, using something resembling a cavity of elliptical reflections with a single non-linear optical element or by analyzing the sonic spectral evolution of a signal within a gas or liquid vortex).

So that's basically where I've been stopped - the spectral dynamics of a discrete vortex. Though that's apparently not unusual as this appears to be a problem shared in other areas of science.

There are many other areas along the way that I've explored and though I enjoy hearing new ideas or possible alternate avenues to explore, I admit I've had enough of the stereotypical "crank", "idiot" etc. comments to last me for quite a while (the most frustrating part of this were over their claims to be representing a more "rigorous" and implicitly valid perspective than much of my comments, yet I could show holes in their ideas quite easily over time and they didn't even bother to try to patch them but relied upon faith in various historical names or sci/ligious doctrine as supposedly hard evident that such concepts were true - whenever you have to resort to defining what truth is, you're masking over a potentially divergent reality, whereas if you can find a minimal set of starting points and deriving the results from there, you're only liable to find mistakes in those few definitions, so it's best to make as few assumptions and/or definitions as possible - the problems that have arisen from the definition of a multiplication by zero is a perfect example of how a defined discontinuous singularity leads to a plethora of resulting problems).

Constructive criticism is great, but criticism for its own sake is a waste of bandwidth.

Hopefully I won't annoy too many people here, though I admit I tend to enjoy posting comments that show some of the holes in much of the mainstream views, though I've got a lot of interesting material regarding very low level conscious processes and areas where mathematics ties into perception and how statistical/objective/classical views are constructed from there.

Have fun guys and I might be able to bring in a few interesting tidbits for some people to mull over (and hopefully I can find some additional insights from others here regarding the ideas and how to extend them or pathways to simplification or in support of additional properties that I may have overlooked).

P.S. Regarding my personal skills. I've got a solid background in mathematics, though primarily in logical, discrete and statistical areas (I've received numerous awards in mathematics and computer science as well as having received awards in chemistry and electronics as well - I believe the "real" numbers and a large part of the derivations from calculus to be potentially flawed or underspecified and arbitrary and I can show many problems regarding this and though there are alternate mathematical systems that seek to avoid these, basically anytime someone uses more than a single infinite process in a computation, there's a good chance they're overlooking a required relationship between the two).

I generally work as an engineer designing embedded control systems for mechanical applications, though I've also worked with musical synthesis and artificial intelligence.

I have little of any formal education, but that's primarily because there wasn't much reason to pursue college and though I'm not as strong in subatomic physics as I'd enjoy being, once things have been rewritten to an informational standpoint (it's not really about what we might imagine subatomic objects to be doing as much as what can be known about what they can do and the limits of perception and cognition to decode what reality is - I see the problem as more of one of knowing what you are and how you perceive, interact and gain an understanding of these interactions than over what specific subset of these objects you happen to be interacting with at any moment - and I admit to simply being hopeful that the two views, mental and physical, end up appearing as close matches otherwise we're left with the physical/mental dichotomy).

Well, again, have fun. If you're not having fun, you may not be doing it right

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks Steve. ToeQuest is more laid back than those other forums, which maybe were BAUT or phys-something. While people of all types appear everywhere to some degree, they do tend to congregate. Anyway, you can talk about anything here, although politics is frowned upon—but a lot of it still gets talked about in relation to other subjects. All in all, it's pretty easy-going here compared to other places.

I was a computer scientist for IBM for 31 years, doing programming, which turned out to be more of an art form, aside for its need for perfection.

ToeQuest is a little slow at the moment due to summer time fun.

[labelwench]

Hello SteveA,

I have little of any formal education, but that's primarily because there wasn't much reason to pursue college and though I'm not as strong in subatomic physics as I'd enjoy being, once things have been rewritten to an informational standpoint (it's not really about what we might imagine subatomic objects to be doing as much as what can be known about what they can do and the limits of perception and cognition to decode what reality is - I see the problem as more of one of knowing what you are and how you perceive, interact and gain an understanding of these interactions than over what specific subset of these objects you happen to be interacting with at any moment - and I admit to simply being hopeful that the two views, mental and physical, end up appearing as close matches otherwise we're left with the physical/mental dichotomy).

Well, again, have fun. If you're not having fun, you may not be doing it right

You state your case well. I tend to have difficulty with an abstract construct being used as an absolute theory. Each of us brings our own unique perspective and we are seemingly ever just a fraction out of phase with "what's happening now", as it must have already occured, before we can be aware of the experience.

Or is that just our perception?

Question everything. Believe Nothing.

Know Thyself.

If, indeed, that is possible.

Most of our language, and visual media, are the means by which we attempt to share our "personal experience".

We are each on a journey.

We have unique experience of it, even we we share an event simultaneously. Our observations will vary somewhat.

That may be as good as it gets.

Regards,

Labelwench

[SteveA]

Thanks Steve. ToeQuest is more laid back than those other forums, which maybe were BAUT or phys-something. While people of all types appear everywhere to some degree, they do tend to congregate. Anyway, you can talk about anything here, although politics is frowned upon—but a lot of it still gets talked about in relation to other subjects. All in all, it's pretty easy-going here compared to other places.

I was a computer scientist for IBM for 31 years, doing programming, which turned out to be more of an art form, aside for its need for perfection.

ToeQuest is a little slow at the moment due to summer time fun.

Thanks for the info and yes it was "phys-something"

Congratulations on the 31 years of experience in computer science. It's rather similar for me. I've enjoyed digital logic and efficient hardware/software platforms and algorithms.

My guess is that in regard to a potential TOE, information theory is at the core.

BTW, there are structures equivalent to prime numbers in binary logical functions as well. (As a quick example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine-McCluskey_algorithm)

For example, if we have a truth table with 10 binary inputs, there are 2^10=1024 possible input states, if we had only a single binary result, we'd have a sum of 0s and 1s in the output that would equal 1024.

We could attempt to decompose or factor this function to become a composite function of subfunctions applied to smaller input fields, but if we could the number of 1s or 0s in the output, the quantities of these can determine what decompositions are possible.

We can also perform the equivalent of mathematical operations applied to the statistics of binary bitstreams and find that polynomial computations with rational numbers describe the quantities or probabilities of 1s and 0s that can be expected at various points in a binary computation.

For example, if we broke this function f(A), where A is a 10 bit input into two inputs B and C of 5 bits each and constructed f as a composite function of g and h applied to each of B and C we'd be computing f(g(B),h(C)).

If g and h are both binary results, then f becomes 1 of 16 possible functions:

f(0,0)=v00
f(0,1)=v01
f(1,0)=v10
f(1,1)=v11

In this case the v?? symbols just represent whether or not the function f results in a 0 or 1 for each of the 4 possible inputs, so there are 2^4=16 possible functions for f, but f does not directly witness the state of either B or C (our two 5 bit input fields derived by splitting the 10 bit A input into two groups).

All cases in which either g or h output identical results are indistinguishable to f and the output of f remains unchanged.

If we were to determine the numbers of 1s or 0s that f could output for randomly selected (all inputs) inputs to the various possible functions for g and h, the results can be described in terms of:

p(f)=v00*p(~g)*p(~h)+v01*p(~g)*p(h)+v10*p(g)*p(~h) +v11*p(g)*p(h)

Where p(g) indicates the probability of the g function outputting a high and p(~g) indicates the probability of the g function being a 0, which is equal to p(~g)=1-p(g).

So we could rewrite this in terms of positive/true/1 outputs as:

p(f)=v00*(1-p(g))*(1-p(h))+v01*(1-p(g))*p(h)+v10*p(g)*(1-p(h))+v11*p(g)*p(h)

Notice also, that in the example I gave with 5 bit input fields for p(g)=n/32 and p(h)=m/32, so we have:

p(f)*1024=v00*(32-n)*(32-m))+v01*(32-n)*m+v10*n*(32-m)+v11*n*m

It ends up that p(f)*1024, which is the total number of 1s that the f function outputs over all A inputs cannot be a prime number between 32 and 1024-32 and such composite functions are the basis of data compression that's used when we learn to extract recurring patterns or laws in nature.

I should explain things better, but let me jump ahead to a couple other interesting thoughts:

Imagine that some hypothetical being exists that can perceive all possible universes simultaineously. I will additionally state that each of these universes is finite and deterministic, but I don't believe this is actually necessary - the observations could likely be made of an infinite number of any combination of random and deterministic processes and the results should be the same.

I'll require that every observation is discrete though and that only knowledge over time is available (so we have perceptions in time and a discretely organized memory of those perceptions).

Now what form would such a being naturally perceive if some expectations of regularity and predictability were predicted from this? (So additional we have a minimal form of pattern extraction, or intelligence)

If these universes are all independent (dependencies occur within a universe and not between multiple ones) then the observed state of any specific universe relative to the rest is irrelevant. The only relevant relationships between universe is that observed by the being over time (the observations are effectively passive, but I don't believe this ultimately makes any difference either).

So at the "first" unit of time, all universes are observed in their various "first" states and we could denote these by an array of arbitrary symbols representing specific conscious qualities perceived as representing these states.

At the "second" unit of time, under the assumption of deterministic universes (finite universes adhering to precise rule based evolution), any universe with more than a single state will change to its "second" state. Any universes with a single state will remain unchanged.

We can immediately perform a simplification in the perceptual information conveyed by such observations by unifying all the stationary universes into a single conscious perception with some quality that's unrelated to the specific quantity of such universes. (For example, a specific odor arises from the detection of multple pieces of information that are consciously detected as a single sensation and the quantities or qualities of inseparable details is not sensed - if someone ALWAYS saw a green light when they tasted something sour, then the sensation of "sourness" would autmatically include seeing a green light and if such a green light was ONLY observed with the perception of a sour taste, then this sour experience would inseperably contain the perception of a green light as well and the two would be indistinguishable and represent just a single experience of sourness).

So if we listed all the states of the static universes, A,B,C,... and these always remained constant, then knowing that A exists implies B and C etc. exist as well so simply denoting A is sufficient to describe all the single state deterministic universes.

We can additionally do this with longer and longer "wavelengths" of repetitions. We can show that any finite deterministic system will ultimately repeat and so all such universes are uniquely describable by simply their wavelength as the specific states of each are irrelevant to the state of other universes.

Because we're making the assumption that this being can perceive all possible universes, and if we make the assumption that all such universes includes at least one of every wavelength, then this being perceives all possible wavelengths or periods of repetitions and no ability to distinguish between separate universes of identical periods/wavelengths would be available/relevant.

[SteveA]

Now we get to the meat:

Let me list all single state ("stationary") universes as just a string of A states:

AAA.... (the perception of all stationary universes)

And the perception of all 2 state universes as alternations between B and C:

BCBCBC... (the perception of 2 state repetitions)

And we can extend upon these with 3 and 4 state etc. universes:

AAAAAAAAAAAA....
BCBCBCBCBCBC....
DEFDEFDEFDEF....
GHIJGHIJGHIJ....
KLMNOKLMNOKL....
PQRSTUPQRSTU....
....

Now let's do a bit more looking for redundancy and the equivalent of physical superposition of indistinguishable perceptual states within these observations. For example, Whenever we see B, we always see A, hence A appears indistinguishably associated with B and we only only need denote B and can remove the explicit notation for A, when we have B and the same can be said for C.

So after observing A and then a repetition of A, we could predict (via the assumptions of determinism) that we will forever see As.

Once we see B, then C and then B again, we can immediately deduce the repetitions of BCBCBC... (because Bs always result in Cs and hence after seeing the second B we know the remainder of the infinite sequence).

So once we view the second A, we know that all As repeat and we have the recognition of a "real" pattern. Once we see the second B, we can perceive a new pattern/object, and this object encompasses or obstructs our perception of A after witnessing it. So A disappears as it no longer provides information and we instead perceive the 2 cycle BC sequence.

When we hit the repetition of the third sequence, things are a bit different and we see at that time only the sequence:

BCBC
DEFD

At this point, the third sequence does not (yet) predict the second sequence because initially D was paired with B, but now we have D paired differently and uniquely with C.

If we extend this pattern we find that they become synchronized over 2*3/gcd(2,3)=6/1=6 units of time, but let's add in our fourth sequence first, because it will be seen next over time:

BCBCB
DEFDE
GHIJG

Now the fourth sequence entirely predicts the second sequence (it's precisely twice the length) and so witnessing the state of the length 4 sequence automatically determines the length 2 sequence and we can, at this point remove the length 2 sequence as being informationally irrelevant (though it's interesting to consider some potential for "free will" in interpretation as we could possible delay such a recognition until we witness the length 6 sequence and then have the length 6 sequence "informationally obscure" both the length 2 and 3 sequences, but ignoring that ...) we have at this time, a memory of the perceptions:

DEFDE
GHIJG

Anyway, I recognize this can appear a bit confusing, but it's rather interesting to see that conscious perceptions on a large enough scale would appear to naturally perceive structures as wavelengths and non-linear interactions between these wavelengths, related to the relatively prime relationships between them, and these relationships could additionally appear to obscure or physically block information being conveyed by some of the objects (hence you have the equivalent of a space with objects absorbing information conveyed by others ... sounds a lot like a physical space with invisible photons being blocked by physical objects).

There are also very natural ways that two wavelengths can appear related to objects, potentially moving, through a space.

For example, if we have two wavelengths that are not relatively prime, the ratio between them determines an equivalent stationary harmonic structure. If these ratios are described by large numbers, then the repetitions occur over large periods of time and the object is more likely to be interpreted as movings, whereas if the repetitions occur over a short period of time, it's more likely to be interpreted in terms of a conscious quality describing the form of this interation (a high frequency resonance), very similar to the manner in which a lower frequency motion, at high frequencies feels like a vibration and at high frequencies transitions to being perceived as a sound and beyond that we have thermal perceptions and then visual and then ... ???

Anyway there are a lot more interesting things, including the likelyhood of a zero energy or "black" photon. If we look at energy levels for photons, they occur in discrete units, with a wavelength that's reciprocally related.

Well what is time? If I placed an optical detector in space and it detects "nothing" what form of photon conveys information about "nothing"? If a detector is only capable of detecting a single frequency photon, then it should only be capable of detecting this photon, and that would imply maximum intensity detections at that wavelength, but instead we have such detectors measuring various intensities of a specific wavelength, which implies the detector is measuring the equivalent of "time photons" or "black" photons during the interim (yes, this is non-standard).

If we look at what the wavelength of such photons would be, they should have an equivalent infinite wavelength. Well in terms of physical quantities, infinities indicate growth over time and such a zero energy photon would have a wavelength stretching across the (growing) universe. They could not be physically detected directly because they possess no energy (much like the DC level of a electrical signal or a fourier transform).

As an interesting idea - what do you see when you close your eyes? I assume it's basically "black". So we might literally assume matter emits "blackness" and this is not an energy but instead a photon with no physical energy that instead is consciously detected as delays in time. In matter is a focal point of such photons, then time should appear slowed near a mass or in a black hole as the density of "black photons", which contain no energy and cause no physical change to the internal state of an object would be denser in these areas of space.

Notice that durations of time would then become subjective and only locally determined (in agreement with modern physical theories) and much of the universe would contain "dark" energy that molds the distances between objects (because the length of time or distance, in terms of lightspeed motions, would be determined by the number of black/dark/zero energy photons encountered along the path and an equivalent "density" to space would result).

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

Something else, closely related and not often considered could be over the question of how many symbols are required to convey arbitrary binary information over time?

Normally we'd consider this to just be two symbols, but is that truly correct?

Imagine a universe in two possible states - white or black and information is being conveyed to you via. "flashes" of one of these two states.

Well, how can two sequential white states be differentiated between each other? If there's nothing else to witness, then there is no clock to count how long each state exists. A million white states could be presented in sequence, and this would no be differentiable between a single such state, and the same goes for black. The only possible observed sequence over time would just be an "infinitely" fast transition between black and white and black etc., (which would likely only be perceived as a single state anyway).

No, what we actually need are 3 symbols to physically communicate binary information over time and we could denote these as A, B and C.

If we placed them at vertices of a triangle, then we could denote a binary 1, for example, as a rotation to the right (for example, from A to B or from B to C or from C back to A) and a binary 0 as a rotation in the opposite direction.

[SteveA]

(still continued ...)

I believe this is the reason that the physical universes appears to be primarily 3 dimensional, in that it's the least restrictive and most encompassing form of communication of arbitrary (binary) information over time. This does not deny the existance of objects of unbounded dimensionality, but it would appears such higher dimensional objects are less significant in their influence and more rare as it's more restrictive to require both and emitter and detector to share a higher dimensional structure for communication.

In fact, if we look at the above perception of wavelengths of objects with potentially "stationary" shared factors in their wavelength, there's a manner to determine what distribution of such shared dimensionalities objects should be expected to witness in a shared space composed of communication via. such resonant wavelengths. (I've generated some distributions of these and it's unlikely we'd ever accidently stumble upon objects sharing much more than maybe 12-15 dimensions and likely there's nothing in the known universe that shares more than 20 dimensions, just a rough gauge of the distributions of shared factors of randomly selected integers).

Well there's a lot more, including the likelyhood that DNA represents a natural structure that arises from simple logic applied with the restriction of communication over time, and my guess is that, in physical terms, the center point of consciousness would the equivalent of an extremely heavy atomic nuclei with at least one more atomic bond than anything we could physically detect (the natural folding of a DNA strand should be occuring due to correlations across the strand in dimensions higher than we can physically measure) and that DNA could be seen as a fractal unfolding of lower dimensional structures from this center point that could be interpreted as acting much like a conscious nervious system collecting and creating information (I've found some images of DNA that show this fractal structure in atomic bonds as we find that heavier elements are at the center point of uniforming information in higher dimensional representations and these drop by 1 at each stage until they reach the weak hydrogen bonds on the perimeter).

There are also some ways to show that the concept of observations of identical sequential states over time are indistinguishable can act to bias the probability of observed states over time into a structure similar to atomic orbitals around a nucleus.

For example, if we take the three states necessary to convey arbitrary binary information and recognize that a "transition" between indentical states is not perceived and effectively blocks the perception of more than 1 state, then we can take a random sequence find a non-random bias in the observations. For example, A never "transitions" to A, but instead only results in a subsequent B or C.

We can construct a table of pairs of such transitions and find non-uniform biases over time in their evolution.

For example, if we begin with A, then we're guaranteed to next witness B or C, and at the third state in time we have a 50% chance of reobserving A. A purely random distribution should only have A observed 1/3rd or ~33% of the time.

If we show this one a transition table

.ABC
Ax..
B.x.
C..x

The diagonal elements of this matrix are unobservable and "obstructed" by time. If we rotate this diagonal to appear vertical, we can reinterprete it similar to a hard nucleus of an atom and the other 6 possible XY transitions as various orbital states of an electron.

There is a bias in probability such that being on the right half of this diagonal results in a high probability of a subsequent transition to the left side and visa versa ... we have a bias toward an equivalent rotate or orbit around this nucleus.

In terms of a 3 dimensional mechanics, we need a collection of at least 3 of these symbols in order to denote X, Y and Z properties of an objects position and this turns out to closely match properties in the standard model of physics.

If we list all possible groups of 3 such symbols, there are 3^3 possibilities, of which not all are directed detectable in time (because some contain identical sequential symbols), but let's make a quick list:

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

Let's first seperate out the uncompressible representations that have no identical sequential symbols:

ABC BCA CAB
CBA ACB BAC
ABA ACA
BAB BCB
CAC CBC

Notice that the ABC, BCA and CAB could all be consider clockwise rotating (similar to the example of conveying a constant binary 1 over time could be performed by constantly rotating "clockwise" through our ABC triangle).

We also have a mirror counterclockwise group CBA, ACB and BAC. These are each one of 3 possible phases of this counter rotation.

We also have the 3 groups of binary objects, ABA, ACA, BAB, BCB, CAC and CBC.

For the remaining 27-12=15 trinary sequences, we find at least 2 identical elements are observed. All of these would appear as compressions of time or space as the distance between endpoints has shrunk (recognize that a repulsive force can exist simply as the absence of an attractive form).

We can categorize these as well:

AAA BBB CCC (would appear simply as highly compressed A, B and C elements)

AAB, AAC, BBA, BBC, CCA, CCB
ABB, ACC, BAA, BCC, CAA, CBB

Notice that AAB appears, observed in time, as AB and would appear indistinguishable from ABB, as this also appears as AB. So we have a non-uniform distribution to the observations of these objects and these would fundamentally appear, within a random sequence to be twice as likely as otherwise expected and the same goes for the rest.

So we would simply have observations of AB, AC, BA, BC, CA,CB, but twice as common as otherwise expected and this would be due to a hidden, unobservable internal state, or as an unknown phase component to an oscillation.

And that sums up our fundamental particle tree in 3 dimensions, that's capable of conveying arbitrary binary information over time, though with components that distort the apparent temporal distances between the symbols ("spacetime").

Notice that this basically "falls out" of just the simple idea of trying to communicate information between two objects (it's still not complex enough to adequately describe bidirectional communication between real physical objects within an objective space containing additional objects).

But let's consider some similarities here with quarks and matter. We have 3 quarks (which we could consider to represent A, B and C) and we have 2 type of matter, each coming in one of 3 forms, which agrees with the 3 phases of complete rotations either clockwise or counterclockwise.

I did some comparisons for the rest of the particles and found an almost one for one matching with various subatomic particles, though there was something like a missing Higgs in the list (I'd have to go back and reconstruct it), but basically we can transform all forces to be relative and then construct both attractive and repulsive relationships by whether or not a compression occurs during the transmission of a sequence.

There's another interesting correlation here with the fine structure constant. If we combined two such particles together in an information conserving manner (recognize that functions that destroy information should not be detectable), then there are only limited number of possible functions that are capable of doing this.

The probability of combining two "quarks" together and giving a single quark of a pair that's potentially information conserving can be seen like this:

We have 3 possible inputs for each quark, or a total of 3^2=9 possible input states. We also need the function to create a uniform distribution of output symbols, so our truth table needs to contain 3 As, 3 Bs and 3 Cs.

We can compute the number of ways we can place 3 of each of these 3 symbols in the 3^2=9 positions in the truth table. We have 3^(3^2)=19683 possible functions, of which only (3^2)!/(3!^3)=1680 are possibly valid information conserving functions (we're only generating one of a required pair of quarks result from an interaction between an input pair), which gives us a probability of 1680/19683~=1/11.716 probabiliy of finding half of a valid function and the probability of finding a matching pair of such functions is ~1/137.266, which is very close to the fine structure constant.

Notice that we're only using the numbers 1, 2 and 3 so far in out equation and we should expect higher dimensional features to be present as well. There's another approximation to the fine structure constant as (5*4)*phi^4 that results in the value ~137.082 and phi can be described as (1+sqrt(5))/2.

It ends up being that the're a ratio of error between these and the measured fine structure constant that's almost exactly 5:1 (actually ~5.001:1) and using this composite value approaches the fine struct constant to within something like a part per billion error. Yes, it's just numerological, but there would be reasons to assume that information correlation between adjacent locations in space would be a factor in the fine structure constant (for example, if the presence of some object at a location in space influences the detection of properties in an adjacent space, then the relative influence should be based upon the density of information flow between such adjacent spaces, which of course would be dependent upon the ability of functions connecting between them to conserve information regarding the properties of adjacent objects).

Anyway, I've already typed way too much, but I couldn't resist posting some of my thoughts on a new forum. I hope you can find something interesting in them.

Again, above all, have fun.

Steve

(Ok, time to sleep! )

[austintorn@aol.com]

It's rather similar for me. I've enjoyed digital logic and efficient hardware/software platforms and algorithms.

These were the areas that I programmed applications for, such as keeping track of all the parts and names, checking if a wire was too long, etc.


I'll have to read your posts when I am more awake.

There is some basis for all possible universes being in superposition, such as what we see in the quantum level. It would also seem to be the logical extension of dimension beyond the 3rd (discounting time). If this state is the causeless bottom of everything, though, it wouldn't have intelligence, since no cause, but its paths could all happen 'brute force', all of them being 'tried', with many universes flopping but some succeeding to various degrees.

[SteveA]

It's rather similar for me. I've enjoyed digital logic and efficient hardware/software platforms and algorithms.

These were the areas that I programmed applications for, such as keeping track of all the parts and names, checking if a wire was too long, etc.


I'll have to read your posts when I am more awake.

There is some basis for all possible universes being in superposition, such as what we see in the quantum level. It would also seem to be the logical extension of dimension beyond the 3rd (discounting time). If this state is the causeless bottom of everything, though, it wouldn't have intelligence, since no cause, but its paths could all happen 'brute force', all of them being 'tried', with many universes flopping but some succeeding to various degrees.

I know I put a lot into the above posts. In a sense I dropped you in the middle of a conversation I'd been having for quite a while, but the key idea currently is with regard to this observation of all possible patterns simultaineously and the natural manner in which information would appear to be interpreted by such observations into a structure with features defined by the "relative primeness" of wavelengths that each system existed as.

Notice that for any finite deterministic system (a "clockwork universe"), we could enumerate all the possible states of the system in some list and then the "laws of nature" could be seen as denoting a transition table for all possible states (if you're in state A, then state B, if in B, then F, if in C then G etc.)

So we have a mapping from n possible states to some n sized combination of resulting states.

In this case the system is predetermined to ultimately cycle (but in many ways such a cycling is impossible, for example, if the universe was in state A and later "returned" to being in state A, then in order for the universe to repeat, some manner to denote the difference between the initial A and the repetition of A would be needed, but the sole knowledge of A itself does not indicate whether it's the first occurance of A or the bajillionth recurrance of A, all repetitions are identical and hence there's nothing within the system itself that can synchronize time across repetitions - for us to witness such a structure in a specific state implies it's tied temporally with our viewing and we're externally providing a context appended to it to count cycles or rotations).

Anyway, there's a lot more, but as a basic analogy, this structure formed by simultaineous observations of a large number of system has many shared characteristics with vortexes and prime numbers. We can also remap the same model to fit into a constant velocity space with energy/information conservation and have it appear similar to a resonant energies echoing within a constrained volume.

Basically, to me, it appears to be in effect, a very natural and physical representation of Universal Computation - sort of like taking a very large number of computational elements and initially random information, you have the equivalent of an initial highly energetic state that "cools" as some functions do not losslessly remap information until finally you reach a steady state condition in which the system repeats a perfect cycle at a specific "wavelength" (period of time for a complete cycle in the computation).

You can map this space into an equivalent constant velocity medium with information flowing through it and interacting at computational elements, though realistically you only need to emulate one processing element at the focal point of a ring of various wavelengths with the equivalent of a single processor multiplexing through all the various wavelengths of information can causing interactions serially (a single photon universe, though an informationally huge photon as it can be located at a discrete point within a potentially huge space, so it conveys information regarding 1 of n possible states, and n is not specifically bounded, in fact because repetitions of a system appear impossible to create within the system itself, n must be growing and equivalent to a counter that increases the equivalent volume of space that such a universe encompasses).

...

Dang, I've got too much stuff to post and I need to do some work today. Sorry for posting so much to look at. Don't worry about replying to everything, just have fun with whatever catches your eye.

(Off to work)

[austintorn@aol.com]

I put most in the other thread. Don't worry, for I am famous for some long posts, too.

What do you think of DNA being able to replay, in a faster motion during the nine months of gestation, all the successful actual occurring events of evolution? It's quite a record of our history.

[Felix Schrodinger]

I put most in the other thread. Don't worry, for I am famous for some long posts, too.

......and me for very short ones!