Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hey Luis; I Think I've Solved It!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on September 12, 2002 05:09:38 UTC

Hi Luis,

May I quote:

"Besides, even if you've lost (or never had) the ability to really understand the paradigm shift of Einsteinian time, you should still see in a deductive way how Dick requires two different "times." He says, “The algorithm we are searching for may vary from time to time” and then, in the same sentence, says, “the method of determining it must be independent of time.”

Dick uses "time" in two different ways.

(1) "time" as "any order; order of data not specified".

(2) "time" as a specific order; order of data is its own local time.

His algorithm creates a specific order in the data; it creates a local time for the data. Without the algorithm the data is regarded as free to have any order.

"The algorithm may vary from time to time" means the the local time (specific ordering of data) rule; this rule may vary when compared with another such specific ordering rule (so he is nesting his algorithm time-rule within a bigger algorithm time-rule) when he says what he said.

(This nesting works the other way: each can be viewed as containing the other. This maps to Chris Langan's self-swallowing set. Dr. Dick's paper is about quantized "infognition", to borrow Chris's term. Can explain.)

He says the method of determining his algorithm must be independent of his other-definition of time; of his time-as-any-order. It must be independent of any other specific order.

It looks like he is contradicting himself when he then allows it to vary within another order! (from time to time).

But he requires that any such varying be accidental; not a source of the algorithm's order.

He is saying that his algorithm must not depend on any specific ordering of data; but should you meet it with some other specific ordering; it may vary against that other ordering solely because of that other ordering's distortion of his algorithm.

(His paper is about quantizing that very "distortion"; that bias that each algorithm may view the other with. Each algorithm may have a distorted view of the meeting of the two algorithms. This he describes with comments on the data transmission being part of the explanation. The quanta of "distortion" uniquely binds the two algorithms in mutual recognition of each other's uniqueness, and in mutual information sharing about their difference. Chris calls this exchange: "infognition".)

The unique binding of "infognition quanta" between two algorithms that meet, is common ground to them both; a common difference that allows each to perceive the other as different.

He calls this common information-rich difference, a "concept" communicated (between them, in my explanation).

He analyses the construction of a new order built from a sum of collisions of algorithms. Each algorithm builds up "infognition" pictures of the world through the sum of its history of bumping into other algorithms. He calls this: the mapping of any communicable concept via a sum of delta functions. Delta functions are "collisions that produce common ground (produce infognition quanta).

He might have said "the algorithm MAY APPEAR TO VARY when seen through the eyes of some other algorithm; but it must not depend on any other algorithm, on time (ordering) for its ordering.

Thus his algorithm, if it exists, is defined as an absolute ordering; or rule. And he says physicists are trying to find such an absolute rule. But he found that the laws of physics are in just the relative common ground betwen arbitrary rules.

Be back to explain how Chris Langan's CTMU and Dr. Stafford's paper share the same key. Dr. D. has overlooked something; now apparently much can be clarified!

Actually I've started clarifying it so here's some more:

You hear a knock on the door. Who is it? Add unknown data: could be anyone!

You glimpse through a window a dog with the person on the doorstep. I wonder who the dog is? Add more unknown data!

Dr. Dick makes a rule: the person on the doorstep is unique. He makes another rule: the person + dog combination is unique. He makes a third rule: take away 1 item of identifying features from this combination of (dog, person) and it is still unique.

You know what that means?

It means that the 1 item must uniquely identify the person to the dog! It binds them as a unique SHARED DIFFERENCE between them.

It is the square root of their MEETING, you might say. Voila: complex numbers! there are two views of this MEETING for the person: p + id, and p - id.

Person p + (square rt. of -1 meeting of dog) gives the person's contribution to their information sharing and recognition of each other (Chris Langan's "infognition"!).

The other view: (complex conjugate):
Person p - (square rt. -1 meeting of dog) is how the person saw themselves before information-sharing and recognising the dog!

(Take also the dog's two views (before and after the meeting) and you get 4 dimensions to this scenario. This is much simpler than 4-D space-time but is where that concept apparently comes from. The "spin" each party has on the meeting and each other apparently gives you Dirac's 4 quantum numbers. More on the related physics later).

Now; suppose you open the door; and you (Y) meet this (person,dog)!

You meet this quanta of "infognition" that binds them in shared recognition and information on each other.

Suppose just 1 item of "infognition" is exchanged between you and this pair? Then in "complex number space" things get interesting!

The quanta of interaction, of meeting; that you share with them (them as a pair); this spin you have on them is going to contain the "spin" they have on each other. But to the dog, his "spin" on the situation will contain HIS sum of history of meeting. It will contain "met person, exchanged quanta; met you, exchanged quanta (quanta of "infognition").

Each party to this, has their own sum of history; their own track record of "bumping into things" (that is, of meeting. side note: Lord Hunt wrote a book "Life Is Meeting".)

Each party has a "spin" on the events they experienced. This "spin" partially contains the "spin" of the others. The information-recognition of each party is built out of spin-common ground quanta (of shared difference).

So everything thus contains everything else: maps to Chris's CTMU. as this self-swallowing universe of "things that bump into each other" continues to discover itself; common-ground structures are created. These also bump into things; and into each other: sounds like Stephen Wolfram's cellular automata, and the computer game "Life"!

Since the spin-components way back in a sum-of-meetings become fractal dimensions of the current spin a universe participant has: we have a Mandelbrot set like scenario I guess.

And we have a relativity where you never no when you'll be diving deep into your: complex history of aquiring a spin on things you once bumped into;
to find an appropriate measuring rod (infognition-structure)(selected mixture of sums-of-bumping-into-things) to create an appropriate final spin to meet the new thing you are about to bump into.

So we have "how the brain works": multi-level pattern comparison and pattern-reconstruction!
We keep diving deep into Mandelbrot-world to pull out and construct a suitable combinatorial yardstick each time we bump into something?

Returning to physics: when person meets dog:

How does E = mc squared look here?

How about: "time": a self-referent, reference distance (e.g. clock-hand path is the reference distance, it self-refers as one-end-of-the-hand stays still while other traces a path) (or pendulum path self-refers by travelling back same path).

"speed": distance per self-referent reference distance.

c squared:

light as: comparison (a boson as "something new bumps into another meeting of two")(any of these bosons, these "meetings of meetings" can occupy "infognition quantum" states
simultaneously (that is, they can all attend a conference!)

Speed of light:

the distance per self-referent reference-distance of something meeting a meeting

But speed IS MEETING! The dog and the person met; they each had a distance (a difference) per self-referent (how was I before, how am I after, the meeting), reference distance (the reference distance i.e. difference being "what's this I bumped into?").

That is: me now, me after meeting a dog ...(hey! did a cat tell me this angle on it, telepathically? Can I ask that? Yesterday I saw this cat; I had worked most of this out; using the idea of astronauts floating in space who are debating "which way is up?" That idea came from F.David Peat (Superstrings And The Theory Of Everything) discussing Roger Penrose's "spinors" and "spin networks". When each astronaut spins to align with the other (assume no stars visible or other guides for reference); each has a view of the other's spin that is transmitted to him via his own spin. So "the data transmission is part of the explanation" of the other's spin; maps to Dr. Dick's idea.)

(In reality, there are other guides, that trace back to the creation of each astronaut. Thoughts: In knowing the sum of your history, you know God: Conscious Love of Existence. Have full self-awareness; let be and let Existence be; live in Him and His consciousness lives in you)


Me now, during meeting the dog; have a distance (a difference) from the dog; per self-referent (how was I before, will I be after, this event), reference distance (my options for how to regard the meeting).

Speed = meeting. Speed squared = meeting of meeting

(six possible orders;

(1) A meets B; meet C;
(2) B meets C; meet A;
(3) A meets C; meet B
(4) B meets A; meet C
(5) C meets B; meet A
(6) C meets A; meet B

Six curled dimensions of 4-D space-time!?

The 4-D is a generalisation: w meets x; this meeting in the order of y; meets z.

Seems likely that Quark symmetries flow from "27 ways to place 3 beans in 3 boxes"; and are related to this. (Maybe bring two "three-in-one" objects (meeting of meeting) together to meet: get quark and superstring symmetries. In the past I drew up a table that may have those symmetries)

Now; if a boson is like: astronaut floating in space MEETS a MEETING of astronauts;

then speed of light (boson) squared is:

this "1 meets 2 aspect" of (many meet many);

and the constancy (mass) of this aspect, conserved through more "bumping into things" is the INTINSIC ENERGY (E) (the alternatives) of this 1 meets 2 aspect of 'many meet many'.

That is; there are lots of ways to meet up with two people who've already met, at a conference. YOU at the conference is characterised by the constant (YOU) that has many ways of meeting other meetings there. The '1 meets 2' aspect on this gives all the alternative (analogous to energy) ways you (conserved) can be involved in meetings of meetings (analogous to "in speed squared").


F = G m1m2/r squared

analogy here:

if "mass" is "constancy";

F = G constancy of constancy / distance between them squared


F = G constancy of constancy / difference of difference

using "distance" = "difference"

using two astronauts meet in space and each spin to align to agree a common direction for "up":

astronaut 1's history (his constancy) VIEW OF astronaut 2's history (his constancy)


astronaut 1's different take on astronaut 2's difference

TIMES the remaining uncommon ground between them
(a constant G appearing from their interaction)

EQUALS a force (remaining difference) between them.

But bring along a new astronaut to meet these two; now they have agreed on their differences;
and the remaining difference between the first two gets smaller (so their difference reduces; they come together) as some of their remaining difference gets exchanged with the new astronaut!

And that quanta of infognition is a graviton!?

And "G" is the constant associated with NOW; with the present moment. The differences that are seen around, right now!?

So this maps with what I wrote elsewhere about if gravity is like centifugal force; it may be the force of "old time"; of old "now".

Fermions by the way would be: simple 1 on 1 meeting. So they are exclusive; can not occupy more than one quantum (meeting) state as they are 1 meets 1 by this definition.

Bosons, each as a "1 meets many" pattern; can attend conferences, so to speak!

Fermions and bosons are ways of looking at information, you might say.

In this analysis; Dr. Dick's ideas seem to map all over the place; and so does Chris Langan's CTMU keep appearing.

I have been using R.P. Feynman's book: "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light and Matter" and trying to "translate it", with quite a bit of success it seems.

The double slit experiment; various statements in his book; scattering of light; positrons; the fabric of quantum electrodynamics; the EPR experiment; the real meaning of "probability amplitudes"; polarisation; many ideas seem to work here. Shrodinger's equation seems to fit.
Maxwell's equations are a bit of a vector jigsaw to study but seem likely to fit in.

A view on consciousness and eternal life seems to be there.

Chris wrote in a reply to a critique of the CTMU: "reality relates to itself by intersection rather than by union" (hope I may quote that).
So: by meeting' or by "bumping into things".

And if you live in the conscious love of existence; you know reality.

Good idea to know one's history as oneself experienced it.



Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins