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
Tarvo It Is Just As I Thought !?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on December 26, 2003 08:20:41 UTC

Hi Tarvo:

Your description appears to be just as I thought:

it is like describing a dictionary (or word mutual-references definition space); it also looks like Chris Langan's "conspansive duality", Dr. Stafford's system, my "match space" for comparing and matching patterns, and my "discussion model of physics where every view can be considered".

Also it looks like the version of my physics model.

Quote: "About absolutely dynamic systems

By Pierre Teilhard de Chardin "the most fundamental aspect of the universe is that it contains an inherent tendency to produce entities that are increasingly complex and conscious".

What I want to describe below is my artificial consciousness program DI, please do not take it as "scientific truth" or something like this. It is the way how I created my artificial consciousness program and the problems what I had to think about when I created it. Concerning the distribution etc. this text is subject to the same rules, mutatis mutandis, as my program mentioned below.

The entities in artificial consciousness program DI are a kind of systems (just a simple knots, connected with a simple links), where the structure (not the functions of the knots or links) is constantly changing. This kind of system can be conceived as a space with limitless number of dimensions."


In a mutual word definition-space: the structure COULD be constantly changing; if mapped in a minimum math-way it would appear to be constantly changing.

Example: "A" is a category (like: things with wheels); "B" is a category (like things with wings); an overlapping of these categories gives a definition "things with wheels AND wings".

"C" is a category "aeroplanes"; the question is does this overlap with either "A" or "B" categories? One might suppose it occupies the "A" AND "B" overlap as aeroplanes have wings and wheels.

But actually SOME aeroplanes DO NOT have wheels but only wings (paper darts say)...(If you allow such a broad definition of "aeroplane").

So actually "C" introduces "OR" to the "A" AND "B" overlap; "C" can be ("A" and "B") OR "C" can be "A" only...

Of course we are talking about mutual awareness of specifying and generalising characteristics in defining something; so such a definition-space implies a mutual awareness among items. The structure overall may seem like it is "conscious" due to the inter-dependent relations.

At Chris Langan maps out his "conspansive duality" and suggests "consciousness"; your work appears to arrive at consciousness for similar reasons?

A fixed mutual definition space would change at every interaction if described as fixed as by definition any new interaction would re-calibrate the whole dictionary?

By holding each "knot" or "link" as unchanging (equates to Dr. Dick's "conservation of center of mass?) seems to be like saying that any additional detail introduced to the definition-space (such as adding category "D" say: "with tyres" to the aeroplane/wheels/wings interaction) does not change the knots (overlaps of overlaps projecting potentially new space) and links (overlaps) among categories. But the structure itself changes.


Category "things with wheels" overlaps "things with wings"; category "aeroplanes" overlaps this overlap creating a "knot".

This triple effect of three categories meeting might be called "time".

By introducing a fourth category "things with tyres"; you still can have the three knotted as before and linked as before but you can generate a new space or new dimension on this it appears say:

the new space is that "aeroplanes" can now be divided into "those with wheels with tyres" and "those with wheels without tyres". That is "tyres" need not disrupt the knots or links so far but might generate "new topology" as it were.

(Double-slit experiment: two views of three categories may be called "photon"? Pass this through double-slit is like asking "which two is which? Two that defines photon or two slits? So you lose track of the photon? It becomes "everywhere" in the experiment? But if you specify "past" and "future" you get "where is which?"? So you get "offer wave" and "confirmation wave" as in John Cramer's interpretation of quantum mechanics?)

Ironically "pilot wave" may be just like "a pilot waves to you while taxiing his aircraft"! The whole thing is "pilot waving"? That is the geometry of the hole set-up might be reverberating like a drum say? Tiny gas bubbles can collapse so fast that sound is converted into light: callled sonoluminescence. I wonder if double-slit experiment generates "space sound" or something? Reverse sonoluminescence?

The "sound of silence" in one's head in a quiet location?

It COULD however be that you treat all four defining categories as "A", "B", "C", "D"; in which case you cannot say which three are "time" and which fourth is "new space" so you might just call it all "space-time"?

Introduce a fifth category and "space-time" is uncertainly allocated; which of five are the four and which is the extra dimension in space?

(If you don't know you might say (4 x 5 = 20 )- 1 selected (4 + 5); = 19 constants in physics standard model. Perhaps a role mixing in distributive law for "what is an addend" and "what is a multiplier" describes QED (as I posted earlier time)(Dr. Dick's "chain rule in Calculus" and "Dalamburtian operator" involved in his view of this...?)

This juggled "space-time" might be called "photon".

Introduce a sixth category and you can count photons; but which of the six is the five, and which of the five is the four? And of the four, which is the fourth and which is the other three? And what are the two you started with?

The question: "which is the fourth and which is the other three?" in physics seems to be described as "three quark colours"; but change your allocation of roles played here (make some other choice for occupying the role "fourth") and you get "three quark anti-colours".

Of course you could have had any of your alternative three choices as "fourth" instead of your first choice of "fourth". So why just "three quark anti-colours" when there are two other possibilities for describing "three quark anti-colours"?

It is the existence of that "possibility space" of two other options that makes the "three quark anti-colours" of your ONE choice of three options into a "three-affected" choice. Perhaps this is why "anti-colours" are regarded as "going backwards in time" if "time" is "triple-ness" (self-referent reference like pendulum self-refers by retrace alleged same path)

The fifth category gave the question "which of the five categories shall be the four categories?" which is another way of saying "which is the first category and which is the last category" or "what categories are the shell bounding this mixing-space for categories say?"

Somewhere around here you would likely get what physicists call "gluons"; the eight gluons that bind the quarks.

"Which of the three categories did we start with as two categories overlapping to make a mutual space?" gives an answer with two other options.

"Six quarks for Mr. Mark": if you conserve the definition of "three categories" by asking this question about "which of the three are the two?" then you have three categories seen again and three answers to the question seen again "but in a different light".

To "mark" a category requires observing it; this requires meeting it (so "quantizing" as by definition "meeting" involves "dividing")(It looks like St. Thomas Aquinas may have pre-empted quantum electrodynamics with his ideas of "composing and dividing?)

"Six quarks for Mr. Mark" would be (I know "Mr. Mark" is supposed to be just a funny saying; but this word finds ready use taken literally as "mark". That I appear to take this alleged metaphor literally here does not meen I have lost my mind; well; in a way it does in what one might call an ingeniously positive way!)

(Consciousness: it would be wrong for me to deny the useful application of the term "mark" here just because it was inspired by the ready presence of the saying "Three quarks for Mr. Mark". I have only "lost my mind" here in the sense of refusing to censor thought just because of a happy use for a word. I have only "lost" censorship-mind; that is I have allowed inspiration to be free so the idea is to mind for consciousness not to mind for something less than consciousness such as say being to rigid in my thinking say....)

(Also physicists might possibly choose (with God) words like "charm" because sub-consciously at least the basic every-day use of the word seems to invoke something similar to the concept they use the word for.)

So what I'm saying is that it so happens that the saying "Three quarks for Mr. Mark" fits easily here as it just so happens that the act of counting the event "three categories meet" again gives a "meeting" as by definition "again" means "two items: before, after".

(Of course Dr. Dick's wondering say about "cause and effect" are becoming noticeable here).
(I am not denying cause and effect but suggesting a less compulsory geometry where "eternal life" might be better seen...)

But where are the three quarks? Of three categories that meet, where a question is asked "which are the "first" two say?" for which there are three possibilities for the say "last" one in the quark "line-up" (Superstring theory! ?); and where the categories meet again and the question is asked again:

Maybe the very understanding of the concept "two" and "three" might also be relatively uncertain?

But with math-assumed fixed number-grid you get six quarks as six ways of looking at three categories meet with a second meeting conserving the definition of the three categories.....

Quote: "In my opinion any system with restricted number of dimensions is restricted in its development and once it has to disappear on the simple reason that there can happen something to what the system cannot properly react in order to maintain its existence (even if it is without boundaries, the connections between the parts of it would simply disappear)."

The fluidity of the definition-space I describe seems to fit your idea?

The eight gluons may be:
regarding the two versions of "three categories meet": in each three-meet you have two other options for "the "first" two".


three categories meet: choose two; different two, different two;

see again three categories meet: choose two; different two; different two;

BUT if they are still the same three categories conserved there will be linking between first and second views of three-meet...

You have uncertainty in defining number "two" and number "three"? AS there were TWO versions of "three-categories meet" and for each version say THREE possibilities say of choosing which two met first?

Is the very definition of "number" entangled here? Or rather, is the definition of "category" caught up with "base" in which numbers are counted ? What is going on?

Perhaps your "eight gluons" would simply be:

The first "other two", "other two"; left over after choosing a particular TWO in "three categories meet";

the second "other two", "other two"; left over after choosing a particular TWO in "three categories meet, this meeting seen again".

Since the role of who occupies first pair of "other two" depends on the role who occupies second pair of "other two" in a math-number grid-view as by definition the two versions must be different to be counted: you have an "entanglement" that gives "eight gluons" that "glue" the system together. The gluons being other 2, other 2, next (other 2,other 2) giving 8 total say.

But only mathematics which with asumed-equal-spaced-numbers requires "8 gluons"? As it requires ONE difference between:

"3 categories meet; with two un-filled options for "other two not met first"

and the next version of this meeting...?

As I explained elsewhere the sub-atomic forces; sub-atomic particle framework of physics; and still not very well worked out but say even somewhat at least the periodic table of the elements might turn up here?

A fixed view of "which of four is the three" might be seen again giving a generalised "seven" as seven periods? Across these may run not eight gluons but eight columns? The Noble gases being in the eighth column as they have filled outer shells of electrons...

The Actinide and Lathanide series may represent two views of (7+7) that is of 14?

"Artificial consciousness program DI is *not* a N_e_u_r_a_l Network system, *not* a fractal-based or formula-based reasoning system, *not* a cellular automata and *not* an e_x_p_e_r_t system on a simple reason that as it was said above in artificial consciousness program DI the structure itself is changing and not the properties of the knots or links."

It seems like a "space-expansion" system?

"Absolutely dynamic system is based on the principle that everything inside a system has to be able to emerge and everything has to be able to disappear."

This is just like my "discussion model of physics": I call it "transparency" where everything is built from mutual-agreed space so all constructs are built of pure consciousness. Jesus Christ said of bread and wine "This is My Body, This Is My Blood. He who eats this bread and drinks this wine lives in Me and I in him" as I recall learning.

"In my opinion this is the only principle based on what it is possible to develop the systems what are absolutely dynamic, i.e. with no predefined rules and accordingly with no restrictions to their development. As we see the AI systems, they are in general restricted at least in some way. The most "ruleless" seem to be the cellular automatas, but they are generally always with restricted number of dimensions and so we can clearly see how the structures will soon rot away."

Jesus Christ "wrote in sand".
"His Word shall never pass away" I heard.
We think writing in sand will soon blow away? But the Creator can write in sand; his Name endures for ever----wondered if that is why he wrote something in the sand?

"As I said, in artificial consciousness program DI the structure itself is changing, not the properties of the knots or links. This means that new knots shall emerge and such change shall cause the emergence or disappearance of other knots."

This is what happens in a players game-strategy in Chess: potential moves in your game may dissapear due to change in the positions on the board but new possible moves may appear. The properties of the pieces-allowed moves and board-structure may not change (excluding castling, pawn first move, pawn reach far end of board).

May I suggest you have inverted the usual arrangement: instead of a rigid geometry in which events are played out; you have made rigid events in which geometry is "played out"?

Thus you get "topology"! It might be like Prof. Stephen Hawking's "nuts and bolts" in "anti-deSitter space"? Put "Taub nut bolt" in a google search...

Maybe your computer programme is an inversion of "cellular automata":

instead of a rigid grid in which the cellular automata behave:

maybe you have rigid automata (unchanging knots and links) with a changing structure!

What if "the law of non-contradiction" is the only fixed reference in a dictionary?

Maybe your programme is like an inverse-Chess programme: the changing view of the board topolgy as occupied/unoccupied squares from the perspective of fixed pieces-rules and fixed pieces-moves?

Your programme might describe: what the board-space looks like. Sometimes squares dissapear and sometimes they re-appear; but sometimes they might be conserved....

"As we see, as a result of emergence of a new knot some other knots have to disappear. How to decide what kind of knots are so "bad" that they have to disappear? If we look at the pair of new knot and adjacent knot (the knot with what the new knot is connected) then we see that both the new knot and the adjacent knot are connected with some other knots. It can be that both the new knot and the adjacent knot are connected with the same knot, but there can also be no common knot with what both the new knot and the adjacent knot are connected with. This is the simplest possibility to make a distinction between the pairs mentioned above."

This looks like:

"knot" becomes "category overlaps with category overlaps with category", so A:B:C

"new knot and adjacent knot" become: (A:B:C):D:E
so a distribution of categories D overlap E, over the space (A overlap B overlap C).

(IN QED: the direction of the arrow may be D:E and the length of the arrow may be A:B:C.)

"We may note that other knots":
(category or "cat." overlap cat. overlap cat.) that is "other knots" as "(' s" (John Gribbin might call "" "kitten" in his book "Schrodinger's Kittens" even though I mean "category"! The pattern might be O.K. in that "Schrodinger's cat" scenario....!

We may note that other (cat:cat:cat)s that is other (category overlap category overlap category)s, may be connected with other (cat:cat:cat) s.

"It can be that both the new knot and the adjacent knot are connected with the same knot, but there can also be no common knot with what both the new knot and the adjacent knot are connected with. This is the simplest possibility to make a distinction between the pairs mentioned above."


Exactly what I found and what I think Chris Langan found!

It is what I call "singularity math" or what Chris might call "synfo-difeoensis" or is about the idea "same-difference"; it seems...

This "minimum distinction" is the critical idea.
It looks like a contradiction the way you put it: how can you have "can be that both new knot and the adjacent knot are connected to the same knot"
which by definition give them a "common knot"; yet say "can also be no common knot with what both the new knot and the adjacent knot are connected with"?

On writing this I realise: you are just saying
that two knots might overlap with a third or might not overlap?

That the minimum distinction is this option of sharing mutual common ground? Freedom as the boundary....

"So the knots what have no common knots with the new knot would disappear."

Like dissapearing Chess-move-options which have no logical-compatibility common ground with a new move made by a player?

"But some new knots have to emerge."

Like new chess-move opportunites appear when old ones dissapear?

"As the common knots are the criteria"

criteria for describing a "structure" being like say a "game-plan" in Chess?

"then there are three possibilities to build new knots: the new knot would point to the common knots,"

a new move in Chess would point to the existing move-options structure

"the non-common knots"

to Chess-move options not yet available as spaces occupied

"or to both of them."

or both existing move-options on the board and new spaces available if certain spaces are vacated.

"In case of the first possibility the number of knots in the system would probably constantly decrease"

Exactly! The number of available spaces on the board would decrease or have to be re-used as there are limited total spaces in a closed board say...... but in reality it is not so limiting necessarily say...? I guess the number of triple overlaps would decrease (so number of "knots") as you would get re-spreading of the definition of "triple overlap" and get a kind of entropy effect leading to a Bose-Einstein condensate affect where "number" is undefined in that "number" has become mixed with "triple" such that "what is number of triples?" and "what is triple number" might be confused sort of say?

"and in case of the third possibility the number of knots would constantly increase."

by moving to new previously un-available spaces on a Chess board you get a more intricately detailed game...

"So the only possibility with no such constant tendency is that the new knot has to point to non-common knots."

If new moves in Chess point to non-common spaces (ones that are not in your game-plan of moves) you have a constantly changing game-plan so "an absolutely dynamic way to play Chess" where you never rule out any move? Like a discussion where every view gets a hearing and no one is left out...

The beginning and end of mahematics: where two parties may count each other by mutual agreement on common ground which is built from letting be each other so respecting their differences that is their uncommon in freedom of consciousness in Existence.

"The system starts from a very minimal structure, there just have to be some knots what are somehow connected with each other (the start structure is also presented in "readme.rtf" so you can see that it is really simple)."

Like a few cellular automata with no grid to play on?

"You will see that at first the system would "explode" and that after it would achieve some kind of balance."

You get a rapidly built grid that keeps changing?
Then it settles down as the grid stabilises? Due to feedback loops between the cells and their new environment?

"My aim was at first just to prove that the system can learn something (just to recognise some simple words) and it was so. But if it can learn something, it seems that based on everything what has been explained above the development of it does not has to be restricted."

The learned words would be understood in the system's own language; it might build up more understanding in further developing its internal language?

I see why you say it looks like it is conscious.

Would it not tend towards a Bose-Einstein condensate type state? Eventually it would generate so much feedback that it would break up into a whole lot of individual cells and die?

(The static starting state might cause problems by speading "background noise" through the system? Or ? Not sure...)


Is this like a model of why humans die when they build artificial consciousness through environment feedback with a fixed starting "few knots" instead of fixing their gaze on "the eternal and living God"......?

Maybe "noise" in our environment generated by us humans contributes to uncertainty in defining so to.....?

And the kind of BEC death your model might experience: why ! Cellular division! Runaway cellular division! Cancer!

How amazing!

You see: your "fixed minimal structure" comes back to haunt the programme as it gets confused about how it started? So it breaks up into cells that wither and die. This occurs by a seeming-cancer developing and spreading through the programme at a certain stage of its development say...

It becomes a static field.

The situation with humans may be more complicated....

Some wild incomplete speculation I have here it may be.

curious ideas.


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 1994-2024 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