Banned at ISCID over CTMU

[Ted Hoffman]

Parallel asked him to specify which tests he did to score such a high IQ score. He tried to downplay it. Parallel pressed for evidence. Langan started to crack. I could tell from his soggy posts that his sweat was flooding his keyboard.

I reread this past of his earlier post:

Remember, even if I were nothing but a big dummy myself, the CTMU is tautological, and that means I couldn't lose an argument over it if I tried. .

I said to myself "thats it". He has just walked around a question successfully and I called him to answer it.

He cracked. Whined at the moderator and effectively got me banned from exposing his pet theory for what it was.

My crime ?
(from Langans words) :
1. Instigating trouble
2. Fomenting discord through the importation of interpersonal hostility from other forums
3. Damaging criticism (he's got a soft underbelly).

He summarised it thusly:
...Brainstorms was not supposed to be about instigating trouble and fomenting discord through the importation of interpersonal hostility from other forums...

...constructive and insightful criticism can help one to refine, clarify or correct one's ideas, and I've never held myself forth as an a priori exception. But sadly, this is not the kind of criticism we've been seeing from Jacob

Is there ANY criticism from ANYONE that can help refine, clarify and correct the ideas of a superbrain whose IQ scores have skyrocketed beyond the highest possible score by humans?

He pretended to throw the gauntlet - and when I showed readiness to pick it, he hastily retracted it.

At least Dembski and Behe refine their ideas when they are stumped.

If we have CTMU proponents or sympathizers here, perhaps they can answer the questions Chris couldnt answer in the link below.

Readressing Reality Theory and Information in the Holographic Universe (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-5.html)

[RufusAtticus]

What did you actually post that got you banned?

[pangloss]

That is how things work there. It is the same at ARN. The pretend to want to generate 'healthy' discussion, but if that discussion includes criticism, then suddenly you are just a mudslinger, etc.

Mike Gene was/is famous for that - both at ARN and ISCID. He would post things for 'discussion/criticism', but if you pointed out errors, he went iunto defensive mode, and the cheerleaders went into high gear.

Fact is, those boards are not for discussion, debate, etc., they are places for anti-'Darwinists' to post their gibberish and receive accolades form like-monded individuals.

[KC]

It's not like you weren't warned ;)

KC

[Clutch]

Parallel then asks "How can an infinite syntax be known or evaluated?" As supporting examples of how SCSPL syntax can be referred to and implicated in mathematical expressions without finite enumeration, consider N (the natural numbers), R (the real numbers), aleph nought (denumerable infinity), sqrt(2) (an irrational number which evaluates to a nonrepeating decimal that cannot be finitely specified), and pi (a transcendental number that is the root of no algebraic equation). I could, of course, go on at considerable length, but as we can see, the quality of the objection merits no such effort.The syntax of N is given in just a few lines, by the Peano-Dedekind axioms. That there are countably infinitely many naturals is not the same as N's having a finitely unspecifiable syntax.

I could, of course, go on at considerable length, but as we can see...

Finish that as you wish.

[KeithHarwood]

Originally posted by Clutch
The syntax of N is given in just a few lines, by the Peano-Dedekind axioms. That there are countably infinitely many naturals is not the same as N's having a finitely unspecifiable syntax.

I could, of course, go on at considerable length, but as we can see...

Finish that as you wish. [/B]

Syntaxes with an infinite number of rules can also be expressed in finite form. Best example is vanWijngaarten grammars, most famously used in defining the syntax of Algol 68.

[Ted Hoffman]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
What did you actually post that got you banned?
This was my last post.
This is the first time I am actually experiencing Langans monumental word-twisting ability. He took my words, twisted their meaning and then attacked them in their novel form. I do not know whether he does this for his personal amusement or just for the cheap thrill of annoying people.

I never suggested ARN as a neutral board and I never accused Langan of intellectual bullying. I made it clear that I was stating other peoples opinions. Indeed, I admitted I don't know what a neutral board means.

Just to be clear, "Neutral board" is a contradiction in terms - oxymoron. Every board set up has some ideological persuasion of one sort or the other. I provided a link to sample debates at infidels where we debate with theists like Langan. The objective was to demonstrate to Langan that even at that site, one can conduct a civil debate without ANYBODY interrupting. Nobody will call him an IDiot, or subject him to vituperation and belittling. And moderators do NOT participate in formal debates and discussions. They only facilitate.

Its precisely because we want to shut out the overzealous minions that are always hovering around Langan (with his vaunted IQ score quickly generating personality cults) that I suggested a place where Langan can debate one-on-one with one person.

But it seems the thought of debating formally without the sweet music of your cheering acolytes is not exactly cheering.

I guess the gauntlet has been retracted due to a "technicality" - lack of a "neutral board". There will be no debate after all.

{Jacob tells the patiently waiting professors that Langan will not be debated due to some "technicality"}

I find it very amusing that Langan thinks what I am doing is "hounding" him. Ah, the big guy has a sense of humour after all .

Now, back to what Langan characterises as my error streak.

Langan states: "Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax."

This means absolutely nothing. Its an example of Langan saying something because he has nothing to say. He has not answered the question. What he has done is make a correct but tangential statement that is portent with meaning. Giving us the illusion that he has actually answered the question. I believe in logic its called a red herring. He has introduced new ideas that keep our minds occupied while he walks round the question.

He was asked about CTMU, he talks about recognition and cognitive syntax. The debate is shifted such that the questioner is made to feel the only way of proceeding with the debate is to challenge the response - which, on the face of it, is correct. The questioner is made to feel "stumped" and if unsophisticated, will initiate a different line of questioning.
An air of "the question has been answered" is established yet there has been no real answer.

He has shifted the argument and made it seem that the question was challenging the idea that "perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax". That was not what the question was challenging.

Can Langan provide a clear example of what falls under "cognitive syntax" and demonstrate how it corresponds with an example of observable reality - within the CTMU framework? (I recommend you demonstrate how ideas like UBT, conspansion, syndiffeonesis, SCSPL map to our universe/reality - examples of what CTMU claims outside common knowledge)

And more importantly, show how it changes our current knowledge about reality or even causality.

Can you provide examples of phenomena exhibiting conspansion?

If I put a live hen in a polythene bag, can we say they exhibit syndiffeonesis?
How is syndiffeonesis useful in our understanding of reality? And how practical is this understanding as far as, for example, biology is concerned? Can syndiffeonesis help us understand how fertilization takes place?

How different is telesis and the UBT from the platonic concepts of "emanation" and aeon respectively - besides the heavy cloak of logic, neologisms and mathematics? Holotheism seems to be a manifestation of neo-platonism - would that be correct? If not, explain.

Would I be correct to state that the UBT is also what you call "the mind of God"?

[and while at it, please define "reality" since I have encountered the phrase "reality and its contents" in your work]

As far as "recognition" and cognitive-perceptual mapping goes, Langan is equivocating (because CTMU is not just about recognition). When we perceive a mirage as a pool of water - is the cognitive-perceptual mapping broken - how does CTMU explain this?

More importantly, Langan is using "recognition" synonymously with CTMU. When asked how he will extablish correspondence between CTMU concepts/objects with real life phenomena, he states cognitive-syntax maps with reality. Of course cognitive syntax [sometimes] maps with reality, but cognitive syntax does not have UBT, conspansion, teleologic evolution, hologic identity and a whole bunch of other weird stuff in CTMU - how do they map with perceptual reality and how do we detect them?.

You can't sneak in CTMU in the guise of "cognitive syntax". I know CTMU subsumes cognitive syntax. But you cant use one aspect of CTMU as CTMU. That is misleading. The fact that an aspect of CTMU is self-evident does not mean that CTMU is true.

Consider yourself busted.

You still haven't answered the question or provided an example of real life phenomena and how it maps to CTMU - a reality model.

Langan stated: "But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition)."

Does a mirage coincide with cognitive syntax? What about other optical illusions - are they recognizable? (since you use "unrecognizable" synonymously with "unobservable").
Even if there are aspects that coincide with cognitive syntax, how is that important? So I can see a cup of tea - so what?
Lets exit the realm of vacuous truths and discuss something useful.
Please.

I feel remorseful because of this sad statement he made:

As we all know, constructive and insightful criticism can help one to refine, clarify or correct one's ideas, and [i]I've never held myself forth as an a priori exception. But sadly, this is not the kind of criticism we've been seeing from Jacob.

I think I might have cracked the thick shell of arrogance and sarcasm that he dorns. And now, through the crack, I can behold the emotional, vulnerable man behind all those logical constructions, neologisms and put downs. I see a poor man who had a horrible childhood and who simply wants to be recognized and accepted in the scholarly community - he wants to make a name for himself. And every criticism threatens his chances of meeting his desires. I looked at his photo and I see a forlorn man, trying his best in a hostile world. Putting up a show of courage and aggressiveness in a materialistic and impenetrable world. I feel I was part of that hostility.

I feel sorry :( . I never knew Langan could admit that ANY criticism can help him "refine, clarify or correct his ideas" - I had no idea he expected any useful criticism :( - that was such a humble thing for him to say.

I knew I could be banned. I don't care about that - it was taking too much of my time as it was. Now I can do something else. I mostly just print ISCID threads and go read them over the weekend.

Lets observe a moment of silence as we appreciate the humanity in Langan.

http://www.iomas.com/gina/ultrahiq/mega-society/ginaandchrisf.jpg
Notice the deep sadness in his eyes.

[Jack the Bodiless]

For what it's worth: I have a measured I.Q. of 200. So I'm smarter than Langan.

...Unlike Langan, however, I don't actually believe my result. It was a very short test (part of a recruitment drive by Mensa), and I was "on a roll".

[Ted Hoffman]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
For what it's worth: I have a measured I.Q. of 200. So I'm smarter than Langan.

...Unlike Langan, however, I don't actually believe my result. It was a very short test (part of a recruitment drive by Mensa), and I was "on a roll".
You are ahead then.

Heck, why not sit down, come up with some catchy neologisms, modify Tegmarkian parallel universes - or pick some equally complex stuff - like the Twin Paradox or arrow of time (thermodynamics), do some heavy set theory and logic, revise old cosmological theories propounded by old philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates etc. Make it fully tautologic and be very serious about its being a veritable reality model that is metascientific and capable ot helping science overcome its weaknesses. Oh, weaknesses can include problem of induction, infinite regress, cosmic origins etc - just find any gap in scientific knowledge and claim to offer a solution that will fill it.

Langan will be forced to refute it and thereby refute his own theory.

Your IQ will he higher than his so when he protests over something, just tell him you frankly dont have the patience to explain to slow-thinking, anemic morons what the meaning of a simple concept is. Sarcastically refer him to elementary mathematics and simple logic etc.

And when he becomes too much, tell him to go and read your paper again. Hog all the attention you will get and be haughty about orthodox scholarship treat mainstream science as idiotic and make everything you speak seem profound. Manufacture a humble background for yourself and make yourself seem like you performed a herculean task to be able to come up with such a theory in the face of well-funded, educated scientists, make them seem intractably locked to one side of the cartesian plane, make them seem archaic, narrow minded and shallow. The nuisance value of this controversy will attract the whole worlds attention. Scientists will be compelled to challenge the validity of your theory because you will be embarassing them. Then when debating them, just combine sophistry, arrogance and abstruse obfuscation in your argumentation. Very soon, a cloud of acolytes will accrete to you. Let them be cheerleaders and they can heckle all your detractors.

But I guess that would be too time-consuming and not worth it - perharps even silly?

Frankly, anyone good at mathematics and well-versed with axiomatic systems can erect a competing reality model and give the guy a run for his money.

Just make sure its recursive, self-contained and tautological so that even in understanding it, people have to restrict themselves within the fictitious framework. It should be a model thats neither testable, falsifiable, or verifiable. That way, it remains "iron clad".

Then when his henchmen and sycophants desert him (as they undoubtly will) and come to you, sternly tell them to kneel before you and show some respect :D . And ask them to bang their heads on the floor twenty times and read your paper five times every week.

After all, you will be the mind of God incarnate :D

[Whatup?]

Here's the lowdown on Chris Langan's IQ score. His high score was from taking the same test TWICE, the second time under the pseudonym Eric Hart....

One of the Omni readers who scored highest on the Mega Test was John H. Sununu, then the governor of New Hampshire, and later Chief of Staff under President Bush. His score of 44 correct gave him an estimated I.Q. of 180 (achievable by approximately one in 3 million). Marilyn vos Savant scored 46 (I.Q. of 186) on her first attempt. Two others have scored 46 on their first attempt (Note that Ron now specifies that only one attempt is allowed). About 3 people have scored 47, but only on a second attempt. This includes Eric Hart. "Eric Hart" turned out to be a pseudonym for an individual who scored 42 on his first attempt of the Mega Test [Ron Hoeflin, in a letter to me, made the distinction between first and second attempts of Eric Hart]. About 3 people have scored 45 right, including Steve Schuessler (who worked at NASA). Sununu's score of 44 has been tied by 3 or 4 other people so far, including Rick Rosner, who edited the Mega Society journal, Noesis. Of the three highest scores (46 right), two are women.

In reply to a letter I wrote to him, Chris Langan, the alter-ego of Eric Hart, has written that he sees no reason to conceal his identity any longer. It is his contention that his score of 47 could (or should) be counted as a first attempt, since his test-taking strategy was to minimize the effort and time required achieve the mega-level, which was 42 right in the original Omni magazine introduction to the Mega Test. One of my comments to him was:

"Your explanation of Eric's test-taking strategy is interesting; I suspect that few people who scored in this range followed the same strategy of maximizing the score-to-time-spent ratio with the goal of achieving a score of at least 42 correct. For those who are able, I would think there would be a powerful motivation to achieve the highest score possible, period."

His response was:

"As you speculate, the same mathematics [game or decision theory] can also be used to justify trying for the highest possible score. Mathematical expectation, as expressed by the gain/cost ratio, allows "gain" and "cost" to be defined in various ways. If one takes great pleasure in the solution of IQ test problems or in (meaningless) competition with other testees, then one might regard every minute spent on such a test as emotionally "gainful." And if one has nothing better to do anyway, the cost to one's other pursuits may be small. This can result in a higher perceived gain/cost ratio for solving as many problems as possible, at least for idle puzzle addicts."

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch

[Ted Hoffman]

Thanks whatup. Very telling.

[RBH]

Izzat the test that Omni published back sometime in the '80s? Damn! I took it, sent it in (together with - IIRC - my Miller's Analogies score and SAT score), and subsequently got a (badly typed) letter from a Ron something or other inviting me to kick in some bucks to help start a society for those who scored high on it. I think it was going to be called Triple-9 or something like that. I figured it was a con, since the bucks were requested in advance of formation of it, and there was no information about what the society would be or do. Did I pass up my chance to be a Superbrain?

RBH

[keyser_soze]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
For what it's worth: I have a measured I.Q. of 200. So I'm smarter than Langan.

...Unlike Langan, however, I don't actually believe my result. It was a very short test (part of a recruitment drive by Mensa), and I was "on a roll".

I think you could probably get a couple dozen stories just like that from most of us. I always test well, but to be honest, I know people who are a lot smarter and have lower test scores. In essence, the tests are bullshit.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by keyser_soze
I think you could probably get a couple dozen stories just like that from most of us. I always test well, but to be honest, I know people who are a lot smarter and have lower test scores. In essence, the tests are bullshit.

*nods* I don't even mention my tested scores most of the time because the tests, obviously it would seem, aren't fantastic gauges of intelligence other than a "general" idea.

Not only that, I've gotten quite a range out of different tests ( ~50 points )

It's sufficient to say that most of us are bright. ;)

[Bebbo]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
[B]This was my last post.


I feel remorseful because of this sad statement he made:



I think I might have cracked the thick shell of arrogance and sarcasm that he dorns. And now, through the crack, I can behold the emotional, vulnerable man behind all those logical constructions, neologisms and put downs. I see a poor man who had a horrible childhood and who simply wants to be recognized and accepted in the scholarly community - he wants to make a name for himself.


I've seen no evidence that he wants to be accepted in the scholarly community, on the contrary, he actively shows contempt for academics.


I feel sorry :( . I never knew Langan could admit that ANY criticism can help him "refine, clarify or correct his ideas" - I had no idea he expected any useful criticism :( - that was such a humble thing for him to say.


Langan can't take criticism properly, at least from what I've seen.


I knew I could be banned. I don't care about that - it was taking too much of my time as it was. Now I can do something else. I mostly just print ISCID threads and go read them over the weekend.


I'm not surprised you were banned, but it's a bit rich that Langan wasn't at least warned when that thread was locked.

--
Dene

[pz]

Originally posted by Whatup?
Here's the lowdown on Chris Langan's IQ score. His high score was from taking the same test TWICE, the second time under the pseudonym Eric Hart....
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch Whoa -- you mean the entire basis of this extraordinary claim of being a megabrain has been made entirely on the basis of a stupid 48 question test published by some guy in a magazine?

That's just pathetic.

[Bebbo]

Originally posted by pz
Whoa -- you mean the entire basis of this extraordinary claim of being a megabrain has been made entirely on the basis of a stupid 48 question test published by some guy in a magazine?

That's just pathetic.

But how well would you do on that test?!

--
Dene

[Whatup?]

Wow, it gets worse! Seems Chris Langan ripped off the trade name of the Mega Society and falsely claims to publish their journal Noesis. The real Mega Society has their lawyers after him....


January 17, 2002

Mr. Chris Langan
P. O. Box 894
Eastport, NY 11941

Re: Cease and Desist Demand

Dear Mr. Langan:

This confirms that you have failed to reply to my letter of August 27, 2001, which demanded that you cease and desist from the ongoing acts and practices described in that letter, including infringing uses of the names "Mega Society" or "Noesis" in connection with electronic or print publications or other communications.

The letter requested a response by not later than September 14, 2001, and advised that my office has been authorized to commence litigation to protect the trade names, trademarks and goodwill of the Mega Society and its journal, "Noesis." As mentioned above, you did not respond within the time requested, or at all. I have been advised, in addition, that you have continued to engage in the infringing conduct.

My office is preparing the pleadings and other papers necessary to obtain such orders, decrees and judgments as may be necessary to enjoin your willful infringement of common-law rights and to recover damages, civil penalties and restitution with respect to pre-filing acts and practices. We will file the action February 15, 2002, unless satisfactory assurances are received prior to that time.

You are accordingly advised to obtain legal counsel with respect to this matter, who is invited to contact me to discuss an appropriate resolution.

Very truly yours,

Leighton M. Anderson

LMA:gge
cc: Mr. Chris Cole, Publisherhttp://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes156/la_to_cl.html

This seems to be the first letter to Langan that includes a detailed case review....

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes151/cease&de.html

So this is Dembski's new "genius". Oh my God, what a joke! I wonder if he ever did jail time. A little web searching reveals a lot. Might be interesting to see what's out there related to his alias, Eric Hart.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Bebbo
But how well would you do on that test?!

--
Dene

I know you weren't asking me, but I have an answer.

Ready?

*ahem*

Who cares?

I took variants of many of these tests ( listed on a page above )before getting this job ( it was a part of the interview process ). Individually the scores ranged from 155 to 205.

Did I take any of them seriously as a direct and accurate indicator of my intelligence?

No. The range was caused more by my familiarity with certain subjects over others, the way I "felt" while taking the test and a range of other unknown factors.

Am I intelligent? Yes. Am I a "superbrain"? I have no idea. I don't know what it would be like to be in the mind of any of the people who claim to be, and have others join them in the proclamation, superbrains.

Can I see through the overly verbose "theory" this man presents and recognize its emptiness? Yes, even without any formal training in philosophy ( I hardly count the introductory level courses required at this point in my quest for my degree formal training ).

So exactly what benefit would come of comparing IQ scores? It isn't a good indicator, and I'm quite confident there are people who have never scored anywhere near 205 on an IQ test that are more intelligent than I am. Not to mention my intelligence, whatever level it may be, has been largely wasted by lack of knowledge, mostly thanks to being raised in a fundamentalist religion.

Let him beat his oversized chest and prance merrily around the various pro-ID forums with his band of cheery fans. There are things far more interesting to be researching and debating than the egomaniacal ranting of a self proclaimed genius.

[Bebbo]

Originally posted by Xixax
I know you weren't asking me, but I have an answer.

Ready?

*ahem*

Who cares?

I took variants of many of these tests ( listed on a page above )before getting this job ( it was a part of the interview process ). Individually the scores ranged from 155 to 205.

Did I take any of them seriously as a direct and accurate indicator of my intelligence?

No. The range was caused more by my familiarity with certain subjects over others, the way I "felt" while taking the test and a range of other unknown factors.

Am I intelligent? Yes. Am I a "superbrain"? I have no idea. I don't know what it would be like to be in the mind of any of the people who claim to be, and have others join them in the proclamation, superbrains.

Can I see through the overly verbose "theory" this man presents and recognize its emptiness? Yes, even without any formal training in philosophy ( I hardly count the introductory level courses required at this point in my quest for my degree formal training ).

So exactly what benefit would come of comparing IQ scores? It isn't a good indicator, and I'm quite confident there are people who have never scored anywhere near 205 on an IQ test that are more intelligent than I am. Not to mention my intelligence, whatever level it may be, has been largely wasted by lack of knowledge, mostly thanks to being raised in a fundamentalist religion.

Let him beat his oversized chest and prance merrily around the various pro-ID forums with his band of cheery fans. There are things far more interesting to be researching and debating than the egomaniacal ranting of a self proclaimed genius.

I can't argue with that, my opinion of Langan is pretty similar to yours. However, I was merely pointing out that it's easy for pz to comment on the "stupid" test without knowing how he'd do on it. Saying that, I'm dubious of IQ tests, though there's no doubt that Langan is very intelligent.

--
Dene

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Bebbo
I can't argue with that, my opinion of Langan is pretty similar to yours. However, I was merely pointing out that it's easy for pz to comment on the "stupid" test without knowing how he'd do on it. Saying that, I'm dubious of IQ tests, though there's no doubt that Langan is very intelligent.

--
Dene

pz has in the past shown that he rarely speaks without some knowledge on the subject. I would assume he is acting in character here and doing the same.

I agree, Langan is at least moderately intelligent. However, his ego will get in the way of him doing anything remarkable with it.

[pz]

Originally posted by Bebbo
But how well would you do on that test?!
I don't know. However, a mere 48 questions, no matter how difficult they may be, on an unsupervised test is not going to provide a reasonable measure of any hypothetical 'general intelligence'.

I find the whole concept of reducing intelligence to a single measure to be ridiculous in itself, but to do it on the basis of such a flimsy data set is even more appalling.

[Dr.GH]

I have noted that over the years I have traded what I take to mean "intelligence," for a good deal more "knowing stuff." The trouble is of course, that the "stuff one knows" may easily need to be replaced by the "stuff one doesn't know."

I have also wondered the exact function of BB/z or "Bottles of Beer mapped to standard deviations of IQ scores. It could be immense. In which case, the score I last had on the WAIS could be easily explained. (28 years ago I had a room-mate who's psychometrics homework was to give some poor fool the WAIS, which I took rather drunk and scored inordinately high). Of course there is a limit, as a little over 12 beers usually results in stupor.

[Whatup?]

Wow, it gets worse! Seems Chris Langan ripped off the trade name of the Mega Society and falsely claims to publish their journal Noesis. The real Mega Society has their lawyers after him....Seems the court handed down a judgment last March against Chris Langan....

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/judgme1.gif
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/judgment.html

[Ted Hoffman]

I hope his spies have alerted him about the goings-on in this thread. The guys a fraud and I bet his minions have no clue. Mostly, they tithe themselves to death to promote Logical Theology and help *cough* gifted kids.

What a pity.

[Ted Hoffman]

I've seen no evidence that he wants to be accepted in the scholarly community, on the contrary, he actively shows contempt for academics.
His aggrandized contempt for scholars is calculated to attract the attention he so badly needs. To hero-worshippers, it means he is better than the scientists.
Langan can't take criticism properly, at least from what I've seen.
The harder the shell, the softer the insides - cant you see?

[Principia]

Langan is a genius? <Shrug>

Who gives a ...

Unlike Langan, at least some geniuses (http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/08/25/sprj.sch.wonder.kid.ap/index.html) will have a career and make positive contributions to society.

Oftentimes, it is better to be recognized as a genius than to have to defend oneself as one.

[Happy Wonderer]

The only interesting thing about CTMU is that Langan supports it using a novel variation of the Ontological argument (crudely: "god exists because the concept of god involves perfection in every aspect, and non existance is not perfection.")

His support of CTMU is essentially "It is a meta-theory that encompasses all of reality. If you find a contradiction using this theory, that contradiction is part of reality. Therefore it is part of CTMU, and thus can't be a contradiction. Q.E.D."

Ok, the other interesting thing about CTMU is that the author thinks that a tautology is a good thing logically...

hw

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Just make sure its recursive, self-contained and tautological so that even in understanding it, people have to restrict themselves within the fictitious framework. It should be a model thats neither testable, falsifiable, or verifiable. That way, it remains "iron clad".

God did it all. Jesus died for our sins.

[Parallel]

So this is the “other forum” and source of “importation of interpersonal hostility”. Interesting to read about Mr. Langan’s IQ. I had the distinct feeling that almost anything about this guy falls apart upon closer examination. Since the thread was locked at ISCID (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-5.html), might as well reply to Langan where I can.

Langan wrote
Parallel says "So the SCSPL syntax cannot be finitely enumerated, which means it cannot be enumerated." Not exactly; it only means that SCSPL syntax cannot be completely enumerated. The distinction between denumerability and nondenumerability in mathematics is very clear, and it has nothing to do with finitude. (Is anybody else wondering why parallel seems to have so much trouble with simple math concepts?) Langan is correct, I should have said completely enumerated, although I assumed that should be understood. If I had instead meant an infinity of infinite density (e.g., a nondenumerable infinity like the set of all real numbers), then I would understand what Langan then accused me of not understanding. So I don’t really see his point here other than that it served to make the questioner look stupid while deflecting attention from the actual nonexistence of the SCSPL syntax. Notice how he also utilized specious avoidance tactics on the question about his much touted IQ.

Parallel then asks "How can an infinite syntax be known or evaluated?" As supporting examples of how SCSPL syntax can be referred to and implicated in mathematical expressions without finite enumeration, consider N (the natural numbers), R (the real numbers), aleph nought (denumerable infinity), sqrt(2) (an irrational number which evaluates to a nonrepeating decimal that cannot be finitely specified), and pi (a transcendental number that is the root of no algebraic equation). I could, of course, go on at considerable length, but as we can see, the quality of the objection merits no such effort. While I’m no mathematician, Langan’s response fails to distinguish between syntax (what we were talking about) and elements of a set (Langan’s analogies). I assume that by “syntax” Langan refers to a set of rules that define the organization of the cosmic language he has in mind. So my point was how can we know and evaluate an infinite set of rules, not elements, that are only assumed to exist? Maybe we can, I don't know, I was just asking.

But this was my main point that Langan’s tangential barrage of verbal knuckle sandwiches steered readers away from. It’s odd that here is this person pushing a universe explaining “syntax”, yet upon extended examination we find he’s only proposing that the syntax must exist somewhere “out there” as deciphered (e.g., as divined) by his interpretation of other concepts. Again, I’m no mathematician, but that sounds suspiciously roundabout. It sounds like the promised goods aren’t really there. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like my saying, “I know of the perfect syntax, the language of God that orders everything and so forth”. But when someone asks to see it I reply, “It’s got to exist since the universe exists and is ordered (Q.E.D.)”. Well, that sounds like an unremarkable argument that a universal syntax must exist rather than an explicit articulation of a syntax that does exist. Yet in Langan’s writings one is led to assume that he has an explicit “SCSPL syntax” in hand, rather than that he’s merely confident that it’s out there somewhere, which is what he admitted (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-4.html) to be the case.

So Langan’s admission that the SCSPL syntax can only be assumed to exist by way of his interpretation of other concepts seems to expose a great big empty at the heart of the “very large animal” that is the CTMU.

"Truth is what stands the test of experience." Albert Einstein

[Ted Hoffman]

Welcome Parallel,

How did you find us? Did Langans spying puppies leave some droppings along the way as they ran back to their master?

Anyway, I don't know if there is anybody here willing to handle my questions regarding CTMU - I have plenty of questions and I would like to understand it better.

Anybody willing to play Devils Advocate?

[NialScorva]

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer
Ok, the other interesting thing about CTMU is that the author thinks that a tautology is a good thing logically...


That by itself isn't necessarily a bad position. I believe it was Wittgenstein who pointed out that all of logic and mathematics is a tautology. After all, once you have your axioms, any theorem you prove is merely a rearrangement of what you already know is true and is a necessary consequence.

Of course, he's not making an argument anything like that.

[Evolutionist]

i remember being banned from a creation/evolution discussion site. it was creationist run, with a right wing fundy moderator. as you could probably guess, it was mostly a creationist site.

well, someone quoted Gish with one of his arguments- and i naturally went into how Gish is as much a joke as hovind (which btw, sparked another thread where another creationist defended hovind from such attacks *grins*). the moderator was a gish fan, it seems.

he told me to retract the slander, and i said that i had no slander to retract (well sod it- Gish is a joke, it wasn't slander by definition).

as i didn't retract my statements about Gish, i was banned the next day.

i cringed when i found out a few days later that the creationist that took it upon herself to defend hovind was doing spectacularly, as her opponents didn't know their colons from their eyeballs.

moral of the story? don't upset a creationist mod, as they enjoy stomping out any questioning voices. evolution/creation debate my arse. :rolleyes:

[Parallel]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Welcome Parallel,

How did you find us? Did Langans spying puppies leave some droppings along the way as they ran back to their master?

Anyway, I don't know if there is anybody here willing to handle my questions regarding CTMU - I have plenty of questions and I would like to understand it better.

Anybody willing to play Devils Advocate?
Infidels is always a good bet. It’s amazing that with all Langan’s puffed-up breast beating about bring on the best and brightest, he can humiliate anyone in public--as if that’s the goal of debate--he runs to the moderator to have you locked out and the debate shut down. You may have been a little ornery here and there, but nothing in contrast to Langan’s almost constant belittling of critics. You did a good job of trying to test this salesman's goods.

Afraid I wouldn’t be a good Devils Advocate since I’m also wondering what the answers are to your many excellent questions. For that matter, I’m also wondering what the real answers are to many of the questions I put to him. :)

[Bebbo]

Originally posted by Parallel
[B]Infidels is always a good bet. It’s amazing that with all Langan’s puffed-up breast beating about bring on the best and brightest, he can humiliate anyone in public--as if that’s the goal of debate--he runs to the moderator to have you locked out and the debate shut down. You may have been a little ornery here and there, but nothing in contrast to Langan’s almost constant belittling of critics. You did a good job of trying to test this salesman's goods.

[...]


Langan is kind of like Mr Spock (with his constant references to logic), but without the personality.

Talking of his desire to humiliate others, have you noticed how he ends so many posts with a little victory dance?

--
Dene

[Happy Wonderer]

Originally posted by NialScorva
That by itself isn't necessarily a bad position. I believe it was Wittgenstein who pointed out that all of logic and mathematics is a tautology. After all, once you have your axioms, any theorem you prove is merely a rearrangement of what you already know is true and is a necessary consequence.

I disagree with that statement, at least using the definition of a tautology as "saying the same thing twice" (Fowler, from Wikipedia.)

Consider Turing's great proof of the decidability problem. Did it come from a careful rearrangement of existing axioms? No, the proof is in the form of a counter example (for which he invented the Turing machine which had a few unexpected side benefits.)

hw


Halting problem (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem)

[Ted Hoffman]

Chimp,

M=R is a very simple and and self-evident truism. Not worth arguing about.

But the idea that the "mind and reality share the common rules of structure and processing" is useless because the mind observes reality and "thinking" is shaped by what is experienced (this is assuming the mind is a tabula rasa at birth).

The mind "observes" reality and therefore a Kantian isomorphism between the objects of thought and perception and phenomenal reality is inevitable unless one is considering the possibility of the mind manufacturing its own reality.

So, to me, its a vacuous truth. If gravity pulled things sideways and water flowed upstream, the minds workings with regard to phenomena would work that way. If 1 egg + 1 egg yielded 5.8 eggs in reality, so would the mind.

Remember, mathematics was not discovered in a year. Pythagoras and all mathematicians who came up with what is today common knowledge did not just stumble upon what we know - they had to "study".
Remember, we go to school so many years of our lives to make M=R possible in an abstract manner.

Langan only makes M=R profound because the mind is normally not treated as part of reality. But its no biggie and its got nothing to do with a reality model.

The universe being a gigantic computer?

You mean it has input, processing, output plus memory?

Well, well, well...

<Jacob pulls a huge bag of popcorns and puts his feet up>

Show me.

[Chimp]

Hello again Jacob. Are we at science and skepticism or evolution/creation?

First, let me say that while I am a fan of sorts, of the CTMU, I am no longer allowed at the mega-forums. I reckon it must have been my "troll-like" behaviour. I got myself kicked off the T.O.E. boards. Curiosity killed the Chimp ;).

In a nutshell, the universe has the generalized properties of "mind", Also, there exists some mathematical structure that is isomorphic to perceptual reality, as Max Tegmark's tongue in cheek theory explains. In effect, time is a process and reality feeds back into itself, so time is iterative. A resonating system that configures-emerges from the quantum vacuum. A damped oscillation. Stochastic resonance. A quantum calculation evolving towards a state of maximum information, and maximum entropy. The computation is an evolutionary process, analogous to deriving mathematical theorems in an effort to resolve the "incompleteness" of mathematics. Of course the system is "natural" without the trappings of religious interpretations. Once the universal computation reaches the state of maximum entropy, it goes through another phase transition, where the process starts over again. It can never resolve the incompleteness of mathematics, only approach the condition of "infinite" information, as a limit, that is never reached.

There is no need to postulate a Zeus-like being watching over us, and intervening in the affairs of mere mortals ;)

Chimp

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Chimp
....In a nutshell, the universe has the generalized properties of "mind",
Does the universe enjoy hobbies? Does the universe gradually learn about its environment and form beliefs about it? Does the universe have desires which it keeps in mind as it contemplates various possible courses of action, and then carries out its decision?...

Also, there exists some mathematical structure that is isomorphic to perceptual reality, as Max Tegmark's tongue in cheek theory explains. In effect, time is a process and reality feeds back into itself, so time is iterative.
Do you have evidence of that? (Besides cycles within periods of Planck time - or is that all you mean?)

A resonating system that configures-emerges from the quantum vacuum. A damped oscillation. Stochastic resonance. A quantum calculation evolving towards a state of maximum information, and maximum entropy.
What do you mean by "maximum information"? Computer scientists might measure information by seeing the size something is after it has been compressed. So if something compresses to a smaller size it could be said to contain less information.
Out of these two bits of text,
"Ò’õmÖŠÞèŠÚªóæ·³žŒñí¹äߧt¥®>`؉;þv‹ÀtÿЃÆþwñ_^ÃVèÚ„²tBƒ8"
and
"a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is no longer"

The first one actually is a few characters shorter than the second one... but the first one is much harder for computers and people to remember. (It doesn't compress very well) - so according to you, which contains more information? (which would the universe's computer select?)

As far as DNA goes, it uses a very restrictive 4 letter alphabet... (more information could have been stored if there was a larger alphabet). And I think organic molecules (amino acids?) all (or mostly) have the same handedness - righthandedness? That means there is less information in there then there could have been.

So does you theory involve the most complex thing being selected? Or the thing that is the most interesting - i.e. things that lead to life and consciousness...? If it is the latter, then there would need to be a mechanism that knows if it is getting closer to the goal of life and consciousness and atoms and molecules would be selected according.

The computation is an evolutionary process, analogous to deriving mathematical theorems in an effort to resolve the "incompleteness" of mathematics. Of course the system is "natural" without the trappings of religious interpretations. Once the universal computation reaches the state of maximum entropy, it goes through another phase transition, where the process starts over again.
This dictionary (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/entropy) says that the maximum entropy involves matter and energy degrading to the "ultimate state of inert uniformity". It has a computer definition too though - where high entropy means a lot of disorder. And what do you mean by "starts all over again"? Does the universe disappear then start again from scratch?

It can never resolve the incompleteness of mathematics, only approach the condition of "infinite" information, as a limit, that is never reached.
What do you mean by information though? Say there are two objects - a book and a large star. It would take a lot more information to fully list the positions of particles in a star then in a book... even if you used good data compression. Of course, only the shapes of the letters in the book are what is important... (and their meanings...) it doesn't matter if the positions of the atoms are changed a bit. As far as the star goes, you could change it a lot and it still is basically a star - a big heat/light source... so the information about all the positions of the particles in the star aren't very important... but does the universal computer know that? Does it know what aspects of a book cause it to have insightful information? Does it know that a star doesn't really possess those things? (A star doesn't have thousands of symbols written on it - that represent other things like people and places, etc, or at least I can't recognize them)

[Ted Hoffman]

Ah, excreationist, that was - um - salubrious :)

<smacks lips greedily and emits a gigantic belch>

I wanted to respond differently and open a new thread but I think I will just sit back here and watch the show.

<Jacob grabs a handful of popcorns and sits back>

[Ted Hoffman]

Since XC has covered a lot of ground, I will only touch on Tegmarkian Parallel universes. In the meantime, I have started a new thread (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=000866) at ARN.

I will try not to get myself banned.

[Chimp]

Thanks for the questions "XC".

....In a nutshell, the universe has the generalized properties of "mind",

Does the universe enjoy hobbies? Does the universe gradually learn about its environment and form beliefs about it? Does the universe have desires which it keeps in mind as it contemplates various possible courses of action, and then carries out its decision?...

Interesting... Does the universe enjoy hobbies? Seems like an anthropmorphism XC. I suppose that to the degree we are specific self aware substructures within the universe, and we enjoy hobbies, the universal mind ...enjoys hobbies. The general contains the specific. The abstract contains the concrete. Does the universe gradually learn about itself? ...Yes. The universe starts out in a condition of minimal information and iteratively combines it, thus, creating "new" information. Analogous to a system deriving mathematical theorems and solving logic problems. 4D Spacetime is a memory storage system. Does the universe have desires? If you mean "does the universe have goals?" Yes. The universal "purpose" is to basically derive logical axioms as a maximally efficient process. As we observe the universe, we witness a maximally efficient system with logical rules{physical law}.

Also, there exists some mathematical structure that is isomorphic to perceptual reality, as Max Tegmark's tongue in cheek theory explains. In effect, time is a process and reality feeds back into itself, so time is iterative.

Do you have evidence of that? (Besides cycles within periods of Planck time - or is that all you mean?)

John Archibald Wheeler explains the "self exited circuit", which is a system that has feedback. The universe colapses its own wave function via self interaction. So the universe is a closed timelike loop, where the wave function of the "past" is collapsed in the future, either by interactions with inanimate matter, or intelligent observers. The action is local. Canonical quantization gives continually increasing density gradients, when the reciprocal transformation is derived for an "expanding spacetime". Actually total spacetime is a constant and mass-energy is paramenterized by "h" Planck's constant, as it is re-configured". A temporal stacking effect, where the observed cosmic expansion is a relative one. A shrinking object gives the appearance of receding motion. As spacetime increases in density and ..."information" via intersecting wave functions, matter-energy "shrinks" and the forces are percieved as being constant.

A resonating system that configures-emerges from the quantum vacuum. A damped oscillation. Stochastic resonance. A quantum calculation evolving towards a state of maximum information, and maximum entropy.

What do you mean by "maximum information"? Computer scientists might measure information by seeing the size something is after it has been compressed. So if something compresses to a smaller size it could be said to contain less information. Out of these two bits of text, "Ò’õmÖŠÞèŠÚªóæ·³žŒñí¹äߧt¥®>`؉;þv‹ÀtÿЃÆþwñ_^ÃVèÚ„²tBƒ8" and "a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is no longer" The first one actually is a few characters shorter than the second one... but the first one is much harder for computers and people to remember. (It doesn't compress very well) - so according to you, which contains more information? (which would the universe's computer select?) As far as DNA goes, it uses a very restrictive 4 letter alphabet... (more information could have been stored if there was a larger alphabet). And I think organic molecules (amino acids?) all (or mostly) have the same handedness - righthandedness? That means there is less information in there then there could have been. So does you theory involve the most complex thing being selected? Or the thing that is the most interesting - i.e. things that lead to life and consciousness...? If it is the latter, then there would need to be a mechanism that knows if it is getting closer to the goal of life and consciousness and atoms and molecules would be selected according.

In a nutshell, the universal system strives for maximum information{logical axioms = universal laws} with the maximal efficiency. The abstract contains the concrete. So particles and collections of particles are instantiations of universal laws {axioms} ;)

The computation is an evolutionary process, analogous to deriving mathematical theorems in an effort to resolve the "incompleteness" of mathematics. Of course the system is "natural" without the trappings of religious interpretations. Once the universal computation reaches the state of maximum entropy, it goes through another phase transition, where the process starts over again.

This dictionary says that the maximum entropy involves matter and energy degrading to the "ultimate state of inert uniformity". It has a computer definition too though - where high entropy means a lot of disorder. And what do you mean by "starts all over again"? Does the universe disappear then start again from scratch?

A complex system with [N + X] interacting relations, has more entropy than a system with [N - X] relations. Higher complexity means higher entropy. A V-8 engine has more entropy than a four cylynder. The universe has been increasing in complexity along with its increase in entropy.

It can never resolve the incompleteness of mathematics, only approach the condition of "infinite" information, as a limit, that is never reached.

What do you mean by information though? Say there are two objects - a book and a large star. It would take a lot more information to fully list the positions of particles in a star then in a book... even if you used good data compression. Of course, only the shapes of the letters in the book are what is important... (and their meanings...) it doesn't matter if the positions of the atoms are changed a bit. As far as the star goes, you could change it a lot and it still is basically a star - a big heat/light source... so the information about all the positions of the particles in the star aren't very important... but does the universal computer know that? Does it know what aspects of a book cause it to have insightful information? Does it know that a star doesn't really possess those things? (A star doesn't have thousands of symbols written on it - that represent other things like people and places, etc, or at least I can't recognize them)

The more complex a structure, the more information a thing contains. Structure is basically the objective dimension of information. Yet, the apparently "infinite" complex structures can be represented as algorithms. For example, a simple algorithm contains all of the information required to construct the infinite decimal representation of the transcendental number "pi". The abstract contains the concrete and the general contains the specific.

[excreationist]

Jacob Aliet:
Salubrious...? Thanks :) BTW, Chimp's bit about Wheeler is too hard for me to understand so you can put down your popcorn and reply to that if you like. Also, at http://www.megafoundation.net you can find quite a few supporters of CTMU who would understand it pretty well. And Chimp (Russell Rierson) has quite a few posts there too.

Chimp:
Interesting... Does the universe enjoy hobbies? Seems like an anthropmorphism XC.
Well you said "the universe has the generalized properties of "mind""... and all the minds I know of enjoy some kind of hobby... nevermind.

I suppose that to the degree we are specific self aware substructures within the universe, and we enjoy hobbies, the universal mind ...enjoys hobbies.
It wouldn't have a coherent personality though, like normal minds do... I mean it would simultaneously love football and find it to be the most boring thing in the world, etc. And only the people who have those specific hobbies would do them... I mean the universe isn't going to get some asteroids to play charades or scrabble just because some humans like those things...

....Does the universe gradually learn about itself? ...Yes. The universe starts out in a condition of minimal information and iteratively combines it, thus, creating "new" information.
What do you mean? Since soon after the big bang, have there been approximately the same number of elementary particles? If so, then isn't there still about the same amount of information? To describe the universe, you'd basically just need a few numbers for each particle - its location, what type of particle it is, etc. Since the big bang, there is more space - so the locations of particles can vary more.... that would be the only reason why more information is needed to describe particles now I think...

(I don't understand the Wheeler stuff)

In a nutshell, the universal system strives for maximum information{logical axioms = universal laws} with the maximal efficiency. The abstract contains the concrete. So particles and collections of particles are instantiations of universal laws {axioms} ;)
You didn't answer my questions about what is more information though....
Here's a similar question...
Here are some 6 character things.... which one has more information? Or do they all have the same amount since they are 6 bytes each?

123456
222222
§ñ¥ŒÞŠ
JSmith
e=mc^2

A complex system with [N + X] interacting relations, has more entropy than a system with [N - X] relations. Higher complexity means higher entropy. A V-8 engine has more entropy than a four cylynder. The universe has been increasing in complexity along with its increase in entropy.
Well a book has less things interacting with itself than a big star does, so I guess a star is more complex than a book is... same with a car... a big star would be more complex. And a human being living on earth would also involve less particles interacting with each other than a huge star does... so does that mean that the huge star is more complex? I though the human brain was supposed to be "the most complex thing in the known universe"....

The more complex a structure, the more information a thing contains. Structure is basically the objective dimension of information.
You didn't say whether the book or the large star contained more information... so does the star contain more information than a book then? What about an entire library of books...? Does the big star still contain more information? (Is the star more "complex"?)

Yet, the apparently "infinite" complex structures can be represented as algorithms. For example, a simple algorithm contains all of the information required to construct the infinite decimal representation of the transcendental number "pi".
There is a difference between pi and the complexity of things like large stars and encyclopedias though. Large stars are made up of many independent particles. Pi involves the ratio of a circumference of a circle and its diameter... so not many variables at all. Though pi involves a very messy division. I don't think you could get an English encyclopedia as output from a short little algorithm.

The abstract contains the concrete and the general contains the specific.
Yeah, that's what generalizing and recognizing patterns is all about... that's what people do... they can see a couple dogs and refer to all dogs using the same word ("dog"). Does the universe do that though? Does it see large firey things and call them "stars" (create an abstraction/generalisation)? Does it notice all the collapsed stars and see there is a similarly between them and call this pattern "blackholeness" (they're "blackholes"), etc....? That's what I think abstracting and generalizing is all about... it involves capturing a pattern or similarity between things...

BTW, is your theory supposed to explain the origin of life and consciousness? Or do you think that life and consciousness evolved without the help of a super-intelligent universal mind...?

[Chimp]

I suppose that to the degree we are specific self aware substructures within the universe, and we enjoy hobbies, the universal mind ...enjoys hobbies.


It wouldn't have a coherent personality though, like normal minds do... I mean it would simultaneously love football and find it to be the most boring thing in the world, etc. And only the people who have those specific hobbies would do them... I mean the universe isn't going to get some asteroids to play charades or scrabble just because some humans like those things...

To be perfectly honest, from my very limited perspective, I cannot imagine what it is like being the "universal computation-mind". I will give it a shot though ;) Say, the universal processor is faced with an intractable problem to solve, for example, an answer to an interrogative such as ..."why do I exist?"
This becomes an endless tower of whys[or turtles], with each successive "why" being embedded in a higher level of generalization. The forward direction of time would then be a process of deriving axioms[natural laws].



....Does the universe gradually learn about itself? ...Yes. The universe starts out in a condition of minimal information and iteratively combines it, thus, creating "new" information.



What do you mean? Since soon after the big bang, have there been approximately the same number of elementary particles? If so, then isn't there still about the same amount of information? To describe the universe, you'd basically just need a few numbers for each particle - its location, what type of particle it is, etc. Since the big bang, there is more space - so the locations of particles can vary more.... that would be the only reason why more information is needed to describe particles now I think...


Information relates to the structure of a thing. Any non-random structure represents utilizable information. An oak leaf or a footprint on the beach, contains information, at least from a human perspective. The ostensibly random patterns of wind blown leaves or sand deposited on the shore by the sea, do not contain information from the human standpoint. Random patterns could represent an algorithm(s) from the universal perspective though. Processed information leads to new information.



In a nutshell, the universal system strives for maximum information{logical axioms = universal laws} with the maximal efficiency. The abstract contains the concrete. So particles and collections of particles are instantiations of universal laws {axioms}


You didn't answer my questions about what is more information though....
Here's a similar question...
Here are some 6 character things.... which one has more information? Or do they all have the same amount since they are 6 bytes each?

123456
222222
§ñ¥ŒÞŠ
JSmith
e=mc^2

From our human perspective, the e=mc^2, or possibly the third collection of symbols contains the most information. The information has been "compressed". From the universal perspective, can information be compressed in a similar manner? ...Interesting.

Processed information = energy-momentum.





[QUOTE]
A complex system with [N + X] interacting relations, has more entropy than a system with [N - X] relations. Higher complexity means higher entropy. A V-8 engine has more entropy than a four cylinder. The universe has been increasing in complexity along with its increase in entropy.


Well a book has less things interacting with itself than a big star does, so I guess a star is more complex than a book is... same with a car... a big star would be more complex. And a human being living on earth would also involve less particles interacting with each other than a huge star does... so does that mean that the huge star is more complex? I though the human brain was supposed to be "the most complex thing in the known universe"....


Good point XC. The brain has more complexity, and information, due to its dynamics and structure. The sun consists of more elementary particles but it can apparently be contained in a few simple algorithms. The human brain cannot be represented by a finite number of equations, it seems.



The more complex a structure, the more information a thing contains. Structure is basically the objective dimension of information.


You didn't say whether the book or the large star contained more information... so does the star contain more information than a book then? What about an entire library of books...? Does the big star still contain more information? (Is the star more "complex"?)

The book contains less elementary particles but it contains more utilizable information for humans. The book is not dynamic though. The sun consists of a few types of [ though many in number] interacting particles and its particle motions are interpreted as being "random". It has less complexity from a human standpoint.

Which more efficient pound for pound, the sun or the human brain? The sun is a more efficient energy processor, according to the brain's E = mc^2. The brain can contain the sun with a few equations. The brain is more efficient from the standpoint of its ability to generalize the information.






Yet, the apparently "infinite" complex structures can be represented as algorithms. For example, a simple algorithm contains all of the information required to construct the infinite decimal representation of the transcendental number "pi".



There is a difference between pi and the complexity of things like large stars and encyclopedias though. Large stars are made up of many independent particles. Pi involves the ratio of a circumference of a circle and its diameter... so not many variables at all. Though pi involves a very messy division. I don't think you could get an English encyclopedia as output from a short little algorithm.

Yes, what at first, appears to be random in the non-repeating non-terminating decimal representation of pi, is able to be contained by a symbol "pi", it is informationally compressible. A more advanced form of language would also be able to contain the information in an encyclopedia would it not?



The universal laws of nature are explained in terms of symmetry.

Symmetry is distributive in nature, similar to the way that a set of "red" objects has the distributive property of redness. Predicates like "red" are numbers in the sense that they interact algebraically according to the laws of Boolean algebra. Take one object away from the set of red objects and the distributive number "red" still describes the set. The distributive identity "natural number" or "real number" describes an entire collection of individual objects.

Cantor's alephs can be set into a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of of themselves. The "infinite" Cantorian alephs are really distributive.

Yet, if we have a finite set of 7 objects, the cardinal number 7 does not really distribute over its individual subsets. Take anything away from the set and the number 7 ceases to describe it.

Freedom = greater symmetry = higher infinity-alephs. So the highest aleph, the "absolute-infinity" distributes over the entire set called universe and gives it "identity".

Symmetries are analogous to algorithms. They contain information.


On a flat Euclidean surface, the three angles of an equilateral triangle sum to 180 degrees. On the curved surface of a sphere, the three angles add up to more than 180 degrees. The two types of surfaces are not equivalent.

There is a rotational invariance for a triangle, that seems to hold for both types of surface though.

ABC = BCA = CAB = CBA = BAC = ACB

Does this rotational invariance hold for all geometries?

An interesting idea for a new "theory-conjecture" which is, that symmetry, not logic, forms the basis of mathematical truth.

Truth = Invariance principle.

Symmetry = invariance = identity

Aristotle's law of excluded middle is really an invariance principle. Symmetry forms the basis of logical truth.

A V ~A

T|F = F|T = T





The abstract contains the concrete and the general contains the specific.


Yeah, that's what generalizing and recognizing patterns is all about... that's what people do... they can see a couple dogs and refer to all dogs using the same word ("dog"). Does the universe do that though? Does it see large firey things and call them "stars" (create an abstraction/generalisation)? Does it notice all the collapsed stars and see there is a similarly between them and call this pattern "blackholeness" (they're "blackholes"), etc....? That's what I think abstracting and generalizing is all about... it involves capturing a pattern or similarity between things...

BTW, is your theory supposed to explain the origin of life and consciousness? Or do you think that life and consciousness evolved without the help of a super-intelligent universal mind...?

If you are trying to ask "Is redundancy part of the universal algorithm?" ...Yes, along with creativity it seems.

[Ted Hoffman]

The universe has no intention.

The Universe cannot commit suicide.

[Calzaer]

From our human perspective, the e=mc^2, or possibly the third collection of symbols contains the most information. The information has been "compressed". From the universal perspective, can information be compressed in a similar manner? ...Interesting.

Processed information = energy-momentum.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's gibberish.

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Calzaer
I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's gibberish.

Time is a process.

Time is the continual collapsing of Schrodinger wave functions
I seem to recall reading Einstein postulated that mass generates
spacetime? with spacetime as inhomogeneous and anisotropic in the
neighborhood of mass. Space becomes contracted in the neighborhood of massive objects such as neutron stars according to the formula r' = (1-rS/r)^(1/2) Where rS = 2GM/c^2 .

The vacuum T^uv = 0 solution to the Einstein field equation, which is spherically symmetric and static, is called the Schwarzschild geometry. For r very large compared to rS(distances many Schwarzschild radii from the neutron star) , rS/r will be very small and r' will be virtually equal to r . As r shrinks toward rS/r, r' will approach 1 - rS/r = 0.

Rulers appear to get shorter, in the approach towards the neutron
star, and time intervals get longer. The distortions arising from
general relativity depend on the gravitational potential energy, and vary as 1/r, rather than varying with the strength of the
gravitational field. Since the Schwarzschild radius is radially
symmetric, the curvature in the path of a ray of light can be
explained as the varying density of space which creates a region of varying refractive index. This is what causes the ray to bend slightly as it grazes a massive star.

As far as special relativity is concerned, the increase in mass of a body moving at relativistic speeds is a kind of rotational
"perspective effect". When dealing with the spacelike separation
between two events we have the expression:

(distance)^2 = (Dx)^2 + (Dy)^2 + (Dz)^2

When dealing with an interval between two events A and B where we
have the same y and z coordinates, the separation in space between the
two events becomes: distance = Dx . The interval is given by the
mathematical expression:

[(Dt^2) - (Dx^2)]^(1/2)

Where t is the time coordinate. The expression becomes:

(Dt^2) - (Dx^2) - (Dy^2) - (Dz^2)

for a timelike interval.

For a spacelike interval:

(Dx^2) + (Dy^2) + (Dz^2) - (Dt^2)

So Minkowski introduces a new way to measure time with Dw =
[(-1)^(1/2)]*Dt

(distance)^2 = (Dx)^2 + (Dy)^2 + (Dz)^2 + (Dw)^2

Time and space become parts of a larger unity,

[Dx^2 + Dy^2 + Dz^2 - Dt^2]^(1/2)

The minus sign shows how time is not quite the same as space and marks
their difference in character. with the imaginary number (-1)^(1/2) .

The light cone is an interesting feature of Lorentz geometry. A flash of light at one moment in time. The Lorentz geometry has interesting and important characteristics for the understanding the structure of the physical world.
The future light cone tells the history of the expanding spherical pulse that started at point P. Similarly the bacwards light cone tells the history of a converging pulse of radiation collapsing at point P, the origin, at time zero.

The light cone of the event at point P and the light cone of any other event, has an existence in spacetime apart from any coordinates we may use to describe it. Events that effect each other are independent of the reference frame in which the observation of said connection of events was observed. So the causal connection between two events is preserved in every reference frame.


By rotating the time axis 90 degrees as we are observing the conic cross sections, time becomes a rate of flux for the present moment or "NOW".

{<-{->{<-{U}->}<-}->}

"U" stands for universe. T duality explains that the physics for a circle of radius R is the same for a circle of radius 1/R.

R<----->{L^2}/R

An isomorphism. The wavefunction of the universe must be defined for both past and future lightcones-spherical wavefunctions. The present moment would be the intersection of R and 1/R.

For the universe: {R}*{1/R} = 1 = c

As we are observing the past lightcone, the oldest layers of space-time are the "outer" layers.

[S/T_0[[[[[[[[[[[S/T_1]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

[distance/time] "S/T" gives the velocity of a photon of light
and is invariant. [S/T_0] = [S/T_1]. The increased layering of space-time would be analogous to a pressure force. The present theory for the universe explains that matter remains constant while distances between galaxies and clusters of galaxies expand.
Likewise, since all motion is relative, we could just as well say that spacetime is a constant and matter-energy is uniformly shrinking. The intersecting lightcones of the universe and objects-events within the universe. This is also in agreement with the T-Duality of M-theory.

A simple diagram-equation representing the unified force:

|{real n-dimensions = ct }
|
|
|
|<--------{quantum vacuum ~ ict}
|
|
|
|
|{real numbers}

Reality is a damped harmonic oscillation, a system at resonance:

{ict}^2 + {ct}^2 ~ 0

One force

F ~ m*m'/d^2

F ~ A/d^4 ~ Casimir effect

F ~ q*q'/d^2

m = mass

A = 2 dimensional area

q = electric charge

d = distance

Copyright © 2003 Russell E. Rierson . All Rights Reserved

[pz]

Originally posted by Chimp
Copyright © 2003 Russell E. Rierson . All Rights Reserved

Are you Russell E. Rierson? Not that we are particularly impressed with that kind of gobbledygook, but if you aren't, you shouldn't be copying his gobbledygook so freely.

[Calzaer]

Chimp:
Time is the continual collapsing of Schrodinger wave functions
I seem to recall reading Einstein postulated that mass generates
spacetime?

That's all I had to read. Thank you for proving my point for me; it IS all gibberish.

Time is NOT the continual collapsing of Schrodinger wave functions. Do you even know what a Schrodinger wave function is?
And mass does NOT "generate" space-time. Mass WARPS space-time. Do you even know what space-time is?

[Chimp]

Yes,

Chimp = Russell E. Rierson

Interesting equations pz ;)

layman's terms = gibberish

complex terms = gobbldygook

:banghead:


Very funny ;)

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Chimp:


That's all I had to read. Thank you for proving my point for me; it IS all gibberish.

Time is NOT the continual collapsing of Schrodinger wave functions. Do you even know what a Schrodinger wave function is?
And mass does NOT "generate" space-time. Mass WARPS space-time. Do you even know what space-time is?



Well if you want to get really nit picky there calizaer, yes, instead of saying mass warps spacetime, it is more correct to say that spacetime is non-Euclidean. We could just as well say that calizaer displays the characteristics of a know-it-all wannabe. Perhaps you can help me to understand better calzaer ;)

Thanks fer yer open mind :banghead:

Chimp

[RufusAtticus]

This thread is now better suited to S&S.

[excreationist]

Chimp:
To be perfectly honest, from my very limited perspective, I cannot imagine what it is like being the "universal computation-mind". I will give it a shot though ;) Say, the universal processor is faced with an intractable problem to solve, for example, an answer to an interrogative such as ..."why do I exist?"
This becomes an endless tower of whys[or turtles], with each successive "why" being embedded in a higher level of generalization. The forward direction of time would then be a process of deriving axioms[natural laws].
So this mind could ponder its existence? It sounds like you believe in God... BTW, you said that "why do I exist?" involves an endless tower of whys... so do you mean that the universe would just wonder why it exists and never arrive at any kind of answer?

Information relates to the structure of a thing. Any non-random structure represents utilizable information. An oak leaf or a footprint on the beach, contains information, at least from a human perspective.
But what about when humans and other life-forms didn't exist? Was there any information present? (Earlier you said that information just depended on the complexity of something)

The ostensibly random patterns of wind blown leaves or sand deposited on the shore by the sea, do not contain information from the human standpoint. Random patterns could represent an algorithm(s) from the universal perspective though. Processed information leads to new information.
But how is it processing these random patterns? I mean, where is the universal mind's brain?

Here are some 6 character things.... which one has more information? Or do they all have the same amount since they are 6 bytes each?

123456
222222
§ñ¥ŒÞŠ
JSmith
e=mc^2
From our human perspective, the e=mc^2, or possibly the third collection of symbols contains the most information.
I'm only concerned with what the universal mind would determine to have more information - not what humans do.
You said that there are "quantum calculations evolving towards a state of maximum information"... to maximize information the quantum calculation process must be able to determine which things have more information than others.
So out of the 6 byte things listed above, what things would have more information according to the quantum calculations, and which would have less?

The information has been "compressed". From the universal perspective, can information be compressed in a similar manner? ...Interesting.
That's what information is about... it involves symbols that refer to more complex things - like experiences involving cats or multiplication or time, etc.

Processed information = energy-momentum.
???? In my experience, it takes a physical device to process information, such as a computer or a brain. (Computers aren't conscious of what they're doing though)

Good point XC. The brain has more complexity, and information, due to its dynamics and structure.
But can some quantum calculations recognize that? Where are all those quantum calculations anyway that are supposedly maximizing information...

The sun consists of more elementary particles but it can apparently be contained in a few simple algorithms.
A few simple algorithms can't describe the positions, etc, of the particles that make up the sun. But humans can describe the features we notice most about the sun pretty quickly - like its temperature and size.... but if we had a hi-res photo of its surface that would take up a lot of information. (Even though it isn't on an atomic scale)

The human brain cannot be represented by a finite number of equations, it seems.
I think brains are totally materialistic and so you could describe them by describing the particles that make them up. (Like how you could have instructions how to build a lego machine and then it works even if the builder didn't realize how it all works)

The book contains less elementary particles but it contains more utilizable information for humans.
But what would the quantum calculator (the universal mind) decide? It is supposed to maximize information...

The book is not dynamic though. The sun consists of a few types of [ though many in number] interacting particles and its particle motions are interpreted as being "random". It has less complexity from a human standpoint.
Does the quantum calculations in the universal mind think that too? The particles in the sun just obey physics in a cause and effect way. Same with the particles in our brains when we are reading books (IMO).

Which more efficient pound for pound, the sun or the human brain? The sun is a more efficient energy processor, according to the brain's E = mc^2. The brain can contain the sun with a few equations.
There wouldn't be some short equations that can generate 100% accurate second-to-second hi-res images of the sun's surface.... I guess we can describe the behaviour of the sun as a whole in a few equations. (its overall gravity, movement, etc) The components of our body and brain obey the same rules though overall, we act in a much more complex way. So if you look at the behaviour of the sun and humans as two physical units, humans behave in a much more complex way... so does the universal mind seek out units and try and determine how complex their behaviours are? (e.g. to see if galaxies have a more complex behaviour than beetles, etc)

The brain is more efficient from the standpoint of its ability to generalize the information.
I don't think the sun can comprehend any information at all. It would be even worse than cells which replicate DNA - DNA is kind of like information - where bases are decoded into amino acids... though cells can't encode information and process it during their lifetime - they can't detect an amino acid and translate that into its corresponding bases... (humans can retrieve AND store/encode information...)

Yes, what at first, appears to be random in the non-repeating non-terminating decimal representation of pi, is able to be contained by a symbol "pi", it is informationally compressible.
We would associate the symbol "pi" with things such as circumference/diameter. From this we can calculate some of the digits of pi.

A more advanced form of language would also be able to contain the information in an encyclopedia would it not?
If we memorized the encyclopedia Britannica then we could recall its contents using its title. That would involve us explicitly remembering all of its words... Using a computer we might be able to compress the text to 5% or 1% of its original size though, but not much smaller than that. The information was based on a complex world (our history, etc) with many independent variables. Pi only involves a few variables so of course it has a shorter algorithm which describes how to determine it.

....Freedom = greater symmetry = higher infinity-alephs. So the highest aleph, the "absolute-infinity" distributes over the entire set called universe and gives it "identity".

Symmetries are analogous to algorithms. They contain information.

ABC = BCA = CAB = CBA = BAC = ACB......
And a = a = a = a = a = a.... that would have more symmetry.... it's just symbols.

Does this rotational invariance hold for all geometries?
I don't know....

An interesting idea for a new "theory-conjecture" which is, that symmetry, not logic, forms the basis of mathematical truth.

Truth = Invariance principle.

Symmetry = invariance = identity

Aristotle's law of excluded middle is really an invariance principle. Symmetry forms the basis of logical truth.

A V ~A

T|F = F|T = T
Where does all this symbolic manipulation take place?

[Chimp]

Hello again XC. I will try to summarize an answer to all of those questions. Thanks for the help.

Here are some quotes from the physicist Lee Smolin:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/uns_smolin-1.html





Another aspect of this is that a scientific cosmology can contain no residue of the idea that the world was constructed by some being who is not a part of it. As the creatures who makes things, it is our most natural impulse to ask: When we come upon something beautifully or intricately structured, who made it? We must learn to give up this impulse if we are to do scientific cosmology. As there can, by definition, be nothing outside the universe, a scientific cosmology must be based on a conception that the universe made itself.



Yes, it appears that tautological statements such as "there is nothing outside the universe" and the tautological implications of the CTMU's UBT are not real science.

Here is another quote:


http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-12/msg0037799.html




I just published a Critical Review (of Chapter 1) of Lee Smolin's Three
Roads to Quantum Gravity:

http://home.att.net/~agorgun/CPsmln.htm

Here's a summary:

A summary of Smolin's
Attempt to Rationalize
His Mythological Cosmos:

Smolin's definition of the universe is:

Universe is everything that exists.

Smolin's Cosmological Principle (SCP) is:

There is nothing outside the universe.

Substituting, SCP becomes:

There is nothing outside everything that exists.

Or equivalently:

The set of all things contains all things.

But this is a tautology or an identity of the sort
A is A.

Therefore like all tautologies SCP is a true but sine prole statement and no
new statements can be deduced from it, consequently Smolin's deductions from
it are not valid.

Smolin claims that he can deduce from SCP that

the universe is a closed system.

By "closed system" Smolin means an orderly and rational entity that can be
understood in its entirety by Smolin. This is the mythological cosmos.

The only deduction from his cosmological principle can be another tautology:

The set of all things contains all things, therefore, it cannot be compared
to anything else, because there is nothing else, therefore, the set of all
things cannot be known.

Therefore, Smolin's cosmological principle leads to the denial of cosmology
as a scientific discipline, which reduces his speculations to mythology.

[djmullen]

But this is a tautology or an identity of the sort
A is A.

Therefore like all tautologies SCP is a true but sine prole statement and no new statements can be deduced from it, consequently Smolin's deductions from it are not valid.


No new statements can be deduced from a tautology? Call Chris at once!

[excreationist]

Chimp:
Hello again XC. I will try to summarize an answer to all of those questions. Thanks for the help.
You didn't actually answer most of my questions...

Here are some quotes from the physicist Lee Smolin:
"......As there can, by definition, be nothing outside the universe, a scientific cosmology must be based on a conception that the universe made itself...."
Or it always existed. (e.g. the Platonia (http://www.platonia.com/) theory)

Yes, it appears that tautological statements such as "there is nothing outside the universe" and the tautological implications of the CTMU's UBT are not real science.
So are you saying what you just quoted was wrong? ("...there can, by definition, be nothing outside the universe...")

From your second quote, you may be saying that Smolin is wrong... so are you saying that there is an external creator?

As far as the last question I asked goes - "Where does all this symbolic manipulation take place?"

Is your answer that it is happening outside of our universe? And what is the point of it? Does the universal mind just manipulate symbols for a while then decide to create a big bang?

[Chimp]

There is a mathematical structure that is isomorphic to the perceptual universe. In that respect, the abstract symbols and the objective universe are one and the same.

If you read the CTMU. It says that there is nothing outside the universe.

Smolin says there is nothing outside the universe.

Smolin says that the only logical conclusion is that the universe creates itself.

That is what the CTMU says also.

Tautological eh?

[Albion]

Well, there's someone over at Beliefnet (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=11&discussionID=284895&messages_per_page=4) who takes Langan at his own valuation. Apparently the problem is that us mere mortals don't have the mental capacity to handle such genius:

"His work is addressing issues at the base core of reality. His work is surely sophisticated and in depth. However, as you have implied it is aimed at questions that are usually only for the elite thinkers. However, that his work is dovetailing with Dembski, Tipler and others is very significant. have you encountered the CTMU in your reading?"

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Chimp
There is a mathematical structure that is isomorphic to the perceptual universe. In that respect, the abstract symbols and the objective universe are one and the same....
The perceived universe and the objective universe are different... someone could be on drugs or have a mental illness and perceive sights and sounds that are imagined rather than coming from the world outside of their brain.
Since the creation of the universe (assuming it had a beginning), what has the "universal mind" been doing exactly? Has it just been observing and thinking? Or has it actually been intervening in the universe? (e.g. talking to people in their dreams or intelligently guiding evolution, etc) BTW, are you an ID believer?

[Chimp]

Originally posted by excreationist
The perceived universe and the objective universe are different... someone could be on drugs or have a mental illness and perceive sights and sounds that are imagined rather than coming from the world outside of their brain.
Since the creation of the universe (assuming it had a beginning), what has the "universal mind" been doing exactly? Has it just been observing and thinking? Or has it actually been intervening in the universe? (e.g. talking to people in their dreams or intelligently guiding evolution, etc) BTW, are you an ID believer?


Hello again excreationist. I try not to anthropomorphize the universe. Yes, postulating the universe as a "universal mind" has problems. I don't really subscribe to "ID" ;) Yet, the universe appears to have properties analogous to a "mind" in that it can remember input and return an output in accordance with its own natural law The EPR paradox is resolved by the memory of spacetime itself. The action is local. Instantaneous action at a distance is forbidden by Einstein's relativity.

I will try to get to your questions from the previous post soon. I am working on them.

[Ted Hoffman]

Besides the idea of reality being infocognitive, Langan doesnt dwell much on the idea of the universe being like a mind. I would rather compare the universe to a brain.

Langan focuses more on self-containment of the universe, dual aspect (theory and real universe) and same things under self-distributed syntax under MU.

And more on the recursive nature of the universe describing itself.

Sure, isomorphisms do exist between "systems" and the universe and also to mathematical concepts/structures but that alone does not make the universe like a mind.

Its simplistic to make the comparison. And it doesnt add to our knowledge. It merely aggrandizes the few similarities observable.

I thought the EPR was a thought experiment - whats all this about space time memory? Links please?

Note that by and large, the CTMU is agreeable - but some concepts that undergird it have no basis in fact like conspansion, syndifference (an inutile concept), UBT and a few others.

Glad to note that djmullan is in the house.

[Chimp]

Chimp:
To be perfectly honest, from my very limited perspective, I cannot imagine what it is like being the "universal computation-mind". I will give it a shot though. Say, the universal processor is faced with an intractable problem to solve, for example, an answer to an interrogative such as ..."why do I exist?"
This becomes an endless tower of whys[or turtles], with each successive "why" being embedded in a higher level of generalization. The forward direction of time would then be a process of deriving axioms[natural laws].

So this mind could ponder its existence? It sounds like you believe in God... BTW, you said that "why do I exist?" involves an endless tower of whys... so do you mean that the universe would just wonder why it exists and never arrive at any kind of answer?

Another unconscious anthropomorphism XC? The "mind" could be analogous to a self referential system{A type of quantum computer?}, in an endless feedback loop. It would be forced to adapt and find a solution. A complex self organizing system. The initial data feeds back into the universal algorithm. New data is generated.




Information relates to the structure of a thing. Any non-random structure represents utilizable information. An oak leaf or a footprint on the beach, contains information, at least from a human perspective.

But what about when humans and other life-forms didn't exist? Was there any information present? (Earlier you said that information just depended on the complexity of something)

It seems that the universal data processor must have fundamental "bits" of information? i.e. [1, 0], [wave, particle] [X, Not-X], etc, resulting from a general rule, i.e. an invariance principle. The abstract contains the concrete. The general contains the specific. Concrete interacting objects are really abstract configurations of mathematical principles. Thus, we could be holographically generated subsets with the optical delusion that we are concrete and solid. Holograms are a phenomenon resulting from wave interference patterns. According to Heisenberg uncertainty, Waves are a momentum property. Particles are a position property. Waves contain information.



The ostensibly random patterns of wind blown leaves or sand deposited on the shore by the sea, do not contain information from the human standpoint. Random patterns could represent an algorithm(s) from the universal perspective though. Processed information leads to new information.

But how is it processing these random patterns? I mean, where is the universal mind's brain?


[b]A brain is a mechanism. The universal "brain" must be an abstract mechanism ...?

The abstract contains the concrete. It could be that the mechanism consists of abstract rules. A particle of mass-energy would be a universal instantiation of a general rule(s).

Here are some 6 character things.... which one has more information? Or do they all have the same amount since they are 6 bytes each?

123456
222222
§ñ¥ŒÞŠ
JSmith
e=mc^2

From our human perspective, the e=mc^2, or possibly the third collection of symbols contains the most information.

I'm only concerned with what the universal mind would determine to have more information - not what humans do.
You said that there are "quantum calculations evolving towards a state of maximum information"... to maximize information the quantum calculation process must be able to determine which things have more information than others.
So out of the 6 byte things listed above, what things would have more information according to the quantum calculations, and which would have less?

The abstract symbolic representations must be information with reference to fundamental "bits" of the universal processor.

What would be the fundamental bit?





The information has been "compressed". From the universal perspective, can information be compressed in a similar manner? ...Interesting.

That's what information is about... it involves symbols that refer to more complex things - like experiences involving cats or multiplication or time, etc.

Of course, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and any one portion of a holographic film, contains all of the information for the entire holographic image.






Processed information = energy-momentum.
???? In my experience, it takes a physical device to process information, such as a computer or a brain. (Computers aren't conscious of what they're doing though)

A harmonic oscillator can have feedback. The interacting wave patterns generate a holographic reality. A self referential mechanism.


Good point XC. The brain has more complexity, and information, due to its dynamics and structure.

But can some quantum calculations recognize that? Where are all those quantum calculations anyway that are supposedly maximizing information...

Yes. It seems that some sort of holographic principle must hold for the universe.



The sun consists of more elementary particles but it can apparently be contained in a few simple algorithms.

A few simple algorithms can't describe the positions, etc, of the particles that make up the sun. But humans can describe the features we notice most about the sun pretty quickly - like its temperature and size.... but if we had a hi-res photo of its surface that would take up a lot of information. (Even though it isn't on an atomic scale)

Heisenberg uncertainty means that certain freedoms exist for the interacting particles.

DxDp >= hbar/2

So general principles can account for the interacting particles, yet, we cannot figure out tomorrows stock market even if we know the wave function of the universe.

:banghead:


The human brain cannot be represented by a finite number of equations, it seems.

I think brains are totally materialistic and so you could describe them by describing the particles that make them up. (Like how you could have instructions how to build a lego machine and then it works even if the builder didn't realize how it all works)

What exactly do you mean by the term ..."materialistic"? ;)

According to the holographic principle, any one piece of spacetime would contain the information comprizing the whole reality. Brains also store information holographically it seems.




The book contains less elementary particles but it contains more utilizable information for humans.

But what would the quantum calculator (the universal mind) decide? It is supposed to maximize information...

The universal mind-mechanism must maximize efficiency. Is life an accidental byproduct of the universal computation? ...or does life exist as part of the solution to the paradox of existence, since the universal computation could be stuck in an endless feedback loop?




The book is not dynamic though. The sun consists of a few types of [ though many in number] interacting particles and its particle motions are interpreted as being "random". It has less complexity from a human standpoint.

Does the quantum calculations in the universal mind think that too? The particles in the sun just obey physics in a cause and effect way. Same with the particles in our brains when we are reading books (IMO).

Heisenberg uncertainty gives certain degrees of freedom. Yes, causality must not be violated. Cause precedes effect. The effect of interacting particles in our brains leads to the total brain describing itself and its universe.

How does the universal mind think? ...I don't know. It is an advanced logic processor.



Which more efficient pound for pound, the sun or the human brain? The sun is a more efficient energy processor, according to the brain's E = mc^2. The brain can contain the sun with a few equations.


There wouldn't be some short equations that can generate 100% accurate second-to-second hi-res images of the sun's surface.... I guess we can describe the behaviour of the sun as a whole in a few equations. (its overall gravity, movement, etc) The components of our body and brain obey the same rules though overall, we act in a much more complex way. So if you look at the behaviour of the sun and humans as two physical units, humans behave in a much more complex way... so does the universal mind seek out units and try and determine how complex their behaviours are? (e.g. to see if galaxies have a more complex behaviour than beetles, etc)[/QUOTE]

The sun and other stars are a process that could precede life in the planetary systems. Without stars, there would not be carbon based life forms. At least for our solar system... It appears that the sun is an evolutionary step towards more complex interacting sub-sets of the ...universal set.




ore efficient from the standpoint of its ability to generalize the information.

I don't think the sun can comprehend any information at all. It would be even worse than cells which replicate DNA - DNA is kind of like information - where bases are decoded into amino acids... though cells can't encode information and process it during their lifetime - they can't detect an amino acid and translate that into its corresponding bases... (humans can retrieve AND store/encode information...)

sun is a collection of interacting rules. The brain and the sun share some of those rules and other rules they do not share.

Would beings in a holographically generated world, be able to tell whether they were a computer simulation or not?




Where does all this symbolic manipulation take place?

The abstract machine called universe.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Chimp
There is a mathematical structure that is isomorphic to the perceptual universe. In that respect, the abstract symbols and the objective universe are one and the same. Which symbols? Why would anyone believe for a second they simply are the universe?

The universe contains, e.g., apples. I ate one today. Was that apple secretly an "abstract symbol"? Should I bring numerals for lunch henceforth? If I have four apples at home in the fruit bowl, which abstract symbol in the canonical model isomorphic with those apples is the tastiest?

Does electronic proximity to Langan cause the spread of his bizarre tendency to confuse language with what it depicts?

[Chimp]

Zero distinctions mean zero information. Information itself can be roughly defined as that which distinguishes one thing from another. The information contained in a thing represents the identity of a thing itself, in that its properties is what makes it distinct from other things. The written symbols are representations of the identity of a ...thing.

Symmetry = Invariance = Identity.

:cool:

[excreationist]

Chimp:
Your posts are becoming harder and harder to make sense of. I'll just respond to some of it.
So this mind could ponder its existence? It sounds like you believe in God... BTW, you said that "why do I exist?" involves an endless tower of whys... so do you mean that the universe would just wonder why it exists and never arrive at any kind of answer?

Another unconscious anthropomorphism XC?
*You* were the one who first used the word "mind"... and you also talked about this mind processing questions like "why do I exist?"

The "mind" could be analogous to a self referential system
Self-referential systems use symbols - like I refer to myself by using the symbol (word) "I".

{A type of quantum computer?}, in an endless feedback loop. It would be forced to adapt and find a solution. A complex self organizing system. The initial data feeds back into the universal algorithm. New data is generated.
You are talking about it "finding a solution"... a solution to what? A solution to physics equations, so that our physical universe can operate? A solution to how to many apples are currently alive on earth? A solution to how many non-bruised apples on earth have >54% red skin?

........That's what information is about... it involves symbols that refer to more complex things - like experiences involving cats or multiplication or time, etc.

Of course, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and any one portion of a holographic film, contains all of the information for the entire holographic image.
Are you saying that if you captured a holographic image of thousands of lines of text, you could fully reconstruct that image from a single molecule of the holographic film?

Heisenberg uncertainty means that certain freedoms exist for the interacting particles.

DxDp >= hbar/2

So general principles can account for the interacting particles, yet, we cannot figure out tomorrows stock market even if we know the wave function of the universe.
The outcome of that equation is basically random isn't it? Or do you think the universe guides physics so that things go according to some super-intelligent cosmic plan (to maximize information or something)?

What exactly do you mean by the term ..."materialistic"? ;)
Not dualistic - only physical.

According to the holographic principle, any one piece of spacetime would contain the information comprizing the whole reality. Brains also store information holographically it seems.
Why do people often lose some memories when their brain is severely damaged? Why do people who have Alzheimers gradually lose their memories, correlating with the decreased volume of their brain? Isn't one neuron enough to store all of our memories? Why do we have about 100 billion neurons?

But what would the quantum calculator (the universal mind) decide? It is supposed to maximize information...

The universal mind-mechanism must maximize efficiency.
What do you mean by efficiency? Efficiency at doing what? If you mean that things take the path of least resistance, then that isn't a breakthrough theory.

Is life an accidental byproduct of the universal computation? ...or does life exist as part of the solution to the paradox of existence, since the universal computation could be stuck in an endless feedback loop?
What do you think?

Would beings in a holographically generated world, be able to tell whether they were a computer simulation or not?
I guess not, but on the other hand I don't really understand your theory. So are you saying that we are in a computer simulation?

[Chimp]

Julian Barbour has some interesting ideas on "time". The present moment or "NOW" can be explained as the condensation-collapse of the wave function. Time is a series of "NOWS":

http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html




The quantum universe is static. Only timeless Nows exist. The quantum rules give them different probabilities. We experience the most probable Nows as individual instants of time. The appearance of motion and a flow of time are both illusions created by very special structure of the instants that we experience.

In fact, everything that we find on the earth and can observe in the universe has a structure which suggests a history that has unfolded in accordance with definite laws. All naturally occurring objects seem to contain mutually consistent records of a past in which they were created. They may be called time capsules.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Chimp
Julian Barbour has some interesting ideas on "time". The present moment or "NOW" can be explained as the condensation-collapse of the wave function. Time is a series of "NOWS":

http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html
Yeah... that is probably my favourite theory about the nature of reality. I think it is a subset of the Multiple Worlds Interpretation (aka Multiple Histories Interpretation) except that all the alternate histories exist eternally as a static entity. So in the Heisenberg Uncertainty equation, all of the possibilities would lead to alternate realities (different branches in Platonia) rather than only the optimal one/s becoming a reality. (something like that) I haven't read his book, but I've read articles about it in New Scientist magazine and Discover magazine though.

[Clutch]

The written symbols are representations of the identity of a ...thing.Or, as someone with greater economy of expression might say, symbols represent things.
Symmetry = Invariance = Identity.I assume that "symmetry" is your sloppy bullshit-ese equivalent for "representation". (It's the charitable alternative to assuming that you've decided suddenly to start writing on another topic.)

In any case, all three of those equivalences are absurdly false.

You should answer my questions and make sense of your earlier bit of word-salad before cranking out more.

[Chimp]

Just stick to the facts Clutch. [deleted insult - this is not necessary]


http://www.reciprocalnet.org/edumodules/symmetry/identity.html

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~chester/IsSymtryIdnty/

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-04/msg0040819.html

http://bio.nagaokaut.ac.jp/~matsuno/ALEXAN95.htm