Theory of Everthing

yellowcaked wrote:...One thing I marvel at is that I read where petrified wood can be created in 3 days, under water, and with the right amount of pressure. That is astounding! Think of the petrified forests in Arizona. The timbers simply filled with water during Noah's flood and sank to the bottom where they were petrified under unimaginable pressure at such a great depth that would obliterate a human being. It is truly awesome what science, directed by God, can do. Those petrified timbers are laying in what seems like the desert but it is simply the land that was overwrought by thousands of feet of water with no sediment after the timbers sank, little if any rocks, and placed perfectly on the landscape.

But another truly amazing part is that He can change the science at the whim of His Word. He does not have to follow what we think are the mathematical/scientific "rules". He is omnipotent. Omniscient. Omnipresent.

Unfathomable. Just read the book of Job.

1 Corinthians 15:27 For “He has put all things under His feet.”[a] But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

* Theory of Relativity + Big Bang: clocks from 1000s of years ago as measured by themselves if they had stayed where they were in a non-expanding universe, are seen by our clocks today, as being millions of years old. Thus it is impossible for the Big Bang to have a starting point, because the time to get there from here, as measured in those clocks at the starting point, would be infinite as measured in our clocks now.

The pattern is quite obvious. Existential questions rely on a reference point, and thus demand an existent start and/or endpoint of the universe, but there is none.

[...snip...]

A uniform distribution with one possibility (no contrast) does not exist because it can not be perceived nor measured relative to any other thing. Thus a starting point for the Big Bang is inconsistent. The universe is and forever was, expanding. The universe is an infinitely recursive onion skin of space-time scales, with each moment of perception or consciousness being inconsistent with all others. By that I mean, each occurrence is random (on the universe scale), except the non-determinism is not perceived by the illusion of an ephemeral inconsistent shared consciousness...

> I'm glad we agree on mitigated skepticism. But now I'm at a total loss to
> understand the [...] rest.

The issue becomes more clear to me.

The crux of the matter appears to be I disagree with Hume's assertion that abstract mathematical concepts do not exist. Thus I can not draw the distinction that he does between his "mitigated skepticism" and faith. A rough summary is that Hume's only evidence is that we can't falsify an abstract concept with certainty.

I need to attempt some formal logic proofs, but the general thrust is that Godel's theorem says that no countable set of axioms is both complete and consistent. It does not however prove that an infinite set of axioms is complete and consistent, so apparently it stops shy of disproving Hume.

We suspect (but can not prove, i.e. Halting problem is undecidable) that recursion can produce infinitely varying structure, e.g. some cellular automa a la Wolfram, and there has even been compression algorithms that employed compositions of affine transformations (fractals). But compression is just measuring entropy, and entropy is an abstract concept of a continuous function of the reals (1856 Second Law of Thermodynamics).

So Hume says it is irrational to assume that infinity exists (that our abstract math is real), thus he concludes it is more rational (even though not proof of their existence) to assume that the things we can measure existed at least in the past and rely on some history of consistency to have some way of coping with the future. However, I think it can be proven that the things we can measure, also can not exist without the concept of infinity. It seems that might be easy to prove. Appears on quick thought that the mistake Hume may have made is that no measuring device has his "constant conjunction". Every realization has a sampling window, not a sampling infinitesmal point. That was my point about Shannon-Nyquist. Seems the proof should be quite easy now that I see exactly which part of Hume work to address, and I am surprised if no one has done this before. Surely someone has.

In short, Hume's assertion that mitigated skepticism is more rational and distinct from faith, hinges on an infinitesimal sampling window (constant conjuction), but then it follows then is no different than faith, because infinity must exist. I need to develop that more strongly, I am just giving a rough idea of how I visualize the proof proceeding.

> Afraid I don't see the relevance of Hume's views on mathematics to the
> issues we were discussing, which had to do with empirical inquiry, and
> whether it is rational to rely on evidence and argument despite the
> recognition, since the 17th century, that literal proofs are restricted to
> mathematics (and as is now known, to arithmetic, if even that).
>
> I don't think Hume's mitigated skepticism has to do with the issues you
> raise here.

For Hume, all propositions are semantically equivalent to propositions about one's experiences, because we are not omniscient (of every other experience).

Thus, how is "the sun will rise tomorrow" not a faith, when the person who made the claim doesn't wake up? From that person's experience, the sun may or may not rise, but we have no evidence either way of what happens from a dead person's perspective. A possible retort is the knowledge about the possibility of future death due to evidence of the death of others, thus the implicit being "the sun will rise tomorrow, and/or I may die". My retort is the absence of evidence of the experience of a dead person, since none have ever reported what their eyes did not see any more (other than in metaphysical parables). Given 150,000 deaths per day, certainly if empiricism was a reasonably powerful philosophy, it would offer more than faith to 150,000 people per day.

So if empiricism can tell us nothing rational about death, according to Hume's requirement that all propositions are semantically equivalent to propositions about one's experiences, and since it can't even tell us about the future (i.e. examples of the invalidation of prior best-of-epoch science abound, e.g. Newton replaced by Relativity replaced by Quantum Mechanics replaced soon by String theory perhaps...), then what additional rationality over faith does empiricism gain us? It gains us about 100 or so years of scientific epochs. That is about it. Given it doesn't answer the big questions, it seems to be but a finite subset of faith. Thus I see no loss of rationality when I value empiricism for what it can do, and do not try to apply it irrationally to big questions it can not do. For a empiricist to claim that faith is irrational, I ask where is their evidence? To this, they can say nothing and have converted to faith in order to irrationally attack faith. Thus empiricism is faith. Don't you see how the set always contains itself?

Per the logic sketch of the prior paragraphs, the insurmountable issue is the impossibility of proving this physical world is real without having an endpoint, but the endpoint always destroys the logic and makes it a circular straw-man.

Towards a formal logic proof, I should study the linked insight into Godel's theorem. I note the infinite recursion of logic sets. My first email to you was alledging the irony that Russell apparently didn't see that his own Paradox (every set recurses itself) invalidated his public implication that faith was less rational than empiricism.

http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/12/generalising-godels-theorem-with.html

Note the issue of infinity at endpoints is synonymous with infinitesimalism of the fixed point (evidence sample), but I don't delve further on that for now. I stumbled on that link above because of the studying I am doing on category theory.

Quick simple proof

Empiricism is rational because by definition we can experience it.

The rule that defines empiricism can never exclude what is outside the set of what is contained by the rule, due to Russell's Paradox.

Thus empiricism is a subset of faith.

End of proof.

Example is per my prior email, the loophole that we can't measure what a dead person experiences.

As I said from the beginning, Coase's Theorem (there are not boundaries, possibilities will route around) follows from Russell's Paradox.

Erik Verlinde wrote:When I got the idea that gravity and inertia emerge in this way, which is close to half a year ago, I was really excited.

@TomM:
It could be incidental (not intentional), because afaics there are cases where it is impossible to speak factually about the environment without implicitly attacking the environmentalists. Environmentalists seem to share the logic of the feminists, in that when they speak against something calling for collective force, they are actually speaking for the phenomena they are against. For example, they want to protect some species, but this can cause the entropic efficiency for other species (esp humans who have the most information content, i.e. entropy) to decline more significantly. So it is difficult to see them as anything over than ignorant of entropy as the fundamental force of nature. I don't say this with any spite in my heart, it is just logic. My proof is that all centrally managed collective action raises uniformity of information and thus lowers "entropic efficiency", and entropy is now proven to be the most fundamental force of nature we currently know of (which was my published theory since 2008). However, collective action is a local semi-closed order of nature too, i.e. it is a feature of the larger open-system's global optimization (annealing) of entropic efficiency. Velinde has derived Newton's F=ma from the entropic force, and he explains the semi-closed local orders here:

But a theorem by Prigogine states that the dynamics of the system will adapt itself so that entropy production is minimized. Yes, really minimized. This may appear counterintuitive, but I like to look at it as that it seeks the path of least resistance.

Ecoforming is intentional. Changing the composition of the atmosphere is not.

That relates to my prior comment (we were posting at same time), in that using centrally managed collective action to force the latter to be intentional, radically reduces the entropy (degrees-of-freedom, thus information content) of the former and thus overall. If there was a free market need (i.e. individual cost payoff) for humans to control the composition of the atmosphere, then humans would do it without any central force. Collectivists will argue that we need collective action to account for costs that aren't individualized, but this promise of lower overall costs is always a lie long-term, because it always lowers the entropic efficiency in the long-run. However, the semi-closed orders can be more expedient (path of least resistance) in the short-run, e.g. the current western collectivist debt bubble, before the implosion of that local order comes (Coase's Theorem). What I am saying is I think collectivism is necessary, as it is nature's way of motivating the free market to develop disruptive technologies. This is why I tolerate everyone's view, even though I can make some statements about what I think are the long-term outcomes. I am inherently against religion (group-think) because it is centralization of thought, thus a lower information content. In short, there isn't supposed to be some static perfection ever-- and I like that. Sorry for rambling.

@Winter:
Agreed the corporation coordinates development, and thus exists, where exists transactional costs to be coordinated.

Agreed, I understand your country largely exists because of some collective cost of levees that I assume facilitated more prosperity than they cost (I was born in New Orleans which is similar, although I think the cost is paid by the Feds and Corps of Engineers). And my point is that collectivism is natural in that sense (for the short-run of 400+ years in this case), and motivates technological disruption, due the overriding global entropic force (now known since 2010 to be the fundamental force). The global entropy is trending to maximum. 400 years out of a million+ for the universe, is just a blip.

The Netherlands' dependence on collectivist levees will be erased by technology in the future, maybe not in our lifetimes. Levitating cities might do it. Or it might be an information revolution that removes some key competitive cost advantage for most people living there in the subsidy. I don't know exactly what form the disruption will be. The book 1493 documents examples that such disruptions occur rather suddenly on epochal scale.

@Winter: the implication is the debt is not necessary to maintain the levees, because I assume the productive output of the Netherlands exceeds the cost. Also the implication that the initial impetus for collectivism seems to rise from some justified (positive economics) paradigm of shared cost structure. So to the extent that technology can disrupt shared cost structures, then the efficiency of entropic force proceeds without the boom & bust of those local orders which were disrupted, yet new shared cost structures emerge. For example, the onset of the technology for levees enabled your country to form with a new shared cost structure.

The greater concern is collectivism grows a constituency, which then diverges to an Olsen scramble of vested interests, which is symbiotic with the boom & bust debt+insurance+bonds syndrome. And the divergence is sometimes quite severe, i.e. the mega-death outcome. Maybe this overshoot of collectivism is nature's most efficient way of culling the herd, or perhaps that is motivation for us to develop technology to mitigate the short-run economic viability of debt and taxes if possible, since those seem to be the major mode of overshoot. Okay that is too much rambling for today. Apologies.

@Winter:

Gravity is the force that emerges due to the increase of entropy when two masses come closer together

I think you are missing the point of where the entropy is increasing and where it is decreasing. I am reasonably sure that I understand a model that encompasses Verlinde's model. What Verlinde's model shows is that entropy inside the black hold is increasing, where the energy is conserved by a gravitational force outside the black hole, that does an equivalent work. That energy is not transmitted, but conserved is a crucial realization, that I also wrote about. This is how matter is entangled at a distance. The reality we get is the one we perceive, i.e. the "Q" of our senses (as I defined "Q"). Btw, one of the implications of this is that the information capacity of the radio spectrum is infinite, and there is no need for a government to control it, as it is not a limited resource.

My model is more general. Outside the black hole, the entropy of what we normally call "matter" is decreasing, but the entropy of what we normally call "anti-matter" is increasing. In other words, the inside of the black hole is the anti-matter of our universe. In my model, there is only one kind of matter, and the black hole is just one of infinite possible perceptions, as is spacetime, etc.. Verlinde's model of gravity is arbitrary, and it is chosen to match what our senses can perceive. We have built our model of reality from our senses.

I had also theorized that the entropic force would explain the capillary force (and have some public writings on that), so I well along the way towards what Verlinde discovered.

Why the singularity can not be an infinitely dense mass
It is impossible for the Singularity to be an infinitely dense mass, because the only forms of mass that don't have volume, are due to forces produced from energy (e.g. inertia). But there is no energy in the Singularity, because the star gave up all it's energy in the process of forming the Singularity. Instead of inventing infinite special cases of mass, e.g. "darkmatter", etc., we can simply go back to the E=mc2 and equation for Entropy, as I did in the development of my theory. Then the Singularity is easily explained as an infinitely small point of 0 energy and 0 mass and thus dominant Anti-Gravity directed towards this point. Then no science that stood beforehand needs to be handled with new special cases. My theory is merely explaining the how the 2 most fundamental laws of universe (relativity & entropy) interact.

Another reason why the singularity can not be an infinitely dense mass
Because all the equations dealing with mass and energy fail inside the Singularity, because the volume and space is 0. Zilch.

Whereas, my explanation using infinite Entropy inside the Singularity, is completely workable mathematically. The theory can thus be used to make predictions about the behavior of the singularity and the transition to it, because won't just hit "divide by 0" at the point of 0 volume.

And why? Because Entropy contains a logarithm. As the Entropy goes to infinity, the self-similarity of matter (or ether) inside can go to "no contrast"

Here is some speculation. It is interesting to consider the bifurcating network, i.e. trunks that branch into narrower trunks. In a physical layout, such as the internet or water pipes, it is more energy efficient than a fully connected mesh. However, consider the IP network that sits on top of the physical internet, it more resembles a fully connected mesh. And which of those network contains the bulk of the information content? Of course the IP network does. This is an example of a local order that exists to facilitate maximizing entropy. This is what Verlinde describes in his blog, where his says the entropic force follows the path of least resistance, and so the order can actually increase locally. I assume collectivism is doing this. Somehow it is facilitating the global trend to maximum entropy. I suspect this is because technology is motivated by problems, i.e. knowledge only exists because ignorance does, otherwise there would be no contrast. So I recognize collectivism as natural, but it doesn't follow that it is necessarily impossible for us to find a more efficient means to maximizing knowledge and technology.

What Godel and Halting theorems both demonstrate is that a discrete (i.e. countable, measurable, existential) formal system is incomplete, or that it can't prove its consistency or bounds. This is consistent with my prior assertion of what the Shannon-Nyquist theorem states and my interpretation of the entropic force. In short, the aliasing is never known until there are infinite samples (either infinite in time or in smallness of spacing).

It is common sense that given we live in a relativistic universe, that one's measurements depend on one's measurements. The entropic force proves this. Now you might get some insight into why I say that only the entropic force could explain infinity, and why I say it unifies models (math) and reality.

Kaboom!

@Winter:
The singularity has an infinite spacetime curvature. The holographic representation of the blackhole is what we can perceive because we can't perceive the anti-matter, i.e. disorder, "inside" the blackhole. Actually there is no "inside" because disorder is not spacetime dimensioned, i.e. is dimensionless in terms of our spacetime model of quantification, and that is why we don't perceive it directly.

In my more general theory speculation, I say the anti-matter is disorder that has frequencies of self-similarity that are greater than the speed-of-light. This is why we can't perceive it. The anti-matter that is the blackhole is not "inside", but rather the universe wraps back onto itself in a disordered dimension.

So from our perception, the entropy outside the blackhole is decreasing (being lost) as it is absorbed into the blackhole. The holographic principle says that the entropy absorbed by the blackhole is proportional to the area (not the volume) of the event horizon. The conservation of energy requires that the mass lost to the blackhole produces a work-equivalent gravitational force. This also relates a decrease in local entropy (what we perceive) and an increase in global entropy (the anti-matter) to the gravitational forces, thus showing that the trend of entropy to maximum is a fundamental force.

Thus as I said from the start, the decrease in entropy (in our spacetime dimension perception) is offset by an increase in the gravity force. In my more general theory, I am speculating that this entropy is the anti-matter that we know exists but we can't measure it within our spacetime model of perception (existence). So actually the entropy was not lost, it was just that the gravitational forces became so great that the matter was disordered beyond Planck's constant, thus it became imperceptible in our spacetime dimension, and we can only see its effects along the event horizon.

With a blackhole, nature is converting very high order (dense mass) to very high disorder (anti-matter), and creating a gravitational force to keeping feeding that process. This is the universal trend towards maximum entropy.

There is already some research being done on applying this principle to nature in general. And the general equivalence of mass, energy, and information has implications on everything.

Lubos wrote:
> It's equally untrue that there
> exist processes that "reduce" the
> entropy. The total entropy never
> decreases...

This is your mistake.

Of course there are processes that increase (typo: this should be decrease) entropy from some frame-of-reference, while the global entropy is trending to maximum.

For example, look at the collectivist financial situation of the western world today, and tell me that degrees-of-freedom haven't decreased. If as you claim, nothing disobeys fundamental forces, then don't try to claim social organization is not a natural process.

You are assuming that your frame-of-reference is total, i.e. that relativism doesn't apply. It obviously can never be the case the relativism doesn't apply to any phenomenon, because if the cost of 100% coverage was not asymptotic, then uniformity could exist and thus nothing could be observed. Let me give you an example.

One of the claims I made when I independently developed a theory of the entropic force in 2008, was that the information capacity of a communication channel is unlimited. The retort was that the bandwidth is fundamentally limited. And I said no it is not, because it depends on your informational frame-of-reference. For example, if there are three people that all want to transmit the character "a" and the channel in my frame-of-reference only has 1 character of bandwidth, then each of those three people would say the channel is saturated if they were in my frame-of-reference, yet if my frame-of-reference is that I can see all three of them sending the same character, then from my frame of reference, I can send all of their transmissions.

The entropy is not as simple as the distance between two objects, but rather it is the patterns of matter as perceived from a frame-of-reference. This is why we can transmit information more efficiently over a resonant channel where mutual Q is tuned. You see noise (disorder) can be signal to another observer.

The speed-of-light and spacetime are arbitrary frames-of-reference to fit the world that we most easily perceive-- our normal frame-of-reference. The blackhole is the phenomenon that challenges our understanding as well as the dark matter that must exist but we can't measure it directly. The dark matter isn't another form of matter, it is merely matter that is disordered beyond Plank's constant from our perspective. The matter in the blackhole is wrapping back into our universe in another dimensionality of informational frame-of-reference.

The equivalent mass of the blackhole is not in the center of anything, because there is no center in a disordered dimension (from our spacetime perspective).

Lubos wrote:
> there is nothing such as your
> "virtual chaos" (things are
> either chaotic, or not)

Then explain dark matter completely in your limited spacetime model.

See also the rebuttals I made in your other blog page, where I explained this in more detail:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/many-faces-of-emergence.html

I am publishing all my comments elsewhere, in case you censor them. I must admit, the more I read from you, the more I am put off by your drivel arrogance.

Lubo wrote:
> Also, the internal structure of the
> atom is not described by discrete
> diagrams but by sophisticated
> continuous wave functions that
> solve certain differential
> equations.

Wrong.

This model has a discrete resolution, Planck's constant.

Lubo wrote:
> In Verlinde's picture, the produced
> entropy will actually be huge,
> comparable to the black hole
> entropy.

And what is the problem with that? Do you think nothing is happening with the dark matter? And can you measure and model what is happening in the dark matter?

You assume you are measuring everything, but the Shannon-Nyquist theorem tells you that until you collect infinite samples, you don't have totality, and you will have aliasing relative to some frame-of-reference, just maybe not your current one. A transformation filter doesn't change that.

Lubo wrote:
> but it is not destroyed by gravity
> which is what would happen if you
> were assuming that the neutron
> actually interacts with many more
> degrees of freedom that are
> responsible for the distance-
> dependent entropy

But why are you making that assumption? The huge increase in degrees-of-freedom must be occurring in the dark matter. Where else do you think the matter that enters the blackhole goes? What is your explanation for that matter in your spacetime model?

It is critical to understand that matter is conserved, it is only the relative frame-of-reference that is changing. Certainly if you could achieve totality of reference, then the heisenberg uncertainty principle wouldn't exist, and note it is just the Nyquist limit applied to Planck's constant.

Lubo wrote:
> LeSage's gravity theory can be
> shown to be wrong, e.g. because
> the corpuscles are slowing all
> objects down...There's no way to
> make the friction acceptably
> small.

There is a way to reduce the friction, the matter is what we call "dark matter".

It is interesting that you independently thought of LeSage gravity at age 11. I independently thought of it at age 25 in 1990, which for me was indeed the precursor to realizing the entropic force.

But until you have a complete model of dark matter, I would prefer you stop calling other people names like crackpot.

Lubo wrote:
> because his IQ is just hopelessly
> low

> average laymen could understand are
> not signs of creativity

Oh my. You protest very much, but don't seem to understand some basic laws of information theory.

Note that the Uncertainty Principle says that the fundamental accuracy of quantum mechanics is Planck's constant (expressed in radians) divided by 2. Note that the Shannon-Nyquist theorem says that the highest frequency that can be measured in a signal without aliasing is the sampling rate divided by 2.

It isn't crazy to speculate that the dark matter is aliasing error within the limitation of Planck's constant, i.e. speed-of-light and wave length.

Luboš Motl Pilsen argues against Entropic gravity because he makes some calculation about relative entropy and reversibility in the spacetime frame-of-reference, but yet he has no data on what might be happening in the dark matter which can't be measured directly in spacetime. My speculation is that Entropic gravity is a relationship between spacetime perception of matter and the dark matter (which I speculate is in the blackhole which I speculate is same as saying "in our universe").

This is why I argued to not limit discussion to what can be measured or proved, because the uncertainty principle assures us that which we try to measure is changed when we measure it (i.e. our spacetime frame-of-reference is always relative). The darkmatter is apparently outside the realm of the scientific method. Rationally, science has a fundamental limitation. Of course I seek to be able to understand this and bring into the scientific method. But just because no one can at the moment, doesn't mean they are crazy for thinking about these issues.

Such speculation is supported by that it is impossible for the Singularity to be an infinitely dense mass, because all the equations dealing with mass and energy fail inside the Singularity, because the volume and space is 0. And the only forms of mass that don't have volume, are due to forces produced from energy (e.g. inertia). But there is no energy in the Singularity, because the star gave up all it's energy in the process of forming the Singularity. Instead of inventing infinite special cases of mass, e.g. "darkmatter", whereas the calculation of Entropy increasing inside the Singularity (to a number of independent possibilities greater than can be accommodated within Plank's constant), does not fail mathematically, because Entropy contains a logarithm and thus asymptotically approaches infinity as the precision of the matter asymptotically approaches 0.

The holographic principle is the relationship of the quantity of matter "inside" the blackhole and what area of spacetime would be required to enclose that quantity of matter with Planck's constant of resolution. The blackhole is a window into that matter in our spacetime frame-of-reference, but it doesn't mean that matter is at that location, because it exists in another entropic dimension, which isn't bounded by spacetime. Anyway, that is my speculation.

click images to enlarge

click images to enlarge

• maximizing productivity and savings is necessary to survive unpredictable severity and duration of disasters and changing economic circumstances.
  
• some production is allocated to fulfill the consumption demand of those who do lower production. And some who do lower production will borrow to attempt to supply this production. These additional lower producers create more such consumption demand, which repeats the process, endlessly adding additional lower producers. Thus, unmitigated proliferation of lower productivity and waste of resources.
  

to lump all these numbers together without such data have as much sense as to calculate “average temperature of patients in hospital”. Patient in morgue: 70F, patient with a cold: 102F and patient in intensive care: 106F, but on average… well “everyone is freezing, 92F is too low, we should do something about it!”… Crazy and stupid.

He came into office with boundless faith in the American people—after all, they had elected him—and figured he could always appeal directly to them. That was his trump card, and he played it. In November 2005 he called a special election that sought votes on four reforms: limiting state spending, putting an end to the gerrymandering of legislative districts, limiting public-employee-union spending on elections, and lengthening the time it took for public-school teachers to get tenure. All four propositions addressed, directly or indirectly, the state’s large and growing financial mess. All four were defeated; the votes weren’t even close. From then until the end of his time in office he was effectively gelded: the legislators now knew that the people who had elected them to behave exactly the way they were already behaving were not going to undermine them when appealed to directly. The people of California might be irresponsible, but at least they were consistent.

But when you look below the surface, he adds, the system is actually very good at giving Californians what they want. “What all the polls show,” says Paul, “is that people want services and not to pay for them. And that’s exactly what they have now got.” As much as they claimed to despise their government, the citizens of California shared its defining trait: a need for debt. The average Californian, in 2011, had debts of $78,000 against an income of $43,000. The behavior was unsustainable, but, in its way, for the people, it works brilliantly. For their leaders, even in the short term, it works less well. They ride into office on great false hopes and quickly discover they can do nothing to justify those hopes.

Too Fat to Fly

The road out of Vallejo passes directly through the office of Dr. Peter Whybrow, a British neuroscientist at U.C.L.A. with a theory about American life. He thinks the dysfunction in America’s society is a by-product of America’s success. In academic papers and a popular book, American Mania, Whybrow argues, in effect, that human beings are neurologically ill-designed to be modern Americans. The human brain evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in an environment defined by scarcity. It was not designed, at least originally, for an environment of extreme abundance. “Human beings are wandering around with brains that are fabulously limited,” he says cheerfully. “We’ve got the core of the average lizard.” Wrapped around this reptilian core, he explains, is a mammalian layer (associated with maternal concern and social interaction), and around that is wrapped a third layer, which enables feats of memory and the capacity for abstract thought. “The only problem,” he says, “is our passions are still driven by the lizard core. We are set up to acquire as much as we can of things we perceive as scarce, particularly sex, safety, and food.” Even a person on a diet who sensibly avoids coming face-to-face with a piece of chocolate cake will find it hard to control himself if the chocolate cake somehow finds him. Every pastry chef in America understands this, and now neuroscience does, too. “When faced with abundance, the brain’s ancient reward pathways are difficult to suppress,” says Whybrow. “In that moment the value of eating the chocolate cake exceeds the value of the diet. We cannot think down the road when we are faced with the chocolate cake.”

The richest society the world has ever seen has grown rich by devising better and better ways to give people what they want. The effect on the brain of lots of instant gratification is something like the effect on the right hand of cutting off the left: the more the lizard core is used the more dominant it becomes. “What we’re doing is minimizing the use of the part of the brain that lizards don’t have,” says Whybrow. “We’ve created physiological dysfunction. We have lost the ability to self-regulate, at all levels of the society. The $5 million you get paid at Goldman Sachs if you do whatever they ask you to do—that is the chocolate cake upgraded.”

When Vallejo entered bankruptcy, the fire department was cut from 121 to 67, for a city of 112,000 people. The department handles roughly 13,000 calls a year, extremely high for the population. When people feel threatened or worried by anything except other people, they call the fire department. Most of these calls are of the cat-in-the-tree variety—pointless. (“You never see the skeleton of a cat in a tree.”) They get calls from people who have headaches. They get calls from people who have itches where they can’t scratch. They have to answer every call. (“The best call I ever had was phantom-leg pain in a guy with no legs.”)

In the voice recording I did for my summary interpretation of that elite interview, I mentioned the different psychology of cats and dogs. The dog thinks his master is God because his master does what he wants, the cat thinks itself is God because his master does what he wants.

Interesting maybe we humans form these delusions of a master creator because we are hardwired to do so.

I am fully aware that theology could be an illusion. Nevertheless I want that illusion to make sense within my world view, which currently is an entropic theory of matter.

I like that the conclusion is we have to respect free will and balance compassion vs. wisdom, while working towards light & love (as I have defined them in that voice recording).


>
> Interesting link to an article a friend sent to me. You might find this
> interesting knowing that humans and canines are hard-wired for similar
> social structures.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577001843790269560.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Resonance is a key (pathway) to alternate dimensions (realities).

Energy is organization of matter/reality (entropy).

The difference between between entropies (organizations) is potential energy. The resonance (pathway) between realities is kinetic energy. Resonance is the reciprocal of impedance.

Thus a crystal which would resonate between our dimension and some other dimension (e.g. quantum effects), might yield infinite kinetic energy.

Nuclear energy creates resonance pathway, by a chain reaction of quantum effect (breaking atomic bonds) which lowers the impedance (pathway resistance) for heat (atomic entropy) to kinetically enter our super-atomic dimension.

I think gravity and everything can be explained as resonance. I was visualizing this as infinitely varying sized particles of ether, starting about 1990s. I wrote some on it, but I don't know where I stored it. Might be lost.

==============================================
another explanation of why uniformity distorts market fitness
==============================================

When the occurences of a phenomenon in the society are pushed with debt (or other means) in a similar direction, where the average or gross increases are measured as a sign of positive increase, this is equivalent to reducing the degrees-of-freedom (less independent measurements) and gives a wrong answer because...

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3894#comment-335863

khim wrote:

to lump all these numbers together without such data have as much sense as to calculate “average temperature of patients in hospital”. Patient in morgue: 70F, patient with a cold: 102F and patient in intensive care: 106F, but on average… well “everyone is freezing, 92F is too low, we should do something about it!”… Crazy and stupid.

From your compression of time blog, perhaps the ride is accelerating. Humans don't perceive the exponential function in the early stage.

Fascinating topic. Hope in future to dwelve into the math of relativity and try to see if I can develop a more concrete theory. I have rushed some half-baked understanding, but I am not satisfied with that. For now, I have some conceptual, speculative ideas.

I'm consumed with self-funded R&D on a s/w model for relativistic declarative programming with environment state. Every decade or so there is a paradigm shift in programming languages.

On another of your blog pages, I shared a link to a summary of some of my past ponderings, where I speculated (circa 2008 or so) that quantum entanglement may be due to resonance. The 170+ IQ 13 year old Jacob Barnett speculates that space-time may be curved.

1. Reality is different for each observer (perspective). The bug crawling on the ground doesn't know he is on a mountain (the curvative is hidden, i.e. isn't resonant to his Q...see Barnett's point).

2. Signal and noise are filtered relative to resonance. Tesla's insight also factors in, that attenuation in space is scaled by resonance. The wormhole in the space-time manifold may also be resonance.

3. Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem tells us that we never know if have the true signal until we have infinite samples. If we could sample everything, nothing would exist, because the world would be static. It is essential to existence that there be infinite realities. Our perception of time exists, because there is change. If we could measure everything, time and change couldn't exist (from that master observer's perspective). Existence requires a coinductive, irreversible, infinite world. I have also related this more simply to why we can't exist with equal distributions (everything the same color, nothing can be seen), i.e. knowledge then won't exist. Software is the encoding of knowledge, which is why s/w is never static. The master observer of a free market can't exist. These concepts tie into economics, s/w engineering, everything. Very interesting to me.

4. So then order (entropy) is relative to resonance. Entanglement may be the perception of the tip of the iceberg of some order in that the dark matter. It is dark to us because our resonance is not tuned to perceive it all. What is dark to some us, might be simultaneously ordered to others of us. So it can be measured by those who are perceiving it, and we measure it by tips of the iceberg (there is the Nyquist aliasing, as quantum particles pop in and our of our resonance band).

5. I speculate that matter could be maximum disorder (trending to maximum). So the dark energy is matter that is ordered from another perspective. The yen yang that we can't perceive good without the existence of evil.

Perhaps there isn't much substance in my contribution.

As for tapping into the dark matter and polarizing it, I speculate it is an information science problem. Social networks scale very fast. Communication accelerates knowledge exponentially, because the individual brains begin acting like neurons of a larger brain-- like the ant which has a community exo-brain. I tie this back to my work on how to enable independent s/w development to compose. It is all about resonance. The Dunbar number indicates there is a complexity limit to how much each brain can contribute in isolation.

Collaboration is form of love-- the legacy of Fractal for me. We exist because we are not all the same.

Less abstractly, paradigm shift the problem set from spacetime to the entropy (information) domain. One possible way to levitate is connect the sensory perception of the brain to a computer that shifts the reality in space. (I had a comment somewhere on the net about how creating multiple copies of information escapes the spacetime manifold.)

To get the expected result, I suppose ditto for all the other actors in the environment.

So developing a s/w model for relativistic composition of declarative programming and the environment may be applicable to the challenging of polarizing gravity. My point being that gravity is just a perception.

Transforming the domain of the representation can enable perception of order that was hidden. Order that is present but perceived (measured) as disorder, is disorder relative to that observer. Your clever blog about creating seamless patterns popped into my mind. You mention doing a Fourier transform so you can manipulate the data in a different domain (then transform back). Desired order is achieved that was obscured prior to the transformation. The order was always there, but not relative to the observer who didn't use your transformation. This is a practical example of why I have the idea that the disorder of the dark matter may be harvestable with information technology. Perhaps we already are. I am thinking we have real world examples that measures of order are relative to the observer, because we can potentially achieve higher rates of compression as we add perspective. (the relationship between compression and entropy)

Correction. Should prove that there is a coinductive categorical dual to the inductive Axiom of Infinity:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala-debate/vysv97J0xok/7WXkMPvjLI4J

Our prior discussion was essentially incorporating the coinductive type Bottom (of all the type hierarchy in subtyping), which I have now proved is the model of our Universe.

Math proof that God (an outside observer of universe) is consistent with our reality.

Final proof:

https://github.com/ceylon/ceylon-spec/issues/186#issuecomment-9145391

Initial proofs start here:

https://github.com/ceylon/ceylon-spec/issues/186#issuecomment-9124932

The more scientifically objective metric of enlightenment is the frequency of occurrence in the population.

So 1/7 nanozen would currently be the highest possible value of enlightenment on a single datum. Thus we see "go forth and multiply" is critical for maximizing knowledge.

A measure of total enlightenment could be the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals.

Knowledge declines in relative value as it becomes more well known. It must be this way, because otherwise competition could eventually cease, the entropy (independent possibilities) of the universe would stop trending to maximum, and the bell curve of nature would be flatten to uniform (no contrast, no diversity, no degrees-of-freedom, and thus no resilency).

The energy of knowledge is the degrees-of-freedom it can accomodate:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html#EnergyofKnowledge

Yeah you didn't understand me before, because your enlightenment was insufficient.

Signed,
Banned.

I'm banned from replying, but I think I have the answer to your question:

What do -z and z represent, respectively?

The answer is what does a negative frequency mean:

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/t124p30-theory-of-everthing#4752

I am responding again to your excellent summary (linked below) of a mathematical way of thinking about degrees-of-freedom:

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18753

I had also explained the "Mathematical potential for economic growth w.r.t. to imbalances" or "mathematically that growth potential is reduced by ingrained constraints (friction)":

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18911
http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18913
http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-18959

Now Eric Raymond (with an IQ claimed well north of 150) has pointed out that maximizing "breadth of options" (i.e. maximizing the degrees-of-freedom), as a general game theory strategy, that can regularly trounce all competitors who don't use it:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4699#more-4699

I would like to apply that to chess sometime.