Theory of Everthing

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Theory of Everthing

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:14 pm

Following written in email on Wed, February 21, 2007 12:04 am

If "entangled atoms" remain "entangled state" even when separated by 60
kilometers, then that imo demonstrates that they are "entangled" on a
different dimension that does not involve space or time. In other words,
they remain in close "proximity" in the alternative universe where they
co-exist. Some (e.g. Tesla) I think have tried to explain the existance
of these alternative universes, as being resonance or "ether" (and I am
wary what secret, military research will be able to do with such
knowledge): (re: Quantum Computers)

I believe this is entirely consistent and in support of truth that God

Last edited by Shelby on Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Add that the broken link was about re: Quantum Computers)


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Theorems of modern science...

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:39 pm

... consistent with infinity == maximum disorder:

Also I realized that maximum disorder == maximum order (they are semantically indistinguishable):

And thus that matter is maximally disordered, allowing infinite simultaneous perceptions (i.e. shared realities... a perception does not exist until you can share it):

My Theory of Everything

Last edited by Shelby on Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Time is logarithmic

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:57 pm

When you look at the chart of milestones in earth's history at bottom of page 8:

You can see the pattern that time is not linear, but rather logarithmic. This then makes those linear time scales consistent with the Bible's logarithmic time scales (more recent creation of man). We know the Bible is logarithmic because of scriptures which times is "x times" time, and scriptures about acceleration of spread of knowledge.

That time is recursive of time (i.e. non-linear/logarithmic) is supported by the theorems of modern science and my thus derived theory that infinity == maximum disorder == maximum order:

Actually I understand that time is only stable in a static version of our shared perception here on earth. Actually time is maximally disordered on the universal scale. This is another reason why, and results from, that we can not sample a true signal.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Message for Chris Langan, universe is contained within maximum disorder

Post  Shelby on Sat May 15, 2010 6:11 pm


The universe is the maximum # of possibilities, i.e. maximum entropy or disorder. By definition, we know it is a closed system, because we want the universe to contain everything.

This is why we can't "measure" the edge of the universe. It wraps back onto itself in terms of the organization of what we can measure (order).

As you know, the Shannon-Nyquist theory says we can measure nothing without aliasing error, if we can not take infinite samples. Some idiots try to push this truth away, by separating out the reconstruction of the original signal, but the requirement is pushed out to the reconstruction.

Thus we can not know anything within the universe with certainty without knowing all the possibilities. And thus nothing in the universe can ever be certain (because the universe is unbounded by definition, i.e. the # of possibilities will always increase as any mind groks any # of possibilities, else that mind would be God...note I skipped a few steps in my logic for brevity).

What troubles me is in an interview you talk about filtering reproduction based on IQ. The weakest systems have the lowest entropy.

My IQ may be much lower than yours on standardized tests, but my ability to grok a concept that unifies what you are driving at may serve as evidence to you of the idiocy of your expressed desire to decrease the entropy of the human race.

P.S. Chris Langan is the author of CTMU theory and purportedly one of the world's smartest men as measured by IQ (statistically off the charts):

ADD: Groups will always be based on their members' common shared perception (experience), which is only a small part of the maximum # of possibilities of the universe. Thus to the extent that groups have control/influence over others, they will always limit freedom and be evil (to the extent that the knowledge/experience/possibilities of those controlled/influenced is not completely contained within the group's knowledge and shared experience).

At some point, every group becomes evil because it is not able to contain all the experiences, shared knowledge, and potential possibilities of all those being controlled or influenced by the group.

Discussion in private email (not with Chris Langan)
I emphatically support what you have written below. I am very aware now of your great insight into the subconscious mind, but I will need to be periodically reminded of its significance, because my focus is in other areas most of the time.

However, the technology to unlock the subconscious mind, does not remove the evil of the inherent limitation of a group. In fact, I could probably develop the mathematics to show that unlocking the possibilities of the subconscious mind will inherently cause groups to have more disagreements, more trade, and more individual networking.

It is I think a fact that group action/thought is the antithesis of maximum entropy (possibilities) and thus knowledge.

However, I did qualify my original statement above, saying that for as long as the group's collective knowledge or influence was expanding the possibilities of the entity influenced by the group, then it was not evil. Meaning that if Scientology has some science that helps people (explore more possibilities, i.e. be more free) and is not yet known to them, nature wants Scientology to spread it. Positive! However, this is a double-edge sword, if Scientology is successful in helping people unlock their subconscious minds, it will eventually either kill itself as a group or to survive as a group it will need to develop rules or axioms that in the beginning provided growth in possibilities but eventually are restrictive as the possibilities have exceeded the limits of those axioms. On this, I came up with an interesting insight when reading this:

The insight is that all possible proofs are possible in mathematics, simply by performing a transformation to alternate dimension (for Wiles it was hyperbolic geometry). As Einstein said, "if the reality does not fit the theory, alter the reality". This is because all possibilities exist.

Those realities are real, as real as the atomic bomb being a derivative of Einstein's work.

We can make our reality anything we want it to be. This is why the group will always be evil in the end.

> I don't disagtree with what you've said, except for one key point that
> you may not grok completely due to you not having experience with a
> Scientology organization and its technologies.
> There are basically 2 types of stored perceptions in a mind: analytical
> experience, meaning those things one has experienced which one can
> consciously remember; and the second are not "experiences" per se, they
> are recordings complete with all perceptions of moments of pain and
> unconsciousness. Unconsciousness (unawareness) and consciousness
> (awareness) are actual perceptions just like sight, smell, weight,
> touch, etc. These recordings are made during moments of stress and pain
> and the analytical mind shuts off in fulkl or in part. And these
> recordings can influence one's thinking, computation, perception.
> Example:
> Four year old Joe is riding his bike and crashes. He scrapes his elbow
> and knee pretty bad. He can remeber what happened before he crashed
> and he can remeb er what happened after the crash, but there will be
> about a few seconds or a few minutes that he cannot remember at about
> the actual moment of impact and shock.
> Now, during those minutes of pain and shock mama rushes over and says,
> "Oh dear, you're bleeding. Don't move. Let's me have a look at you.
> Mama wipes the wound with her handkerchief and Joe screams in pain.
> Mama then say, "Don't cry, it's not that bad, it's just a scratch.
> You're such a baby." She kisses his elbow and slimes him with sympathy
> and goo goos like a little baby.
> All through Joe's childhood, every time he gets hurt, mama say, "It's
> not that bad, don't be a baby". This is what mama's mother always said
> to her when she was hurt.
> Joe is reminded of his accumulated injuries whenever he hears the words
> "not that bad" or don't cry" or "don't be a baby". If he crashed his
> bike often enough he will quit riding bikes. And the recordings kick
> in, his awareness is reduced and he goes through life with chronic elbow
> pain and the doctor says he has arthritis and prescribes him
> painkillers. He will never be well until he regains awatreness of those
> recordings of pain and the uncluded hypnotic commands laid in by mama
> every time he got hurt. And when he has kids he will repeat the same
> phrases his mam said to him. And when he watches his 5 year old learing
> to ride a bike he will become very nervous, agitated, and will not be a
> good teacher for the kid. He will constantly tell the kid "be
> careful". And that kid will "inherit" his father's and grandmother's
> abberations. This is how irrationality passes on generation to
> generation.
> Groups are composed of people and they are all asleep at the wheel, the
> effect of hypnotic siggestions, propoganda, falsehoods and lies. How
> could they possibly survive as an organized group of anything and not
> eventually become abberated and evil?
> They can't! Unless they have the technology to undo what is causing
> them to become irrational. Dianetics and Scientology contain these
> solutions to irrationality and its organizations use them.


> The axioms you imply were discovered and implemented in 1950s. I can dig
> them up if want to see them, along with the mathematics to back it up.
> Mostly symbolic logic.
> Beings without reactive minds have different responses to group think,
> but it does not make the group "all knowing" or impervious to evil. It
> just makes the potential less that evil will infiltrate a group, meaning
> that "cleared" individuals have less chnace of agreeing on evil
> principles

STOP right there. You are not getting it.

The issue that I have been trying to teach you, is not a question of morality. One person's evil might be another person's good. That has nothing to do with "evil" as I have defined it.

I have defined evil mathematically.

Evil in my definition is the interference with nature's desire to increase the # of possibilities (of all things, matter, people, energy, thought, space-time, infinite dimensions, etc).

A group will interfere with the increase in the # of possibilities, precisely because as soon as two people agree, then one possibility has been lost.

This is why Jesus says in Matthew 6:5, "do not pray in church, but pray alone on your room".

As any new science or trend, Scientology expands possibilities in some directions. But as will be the case for any grouping, it will decrease possibilities in other directions. Eventually any and every group becomes stagnant.

To be free, we must be truely independent and be ready to trade/interact freely, devoid of axioms and biases.

I would trade with the devil, if it was profitable and didn't decrease the amount of trade I could do in future. Because who I am to judge what is moral. The Bible tells me to steer clear of judging others or forming groupings to pass such judge or try to teach others what their morals should be.

I regress at times, but nevertheless I am stating what I wish I was doing...

I will try my best to no longer try to influence other people. If am correct about some philosophy (based in math or science), then I should be able to profit from it, without binding myself into debt or promises. If not, then it is not a philosophy worth teaching.

It is always to better to teach by doing and having other people emulate your success.

I hope today I have learned to stop preaching.

That does NOT mean that the 10 Commandments are not economically correct and should be ignored. It doesn't mean I would trade with the devil if he demanded I make debts, promises, or otherwise sold my freedom and ability to continue to prosper. In other words, this is not an abbrogation of morality-- rather is a recognition that morality can not be taught, only experienced as success or failure. The best way to teach is to be on the profitable side of failure, but to remember that theft is not profit, which is evidenced when it grows wings and flys away. So to bank profit, one must be measuring it in truth. But to waste time imparting truth is to give away from your profit and move yourself towards failure.

Lest I say another word...


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Coase's Theorem, evil is defined as interfering with maximum diversity

Post  Shelby on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:16 am

Shelby wrote:Given enough time, there are no externalities, the free market routes around inefficiencies given enough time. So Mises is correct.

The way to increase wages is to remove the inefficiencies so that maximum employment will result from best fit of investment to consumer needs. Whereas, debt on a fractional reserve system is theft. And theft is an inefficiency that leads to massive oversupply of labor. The free market will eventually route around this, but in the meantime, payback is going to be beaaitch.

Excerpt from prior post:

Shelby wrote:...The issue that I have been trying to teach you, is not a question of morality. One person's evil might be another person's good. That has nothing to do with "evil" as I have defined it.

I have defined evil mathematically.

Evil in my definition is the interference with nature's desire to increase the # of possibilities (of all things, matter, people, energy, thought, space-time, infinite dimensions, etc).

A group will interfere with the increase in the # of possibilities, precisely because as soon as two people agree, then one possibility has been lost.

This is why Jesus says in Matthew 6:5, "do not pray in church, but pray alone on your room".

As any new science or trend, Scientology expands possibilities in some directions. But as will be the case for any grouping, it will decrease possibilities in other directions. Eventually any and every group becomes stagnant.

To be free, we must be truely independent and be ready to trade/interact freely, devoid of axioms and biases.

I would trade with the devil, if it was profitable and didn't decrease the amount of trade I could do in future. Because who I am to judge what is moral. The Bible tells me to steer clear of judging others or forming groupings to pass such judge or try to teach others what their morals should be.

I regress at times, but nevertheless I am stating what I wish I was doing...

I will try my best to no longer try to influence other people. If am correct about some philosophy (based in math or science), then I should be able to profit from it, without binding myself into debt or promises. If not, then it is not a philosophy worth teaching.

It is always to better to teach by doing and having other people emulate your success.

I hope today I have learned to stop preaching.

That does NOT mean that the 10 Commandments are not economically correct and should be ignored. It doesn't mean I would trade with the devil if he demanded I make debts, promises, or otherwise sold my freedom and ability to continue to prosper. In other words, this is not an abbrogation of morality-- rather is a recognition that morality can not be taught, only experienced as success or failure. The best way to teach is to be on the profitable side of failure, but to remember that theft is not profit, which is evidenced when it grows wings and flys away. So to bank profit, one must be measuring it in truth. But to waste time imparting truth is to give away from your profit and move yourself towards failure.

Lest I say another word...


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Biblical freedom

Post  Shelby on Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:32 pm

yellowcaked wrote:You might want to do a word study on the word judge. Nothing to be alarmed about as most Christians do not seek further to understand what is said about judging...

Our time is limited. Points please.

yellowcaked wrote:...Did I say something about promise and surety. Not sure how you got that out of what I wrote...

That is why I am trying to teach you. Every group action is surety and promises.

yellowcaked wrote:...As far as dusting off one's feet and moving on, read:

Paul felt the need to cry with tears night and day for 3 years. Obviously their spiritual condition left something to be desired. Why did he not just dust off his feet and move on?

Obviously there people did not listen to Paul for much of that 3 years...

First note that Paul was not using a group to force his will, but rather his own individual actions and choice. And that is very important, because Paul was obviously inefficient and wasted 3 years, if his goal was to get them to listen (but that was probably not God's goal, it was probably to teach Paul).

Obviously Paul had to learn the lesson of the scripture which says to share the biblical wisdom once and if they don't listen then move on. I guess I need to learn that too with you. I have been trying to teach you for 2 years now about evil of human governance and that God's governance is the 10 Commandments, i.e. the natural law-- reaping what we sow on an individual basis with the nature outcome. The movement to do away with victimless crime prosecution is one step back towards God's law.

yellowcaked wrote:...A free market is one that is structured according to the law of God. It is ordered. There is always a healthy does of fear of failure and men are far less likely to need correction because of that fear...

Scripture please. This is your idea, not the Bible, and frankly it is inconsistent. The law of God is the natural law, and the natural law is proven to trending towards maximum disorder. People get confused, disorder simply means, the maximum number of independent (uncontrolled by others, no promises, no surety) actors.

yellowcaked wrote:...What we have today is a socialized market based on subsidies and loop holes. It is made that way so that people who understand it can bypass failure. That is what anarchy is...

No no no. Maximum disorder is the maximum number of uncontrolled entities. I know this for a fact from the equation for entropy. You are drawing on a more narrow definition of anarchy which pertains to laws. I am thinking in terms of entropy, which exists in everything in the universe, whether it be laws or insects or atoms.

yellowcaked wrote:...A truly free market orders itself, pretty much. When something is out of order it really stands out and stands out so much that it is easy to see and then dispense with it according to law...

Wrong. A free market has no measurable order, it looks like a very large number of independent actions, and it is very hard to know what it is doing in aggregate at any given moment in time. You simply have the wrong mathematical understanding. I am sorry to have to be so frank. The structure of the synapses and neurons in brain is like a imperfect free market, we can't know what the order is as it changing all the time by the independent actions of those elements. Imagine if there was one section of the brain that controlled all the elements individually, we would be stupider than a fruit fly.

yellowcaked wrote:...absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
3 : anarchism

That is the broad and correct mathematical definition.

Please read about Coase's Theorem and what evil really is:

Romans 13 talks about this "evil power".

I also refer you back to thread about God's governance:

Also you mentioned the Philippines as example of good governance. In my mind, what is great about Philippines is that no one follows the laws. No one uses the cross walks, no one signals before they turn, taxis U-turn from the rightmost lane (even with their blinker still signalling right turn from when they dropped or picked up the passenger), the VAT tax is never paid except by corporations, etc...oh and my favorite example is the rapist who married the victim and was released from life in prison (no victim, forgiven by God because he married her and she accepted of her own free will, talk about a biblical country!!!):


yellowcaked wrote:If you think that the rapist is forgiven because he married her, then you are truly deluded.

That is a very common attitude in the western nations, and one reason I don't want to live in the western culture. We see it in Philippines among families with Spanish lineage, as the Europeans all had this concept of punishment. I had someone tell me the other day that her father kicked her frequently, because his mother was Spanish.

Can't be rape if she loves him and married him.


Jesus wrote:...two will become one flesh'[a]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate...

...9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery...

God joined them in the flesh via rape (or do you think we control our own destiny?). No man can separate them. The man accepted complete responsibility, and the woman accepted it too. God has already judged them.

Why do you insist on punishing or not forgiving the marriage that God has created? Bonding in flesh is always marriage (the church wedding has nothing to do with). Quote scripture.

Let them be happy now. She loves him. He loves her. What more could you ask for, perfection?

In fact, after writing the above and deducing what the Bible say about this, I find that this is what scripture says about rape:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Besides, marriage is the punishment, read the scripture I quoted below...

yellowcaked wrote:...If you think the 10 commandments are natural law the delusion is even worse than I thought. Natural law is what is written on a man's heart and mind irregardless of the 10 commandments. That is the law that man had after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. There was no law before that.

My dear brother, you are conflating law and the human action which the law acts upon. Human desire does actions will result in outcomes, and these outcomes are the punishment which are the natural law (reap what we sow). The 10 commandments states which natural desires will result in negative outcomes. The 10 commandments is thus the natural law.

yellowcaked wrote:...And as far as Paul is concerned, it was love that kept him there for 3 years. Paul was operating at the greatest efficiency know to man, God's Holy Spirit...

We don't know if it was efficient or not, that is for God to judge. God has his reason for Paul to do that. God works in mysterious ways that are not all revealed to us. The points in my prior post still remain.

yellowcaked wrote:...No one here on the Earth today operates with higher efficiency than did Paul...

Ambiguous statement. Depends what result we are measuring. Henry Ford was much more efficient at mass transportation than Paul was.

yellowcaked wrote:...God's efficiency is not the same as man's efficiency..

Never said it was.

yellowcaked wrote:...Seems like your delusion is in that you try to intellectualize everything. That's not going to work, never has, never will. At some point you have to decide that you are going to take things on the basis of faith, then your eyes will be opened up...

That I don't subscribe to your personal misinterpretations of scripture does not mean you are more faithful than me.

You may have set in your mind about human authoritarian punishment (order/control) and no scripture can ever convince you otherwise, because you may have some personal reason to want human punishment. As a self-trained psychologist, I thank God that I was not subject to strict punishment as a child, so I did not develop a need for it.

God punishes through the natural law (reap what we sow). He will even use us to do it. But it doesn't mean we should have it as delicious desire in our hearts. We should let God do it and not try to add our imperfect order to it. The natural law is already in place. Let it be natural. Marriage was a very natural punishment for the man. And if you think marriage is not a punishment, then read Corinthians:

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Jesus wrote:10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

yellowcaked wrote:...Here, follow this word study on ORDER:

In it you will see that with God there is a perfect order to everything.

Maybe you can't comprehend that? I don't know.

There is no mention of perfect order. Whereas the concepts I have presented are mentioned liberally in scripture.

yellowcaked wrote:...One has to have faith.

Faith can move a mountain.

The absence of faith, which is anarchy, is eternal death.

Faith has nothing to do with disorder. Sorry.

Marshall please do not be disappointed if you refuse to listen and thus I refuse to keep correcting you. I will try to be patient, but I am only human.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Post  Shelby on Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:45 pm


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Afaics, "Our Undiscovered Universe" is a myopic theory based in spacetime domain

Post  Shelby on Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:24 am

This was originally written 11-28-2007, 09:58 AM.

shelby wrote:

...The universe is a single, vast machine. Its substructure defines its mass density as well as its elementary particles...

He is apparently forming a potentially better understanding of the perceptions of order in spacetime. Whereas, in my universal theory, spacetime is but an arbitrary perception, within the absolute existence of disorder.

Notice he explains the infiniteness of the universe using a circular reference point logic:

He is trying to prove (via inductive theorems) that ordered dimensions can be infinitely self-contained by their infinitesmal bounding surface (as surface and interior volume trends to infinity).

Afaics, he fails to understand that an infinitely small particle in spacetime, could "contain" (co-exist at in different metric of relative order) infinitely large spacetime in another dimension or ordered perception not of this spacetime world (meaning we couldn't measure it in spacetime). This is why he still needs black holes and other non-directly perceiveable forms of matter and energy. He is failing to account for the infinite range of possible perceptions (orders) from disorder.

I caution the reader that I haven't read the book, and I have not digested all of the math in his website Excerpts.

I think it was Einstein who said if you really know something, you should be able to explain it in a few words to a layman. My theory is simple conceptually. And I will soon learn how to explain in fewer words. Afaics so far, the "Our Undiscovered Universe" is complex to explain and relies on convoluted inductive theorems. But as with all information (mass), it helps me move (kinetic energy) towards truth (disorder). It is helping me develop my understanding of my own theory. Thank you.

Also my theory should be empirical. Entropy, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc are well developed sciences.

dash, please do feedback your understanding, as you may be able to convince me or help my understanding.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

My Theory of Everything (TOE) is becoming more explicable

Post  Shelby on Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:10 am

Following expands on my Mass-Entropy Equivalence - A Theory of the Universe. See also this thread, the one at, and top of Technical Argument section and footnote "[6]".

Redefine the basic concepts of physics to be dimensionless, i.e. more generalized and applicable to any domain, e.g. space, time, space-time, dimensions we are not even aware of, etc..

Matter (aka ether) is infinite (maximum) disorder, i.e. no self-similarity and no information.

Frequency is the repeatable self-similarity of the changing organization of matter, i.e. the types of information. Change is not restricted to the space-time domain.

Mass is the measured frequencies, i.e. information.

Q is measurable frequencies, i.e. the capacity for information.

Energy is the capacity to change Q.

Impedance is the incapacity to change Q.

Force is the rate of change in Q, i.e. the frequencies of the capacity to measure frequencies. Rate is not restricted to the space-time domain.

Work is the measured change in Q.

Note how Q in any domain can convert mass to disorder, e.g. when our Q in space-time is changed to less than the Nyquist frequency or greater than the Nyquist period. This is analogous to losing the perception of some structure if zoomed too close or too far.

One of the key things that Tesla discovered was that energy is not transmitted, rather it is conserved. See my standing waves explanation below. What he meant by this is that mass effectively does not exist if it is not measured. A tree can't fall in the forest if nothing perceived (measured) its fall, but of course some creature does perceive the tree fall and humans perceive Butterfly effects thereof, even if we weren't tuned to perceive the tree fall directly.

Thus it is key to understand that the existence of mass is relative to the observer's Q. If the observer changes Q, then different mass will be perceived. If the basis to which the observer perceives mass depends on (is not orthogonal to) other perceptions, e.g. the concept of time which gives rise to Butterfly effects, then changing an observer's Q will not cause mass to entirely appear or disappear (for all possible future dependent perceptions) without a prerequisite change in the environment Q.

In Einstein's space-time domain (dimension), the theoretical limit of capacity to change Q is mc^2, because c (speed-of-light) is the environmental limit of that domain (Einstein ignored the complex plane of the Lorentz equation). However, attaining this theoretical limit is complicated by the conflation of Q in this space-time environment, as explained in the prior paragraph.

In essence, what Tesla was doing was finding ways to tune mutual Q that un-conflated with the environment, so that energy was conserved, i.e. no mass or information was created or destroyed.

Tesla wrote:I observed that under certain conditions the atmosphere, which is normally a high insulator, assumes conducting properties...many millions of volts had to be produced...

Throughout the preceding pages of the above Tesla book, where Tesla is referring to "cold or electrolytic process", he means that there will be no energy lost to creating mass in the form (Q) of heat nor the friction any other Q than the desired one.


Originally written 11-29-2007, 06:49 AM:
shelby wrote:
dash wrote:I'm trying to visualize your concept of order and disorder. If I look at something, does that call it into existence right then? And if I look away, does it retreat back into disorder?...

The senses are provided by 4 dimensions of spacetime order, so you don't have a monopoly over observation [space-time conflates space and time]. Remember I wrote there can be infinite overlapping closed systems (not necessarily limited to spacetime systems). For you, if all of your senses (including your memory) no longer perceive something, then yes for you (in your closed system of spacetime) it no longer exists. However, your closed system may be perceiving or being perceived by another closed system. Therefor I am not currently attempting to model the personalized closed system (although that might be direction to go in future), rather I am interested in the aggregate of spacetime closed systems. So in that sense, the something does not cease to exist in spacetime, just because you stopped sensing it, as long as it is still a feature (having effect of resistance) in spacetime. To be more specific, we can only directly measure mass in spacetime, nothing else. Energy is measured by changes in mass (e.g. resistance, reflectance, voltage, position, etc).

To be more blunt, our personalized perception (subset of spacetime) is probably not a closed system in context of entropy, but I have worked that far in the theory yet to say that for sure.

dash wrote:...Does your thoery make any predictions? I mean, could it allow you to make a better semiconductor? Could we travel to a nearby star faster than light? I'm just wondering if anything practical can come out of it...

Up to this point, I have not found any existing science consistent with all measured spacetime reality, which would refute the theory. In fact, most existing science (if not all) has inconsistencies with measured spacetime reality.

Since the speed of light is measured using mass, the accuracy and maximum is limited by the granularity (inertia) of the mass being used to perform the test. How can one measure the maximum speed within a closed system, if they are inside the closed system? One must be outside of any relative effects within the system, in order to make accurate measurements of maximums, because inside everything is relative and one is never sure if they are moving or stationary. One can use for example light shift to estimate speed and distance, but the ruler is effected by what is measured. Whereas, my theory predicts that we could travel through pathway of disorder, which is inherently immeasurable in spacetime. Thus we should be able to travel to any spacetime, and thus time is irrelevant. In short, we can travel backwards or forwards in time. (In prior post, I theorized how to do this, by mapping resonance). This is why I think that Bible is not inconsistent with Evolution. Millions of years could be 10 seconds in Bible time, or any arbitrary value. Afaics, the Bible alludes to this, by sometimes writing time durations as fractions of the actual value. In short, time is irrelevant in the scope of absolute truth and eternal existence. Time is relevant within our limited ordered existence. We live in time, but we absolutely exist in eternity.

Can we go back to the time of Adam & Eve? No. Because the entire order of that spacetime was not recorded and mapped. In practical sense, I don't know how we could map an infinite spacetime. Practically speaking, we may only be able to move our perception back into our spacetime, therefor the speed of light is relevant maximum, until we can find a mass effect that is faster than light effect. Btw, thus my theory predicts that photons are or transfer mass, else they would not be perceiveable. We can never perceive energy directly, as energy is condition of declining mass towards entropy (disorder).

As for applicability to semiconductor materials, I think entropy is already very widely used in many R&D processes on earth. Entropy and conductivity (and resonance and Q factor) are very much related concepts.

dash wrote:...Regarding entropy, I think the rule is that entropy in any closed system tends to a maximum. The earth isn't a closed system, it receives high energy photons from the sun and emits lower energy photons in infra-red. The difference allows for order to be built up out of disorder...

...the second law of thermodynamics, as famously enunciated by Rudolf Clausius in 1865, states that:
“ The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. ”

I never wrote that the earth is an entirely closed system. I framed my theory in terms of spacetime, which means all the measureable mass/matter/order in our closed system of spacetime ("our universe", but not the whole disordered universe which contains our ordered universe). There are semi-closed systems down to the personal granularity and beyond down to sub-quantum, etc.. Agreed, these are not closed and thus I am not attempting to model them orthogonally as interacting semi-closed systems (have not yet pondered how my theory will impact such model), rather I am referring to the aggregate closed system that contains all mass in our perceivable universe. I am taking a top-down (looking over the forest) view towards the model.

So in terms of all the mass in our universe, the entropy is tends to a maximum, meaning that all our mass in aggregate is tending towards the disorder of the external absolute universe.

So actually my theory is not new, it was apparently already stated implicitly in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

dash wrote:...I'm really trying to visualize your order/disorder theory but I'm getting nowhere. It seems as though if you look, you create the order. If you look away, the order goes away. If you look again, the original order returns. Where is the information stored to maintain a consistent perception of the 'same" order? In my head? Or in the space itself? If it's in my head, if someone else comes along after I've gone away, does he see the same thing I did?...

The information is stored in our ability to tranduce (measure mass) at a high enough Q to discern features. If evolution had not built our senses to focus in the way they do, then the mass might as well not even be there, because it wouldn't exist for us. For example, dogs hear sounds and smell things that don't exist for us. Much like fractals, the sub-topology doesn't exist until we recurse the affine transformation.

Indeed our ability to communicate is determined by the coupling of our Q. This applies in radio communication, transmission lines, but also in the way mutual perception of humans synergize or not. How often do we see something differently than another sees it?!

Therefor the mass is always there as disorder. It is not created nor destroyed by our ability to focus order from the disorder. But bear in mind, that if the dog can perceive something and we can perceive the dog perceiving it, then it exists for us. The mass in our universe interacts.

Also, any mass must have a counter-balancing anti-mass (which can be increasing energy or another form of anti-mass), so that the disordered universe is not converted to order. Else 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be violated.

Energy is a counterbalance to mass:

E = mc2

As m increases, E increases, within our ordered universe. However, as we escape into the disordered ether from our spacetime, c is indeterminant (but as we escape it tends to infinity as we can pop back into any spacetime order), thus mass becomes infinitely small as we escape spacetime. An infinitely thin slice of Spacetime along the time domain is ordered space (aka 3-D), which is mass, and can be measured. Energy is trending back towards disorder. In 100% disorder, energy is infinite and mass is 0. Interestingly, we thus have no reference point to measure time. Because each measurement we take is infinitely thin in time domain. Thus any measurements of time are inherently warped by the reference points we use (i.e. our ruler is warped).


Originally written 12-02-2007, 08:51 PM:
shelby wrote:Thanks Andy for the additional datums...

NZ_Andy wrote:...Also interesting that “As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless:”
“...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”...

I think Eistein is describing my concept of 100% disorder. I am surprised that Eistein didn't find the stochastic way of viewing what I have described. Perhaps I will discover he did consider it. Seems like he was very close. And I think Tesla's ordered ether is the spacetime manifestation of mass. I think we can tie all this together at some point.


Originally written 12-04-2007, 12:55 AM:
shelby wrote:Entropy - Black Holes are windows into the disordered universe

Stephen Hawking wrote:The first indication of a connection between black holes and entropy, came in 1970, with my discovery that the area of the horizon of a black hole, always increased. There was an obvious analogy with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy always increases. But it was Jacob Bekenstein, who took the bold step, of suggesting the area actually was the physical entropy, and that it counted the internal states of the black hole

Stephen Hawking wrote:I think there are three morals can be drawn from this work.

The first is that gravitational entropy just depends on the Einstein Hilbert action. It doesn’t require super symmetry, string theory, or p-branes.

The second is that entropy is a global quantity, like energy or angular momentum, and shouldn’t be localized on the horizon. The various attempts to identify the microstates responsible for black hole entropy, are in fact constructions of dual theories, that live in separate spacetimes.

The third moral, is that entropy arises from a failure to foliate the Euclidean regime, with a family of time surfaces. This would suggest that there would not be a unitary S matrix, for particle scattering described by a Euclidean section, with non trivial topology. No particle scattering situation, with non trivial Euclidean topology, has definitely been shown to exist, but the asymptotically Euclidean solutions with a constant Maxwell field at infinity, are very suggestive. They would seem to point to loss of quantum coherence and information, in black holes. This is the major unresolved question, in the quantum theory of black holes. Let’s hope this meeting, gives us new insights into the problems.

We can't peceive Black Holes, because we can't perceive disorder. We only perceive their edges or horizons. Black Holes are windows of disorder. is all coming together now...

Black Holes are not very dense mass. They are the opposite of mass. They are disorder. Mass leaves our ordered spacetime via energy to a black hole of disorder. A black hole is a lack of order. SuperNovas burnout (energy release) and become blackholes. Their mass becomes more dense until it no longer exists...

Originally written 04-04-2008, 02:24 PM:
shelby wrote:Now I have a universal theory that explain gravity & blackholes

So based on my prior few posts in this thread, we can see that gravity is fact that large mass must either grow larger (gravity that large mass exhibits to swallow small mass) or it must decay to uniform[random] distribution as what infinite disorder is. So a black hole is the decay of a large mass (another form of inertia gravity on it's leading edge as it thus is a resonance window towards disorder on other side), where small mass is lost to uniform[random] distribution of disorder (anti-gravity behind/through it...anti-gravity means mass comes unglued from itself, i.e. pulversation...). A black hole is thus a window into the 0 mass and 0 energy state of the infinite disorder at the "edge" of the universe.

Remember from Tesla thread, that resonance is a way of creating a transmission window in the ether itself, bypassing ordered limitations of mass and energy into the disordered space. So now we know why resonance is so efficient. It removes friction. Friction needs mass.

Wow! It is amazing how this is all coming together as a workable universal theory (afaics so far no physical laws are violated by this theory)...

Originally written 09-10-2006, 10:26 PM:
shelby wrote: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.

EDIT: Did Tesla discover that the speed through the ether varied as a function of the wavelength itself?


Originally written 11-28-2007, 07:18 PM:
shelby wrote:Null Physics vs. my Disordered Universe

...My theory is too simple. The universe is composed of 100% disorder (i.e. 100% randomness/entropy). Randomness is synonmous with nothing perceived. Something that is fully randomnized has no features:

...In this direction, the second law of thermodynamics, as famously enunciated by Rudolf Clausius in 1865, states that:
“ The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. ”

Thus, if entropy is associated with disorder and if the entropy of the universe is headed towards maximal entropy, then many are often puzzled as to the nature of the "ordering" process and operation of evolution in relation to Clausius' most-famous version of the second law, which states that the universe is headed towards maximal “disorder”. In the recent 2003 book SYNC – the Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz, for example, we find “Scientists have often been baffled by the existence of spontaneous order in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structures—galaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beings—that have all somehow managed to assemble themselves.”...

Order (i.e. perceivable features) is only relative to the observer in a closed system. The closed system of the observed order and the observer, exist within an external system of 100% disorder. Since order is only a perception of the observer, then infinite closed systems can co-exist within the external system of 100% disorder. The closed systems don't destroy or create disorder. The external system is the universe. It has no boundary, because 100% disorder is immeasurable, because disorder has no features. Once there exists an observer (a measurer), then the closed system is being measured, not the external system.

It seems from your description that my theory is related to Witts in terms of the concept of net null conservation. Order is never absolutely created relative to the external system, thus any order perceived has to be balanced by anti-order perception, in order to maintain the external net null order (100% disorder) in the universe. So Witt's 4th dimension is supported as the concept of anti-order in my entropy-based model of the universe.

Afaics, Witt is modeling our spacetime closed system. I am modeling the external universe. I think my model can be more flexible, because it can explain effects in our spacetime, which are due to the infinite nature of 100% disorder, that contains our spacetime order. For example in my conceptualization, mass and energy are balancing forms of order (order and anti-order irrespectively). Mass is a perception of resistance to disorder (mass has features and is measurable and non-random). Kinetic energy is a perception of lack of resistance to disorder (kinetic energy is measured by changes in mass).

I gave an overly simplistic (not formally stochastic) example, mass in motion is one way we measure energy, and multiple random mass in randomized linear direction of motion is a more disordered (random) state than multiple random mass in a stationary pattern. Energy of moving mass is not dependent on non-random linear direction of movement, thus energy is more disordered constraint than mass.

Witt apparently models the spacetime geometrically, whereas I am modeling the whole universe stochastically. He uses the infinite closure of N+1 dimensions, and I use the closure of infinite nature of 100% disorder. I think my theory is more powerful and elegant, because I don't need to visualize geometric patterns for every special case of mass and energy observed in our spacetime. Rather 100% disorder is infinite because it can't be measured. Disorder can only be measured by the quantity of order observed.

Regarding fractals (I was hot into them and A.I. in 1980s), they are recursive, affine (co-linear perserving) transformations. Meaning they have self-resonance (self-similarity):

If you go back into my prior posts in this thread, you see I think resonance is perception in my theory. Resonance is observation. Thus I think all mass, energy, and (anti-)order is formed via resonance.

I propose that Tesla was correct and we can beam energy any where in the universe using resonance.

A problem with explaining my theory is our vocabulary is made up of words which describe events in our world. I can barely figure out how to describe what I am conceptualizing. For example, "beam" implies a geometric condition. Whereas, I am saying that energy is a perception of anti-order to mass, that can be resonated to any where in the disordered universe. The warps in spacetime, are merely changes in the disordered domain (where domain in this context is not a measurable dimension).

Interestingly the inventor of "entropy" chose word because it meant a medium for transformation content:

...Clausius chose the word "entropy" because the meaning, from Greek, en+tropein, is "content transformative" or "transformation content"...

So the disordered universe is a transformation content, i.e. order can be transferred but not created or destroyed.


Originally written 11-28-2007, 10:26 AM:
shelby wrote:Truth is encrypted

I hope readers realize that entropy (randomness/disorder) is essential to encryption and security of the internet.


Originally written 11-28-2007, 09:11 AM:
shelby wrote:Conservation of Energy

My theory (presented in this thread) obeys conservation of energy, because energy is formed as a perception of order trending towards the disordered ether. The disordered ether always existed (but not only in time, because time is an ordered dimension, i.e. is a subset of disorder) in all metrics of existence. Disorder (entropy) is an absolute, that one can measure every perception relative to.

Thus energy is formed by the perception of mass (order) trending towards disorder. Potential energy is the potential for declining order. Kinetic energy is order/mass actively trending towards disorder (kinetic energy depends on the order of time, time is another perception). Energy is the perception of the lack of resistance (mass/order) to change (towards disorder), i.e. if move a mass the energy does not depend on which direction it moves, thus energy from movement is a more disordered state than stationary mass. Movement is relative in spacetime, so it is less ordered than non-movement in spacetime, relative to absolute disorder (which supersets spacetime). This is because multiple random movements all have/consume energy independently, yet their relative movement is random. Energy from movement does not depend on the choice of other movements in spacetime, thus energy is a randomizing effect (trending towards disorder).

Thus mass is a perception from the disorder ether, and energy is a perception of declining mass. No disorder is ever created or destroyed, only infinite potential perceptions of the ether.


Originally written 11-28-2007, 08:25 AM:
shelby wrote:...takes a free market to refine and distribute truth (a feedback mechanism). The free market is entropy (trending--energy towards disorder)...that mass (order) is the perception of resistance to kinetic energy (energy trends back towards disorder)-- that we need perception of mass/resistance in order to have anything other than disorder. But I think the Bible makes it clear that the ultimate truth, is that all mass is irrelevant, and the only absolute truth (exists) is God (the 100% disordered ether in my theory). I theorize that the ether is not infinite in XYZ, but rather is a superset of ordered dimenions, because it is infinite in disorder (not dimensions...dimensions are a form of order/mass). Note the free market is akin to anarchy and disorder.

Thus in my universal theory, it doesn't really matter the whole debate about evolution and the time frame compared to biblical history (readers' eyebrows raised :)), as spacetime is an arbitrary perception. There can exist multiple parallel perceptions of spacetime, none of which are [absolute] truth, because all perceptions are arbitrary and do not exist. Only 100% disorder exists in an absolute sense...

(click the arrow near "shelby" above to read rest of this post)


Originally written 11-26-2007, 03:41 AM:
shelby wrote:
shelby wrote:...Tesla was able to send energy through the air, because he minimized standing waves between the transmitter and receiver nodes...

Afaik, this is optimized at lower frequencies which are multiple of the earth's 7.5 Hz resonance. I think at high frequencies (e.g. microwave), then the molecules of the air form standing waves and dissipate energy before the signal reaches the receiver. At kHz (e.g. AM radio), then buildings and mountains can cause standing wave interference patterns, and loss of power. But we all know that AM radio can broadcast over much larger distances (e.g. long drives across the desert southwest of USA), than FM radio which is MHz. So impossible to move large power (energy) at high frequencies, because too much small mass (high frequency resonance) in the atmosphere that interferes with the transmission line.


Originally written 11-26-2007, 02:39 AM:
shelby wrote:Standing waves and my unified theory of the universe

To be more general, standing waves are formed by mass (resistance) at resonant periods along the wave's propogation:

If we have a wave with a single frequency, then resistance in any form (e.g. mass for sound, impedance for electromagnetic waves, etc) is minimized at resonant 1/4 wavelength periods (nodes along the "zero displacement" or "maximum displacement"). If the wave is not a single frequency, then interference results because the 1/4 wavelength periods (pathways along the wave towards nodes of minimized resistance) are different, i.e. the resistance (e.g. the rice in Andy's video) will collide trying to move to conflicting nodes of least resistance. If the frequency band is narrow enough, then the material will try to stack into an infinitely narrow node, then you get the material trying to move to the center of the node, raising up and then falling back down towards the edge. If the power were increased the material could stack higher.

"Zero displacement" means 1/2 wavelength nodes where the wave has no displacement, and "maximum displacement" means 1/2 wavelength nodes (offset by 1/4 wavelength from the "Zero displacement" nodes) where the wave has maximum displacement.

Q factor measures how quickly energy is dissipated outside the center resonant frequency. So Q factor and standing wave ratio are inversely related, in that if two terminating nodes in a transmission line has high Q with same center frequency, then standing waves will be minimized, i.e. energy losses will be minimized. Tesla was able to send energy through the air, because he minimized standing waves between the transmitter and receiver nodes.

Coming back to my generalized unified theory, see earlier in this thread, I wrote that mass (or impedance) is only a perception of resistance to kinetic energy. Or vice versa, kinetic energy is only a perception of the lack of resistance. Now think of this more stochastically, energy forms at resonant nodes, meaning we can not percieve energy without resistance at non-resonant nodes (or vice versa we can not perceive resistance or mass without resonant nodes and thus energy). The lack of resonance would mean 100% disorder (randomness), which would mean no perception of mass or energy. Voila! We have come full circle to my unified theory.

I am theorizing that perception is high Q or resonance (at least in spacetime dimension), which means the focus on a narrow band of frequencies. I am theorizing that the universe (the superset that contains our spacetime) is infinite disordered (all "frequencies" at random but also actually not limited to spacetime and to frequency domains).

All random frequencies (100% disorder) means nothing is distinct. Our ability to perceive only a subset creates distinct patterns from disorder. But these patterns only exist in terms of the observer who can not perceive 100% disorder. I think this could explain austism, or people who have wider bands of perception, are thus unable to focus and operate efficiently in our limited spacetime dimension.

The cool result is that if the ether is infinitely disordered every where, then we should be able to create duplicate patterns at any point in the ether, not by moving the ether, but by moving our perception. The ether is not laid out in spacetime dimension. Spacetime is our perception. If we can alter our perception, then we can pop in and out of spacetime.

So if the complex resonance that constitutes an entity in spacetime (e.g. my body) could be measured, mapped, and recorded, then if that complex resonance could be recreated, then a duplicate of me could be recreated. This is in essense the Unified Field Theory, which Einstein was working on, which would enable time travel, because you can pop in and out of spacetime. I think Einstein didn't succeed because he apparently didn't conceive of the ether has being 100% disorder. Disorder is what exists, and order (e.g. spacetime) only exists in the perception of the observer.

Thus our entire spacetime world is composed of/from resonance patterns. And our spacetime world, is only a subset of the infinitely disordered ether. This makes it much easier to conceptualize our universe. No longer do we need to think of our universe as infinite in space or time, as our universe is infinite in disorder, where disorder is a superset of ordered perceptions like space and time.

Thus afaik (until someone points out a conflict), I have solved all the problems with pre-existing attempts at a unified theory.

Andy, thanks a lot for helping me develop my understanding.


Originally written 11-25-2007, 07:03 AM:
shelby wrote:Attempt to broaden the concept of ether structure

Now I am going to try to blow the doors wide open on opening our universe to incredible new possibilities. I have been waiting a long time to bring my concepts to fruition and I think I am getting closer. It remains to be seen if this broad unified theory can be developed into practical applications of resonance within our closed system (world).

I conceptualize the ether (or matter) as having no structure. The ether is infinitely random, i.e. infinite disorder, no order, or infinite entropy.

Energy and mass are perceived effects of order within the ether. We perceive the ether electromagnetically (aka chemically). Order does not actually exist, except in an isolated/closed system-- it is only perception. Resonance is the means to focus perception. Order exists in the isolation of the observer.

Science already exists to support the above and afaik (until someone points out an inconsistency) all the other theories of the universe will fit into the above generalized theory.

So therefore, if we want to move energy from one point to another in spacetime, we are not actually moving the ether, we only move our perception. We can use resonance to focus our perception with minimal losses within our closed system (observer world).

NZ_Andy wrote:...The higher the frequency the tighter the spiral and the further it must travel in the same amount of time. This extra speed is the extra energy Einstein found...

Mass is the resistance to the perception of kinetic energy. To convert mass to energy, we can create a resonance pathway-- which according to Einstein is increased speed in spacetime (sort of repeating the obvious...that once you have kinetic energy then you no longer have resistance to it). We won't get to a unified field theory by generalizing structure, because order is precisely what gets in the way of understanding the ether. The reason we can not "see" the ether is because the ether does not have order. When ever we desire to "see" or model structure in our theories, then we are no longer theorizing about the ether itself, but rather about ways to explain the effects we observe in our closed system.

For example, we can perceive mass only when we perceive resistance to change. For example, we know something is has inertia when we try to move it. We know a wire has resistance when we measure the voltage drop across it for a given current load. We know an object is shiny when it resists the transmission of light. The perception of these resistances is a form of resonance. Whereas, when we move our arm through the ether and the air friction is not perceivable, this is because the resistance of the air to our arm has a very low Q, whereas the movement of our arm in the air has a very high Q. The structure of the ether in our arm is of very high Q for movement in the structure of ether in air. The relative Q of constrasting structures (differential Q) is why infinite parallel universes (dimensions or closed systems with alternate observers) can and do exist overlapping our dimensions of perceivable spacetime. But they only exist for the observers within each closed system (they don't exist for us, unless we can make a resonance portal to the other closed system/dimension-- what Eistein referred to as a "time warp" or wrinkle in timespace, but I am generalizing it to any dimensions...not just 4D timespace). I use Q because we operate in spacetime, thus frequency bands are everything about perception in our world. And this why coupling the Q of a transitter and a receiver is critical to transmitting energy from one place in spacetime to another. We are not actually transmitting ether itself, but rather forming relative structures that have highly coupled Q.

All energy and mass are differential electromagnetic (aka chemical) state of matter (and anti-matter):

Btw, given that silver is the most reflective and conductive known metal on earth, it could possibly become the most important metal in this new high tech world of focusing resonance, that is envisioned by my theory.


Originally written 11-22-2007, 04:09 PM:
shelby wrote:Tesla's Magnifying Transformer : transmit energy far without wires

Design of Two Coil Transformer

Let's start with Tesla's two coil (non-magnifying) transformer:

Click this image to see animated version, which shows it in action:

Tesla wanted an device capable of outputting an electromagnetic signal (wave) with:

  • Ultra high voltage: results in high power with low current
  • Ultra low frequency: multiple of earth's 8Hz resonant frequency
  • Very high Q: meaning output frequency curve is a steep mountain

Remember power is voltage x current, so to achieve very high power transmission, ultra high voltage is desired because transmission losses (as % of power transmitted) decrease as voltage increases. Also, circuits to handle very high currents are prohibitively expensive and have intractable problems with massive heat dispersion (losses create heat). Ultra low frequency is desired because very high power circuits that oscillate at high frequencies are impractically expensive and lossy. Also lower frequencies transmit more power with less loss over distance. Also, lower frequencies are less harmful to living things. Very high Q is desired to focus most of the power at the resonant frequency (fo) to minimize losses. I will explain the importance of resonance later, then you will understand why frequencies other than the resonant frequency lead to losses in transmission. Think of the Q curve as a bell curve, and very high Q means the curve is narrow and tall.

High power, ultra high voltage (million or billion volts) with low losses is not achievable with vacuum tubes or solid-state transistor (electron field effect) circuits. Although discrete RLC (resistance, inductance, capacitance) circuits are considered to be arcane and to be minimized in modern solid-state electronic devices, they remain the only viable and most efficient circuit for these requirements. It is amazing to me that modern engineers create huge banks of transistor circuits with huge heat sinks to dissipate massive heat losses for modern radio stations, and they encounter the point of diminishing returns of the logarithmic (inverse exponential) decibal function, where they need 10 times more power to double the realized range. Tesla didn't need all that expensive, inefficient, complex circuitry, and achieved a far superior result.

RLC circuits contain:

  • resistance (R): voltage drop (heat) losses in the wire of circuit
  • inductance (L) : level of magnetic field created by loops of wire
  • capacitance (C) : energy stored in non-conductive plate sandwiched between conductive plates

RLC circuits have a resonant frequency due to the L and C, and damping factor due to R and L (Tesla circuit is wired in series, not parallel). The damping factor is inversely proportional to the Q factor.

However, an RLC circuit does not oscillate, the circuit voltage ramps up sinusoidally from 0 to the input voltage at the resonant frequency period (of time). The voltage will decay sinusoidally back to 0 if the input voltage is removed from the circuit. To get the voltage to oscillate (ramp up, decay, then repeat) then spark gap is added in parallel to the circuit. When the voltage reaches a high enough level, it is able to jump across the spark gap (just like in your car's spark plugs) and close the input voltage circuit, thus discharging/decaying the voltage of the circuit. As the voltage drops it is no longer able to jump the spark gap, so then the circuit voltage begins charging/ramping up again. Thus the circuit voltage oscillates up and down at the resonant frequency and Q factor frequency response of the circuit. Note the spark gap is not necessarily a single gap, but can be a system of gaps of varying distance so that the gap current flow increases with voltage, thus helping the circuit to oscillate over a wide range of voltage providing more output power.

The "HV Transformer" is designed to increase the standard 220V to on the order of 20,000 volts. Although it is desired to increase the input voltage as much as possible, higher voltages can destroy the capacitor in the "Primary coil" circuit, cause plasma arcing (lightening discharge) from the "Primary coil" to/and thus destroying the "Secondary coil", and make controlling/tuning the spark gap difficult. In general, plasma discharge are losses and are to be avoided. The lightening bolts in Tesla's experimentation were the inefficiencies he was trying to get rid of, yet most people think they were his goal! The "Primary coil" and "Secondary coil" are coupled (like a transformer) by bringing them close together. Since the inductance of the "Secondary coil" is 1000 times greater than the "Primary coil" (mH vs uH), then the voltage produced in the "Secondary coil" will 1000 times greater than the 20,000 volts input into the "Secondary coil". So roughly 20,000,000 volts is output to the "Toroid" which acts as a transmission line antanae and is what generates the output plasma discharges (lightening), although the goal is to transfer that output energy without plasma losses over large distances to a resonant receiver (more on that later). Remember that currents are only produced in a coil if the magnetic field is changing, thus the oscillation of the primary circuit voltage is necessary.

Note the spark gap and the coupling gap distances, and the dielectric (non-conductive) material (e.g. air or mylar) used in these gaps, are factors that must be tuned in harmony with the RLC resonance and Q. The overall tuning of Tesla's circuits is complex. I suppose it could be modeled mathematically (probably not easily in closed form, but computer approximated with numerical analysis methods), but I think Tesla and others resorted to a lot of trial and error.

It impresses me that Tesla achieved this oscillation without any mechanical distributor or relays, and used the clever and carefully tuned spark gap to control the charge/dischange voltage range of the oscillation cycle. Tesla achieved high power, ultra high voltage, and high Q resonance without any moving parts or lossly transistor circuitry. This circuit was like a natural or living embodiment of how nature achieves resonance (e.g. lightning). One reason I am writing this post, is because I think most modern engineers even fail to grasp why Tesla would do these "crazy" ("useless" or "useful on for making silly lighting") circuits, because they are accustomed to the modern solid-state transistor design engineering of electronic devices. One must consider that the scale of the combination of power, voltage, Q, and losslessness that Tesla achieved are not necessary in the scale of electronic devices we use in modern world. Analgously, batteries work quite well for small electronic devices because the weight & volume ratios of the input energy to the device weight & volume are not critical factors. A battery can occupy 25% of the volume & weight of an electronic device without causing inefficiencies in useage. Whereas for example, battery weight & volume are impractical for commercial jets.

For Tesla's dream of transmitting energy over large distances without wires, the scale required the aforementioned requirements, and thus the clever discrete circuitry with no moving parts. An electrical engineer with a love of theory (e.g. myself or NZ_Andy) can stand in awe of the elegant purity and efficiency of Tesla's circuit. Whereas, an engineer who is focused on modern practical applications would likely have a closed-mind and not even understand or appreciate the importance of what Tesla achieved. Tesla's circuits are so popularly maligned that they are shown in the lab for the Frankenstein movie. In reality, I now understand that Tesla's circuits were (and still are) the most natural and efficient way to achieve his objective of distributing power without wires. Seemingly analgous to Global Warming maligning nature's hydrocarbon fuel cycle-- which is the most natural, elegant and efficient means of distributed fuel. Is the popular media trying to drive mankind away from the natural, elegant, and efficient solutions for prosperity?

Design of Extra Resonator Coil

Let's study how and why Tesla added a third coil to his two coil design to create his magnifying transformer.

The problem with the aforementioned two coil design was that the "Secondary coil" was also the output coil. This meant that the tuned coupled resonant frequency response of the primary circuit, "Primary coil" and "Secondary coil" was the output. Realize that the primary circuit, "Primary coil", and "Secondary coil" act as an interdependent two coil circuit coupled electromagnetically between "Primary coil" and "Secondary coil". Thus tuning any parameter of that two coil system affects the entire output response. This did not provide enough control of the output resonant frequency, Q, voltage, and output transmission line coupling. For example, the frequency of the coupling between "Primary coil" and "Secondary coil" can't be too low, else efficiency and loss problems arise. Whereas, the output transmission medium (earth) has very low frequency resonance. This is why the two coil systems are useful for making big lightening but not for distance power transmission.

By adding an extra coil, which is isolated from the two coil circuit via a conductive (copper pipe) transmission line, the output resonant frequency, Q, voltage, and output transmission line coupling are somewhat independent of the two coil circuit tuning. The circuits still have to be impedance matched and there are interpendencies, but much tighter control over the output parameters is achieved so that the output power can be more efficiently transmitted rather than lost as parasitic lightening discharges.

Analgously, the extra coil also acts like a giant electromagnetic bell which is struck by the two coil circuit. The resonant frequency is the silent electromagnetic "dong" output. Realize analgously that a bell's "dong" resonance is significantly independent of what you strike it with. So the extra coil can be tuned to provide the "dong" that will couple most efficiently to the output transmission line-- the earth. For example, the axial speed of the output wave could be controlled to within 1% to 10% of the speed of light.

I like to think of the extra coil as the liason (impedance transformer) between the two coil driver and the transmission environment. The extra coil is a Helmholtz resonator analgous in sound applications to the port in a bass-reflex loudspeaker design. Note the advantage of extending the low frequency response.

Resonance Coupling

I can not stress enough the importance of resonance coupling in all aspects of the system from two coil to extra coil to earth transmission line to receiver coil system. In general, a higher Q (tighter resonant frequency band) means a longer duration resonance after driver a signal to a resonator, i.e. less losses. Thus in theory, an infinite Q means superconductivity, e.g. perpetual motion with no losses or friction.

As we discussed in this forum long ago, resonance is the key to the universe:

It is very likely that Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity which explains gravity as curved space exception/excuse, is incorrect. To get to a Unified Field Theory (Einstein was trying before he died), it is very likely that gravity is merely an effect of the fact that everything in the universe is in motion, even the smallest subatomic particles. I have long postulated that gravity is due to infinitely variable sized particles that make up the aether, which are always in motion, something similar to ideas in but not exactly same as following links:

Tesla disagreed with Einstein's "absurb" curved space special case for gravity. Here are the key broadest generalized points on which I think Tesla and my theories agree:

  • Energy is the perception of change in ether
  • Unperceived change is both nonstop and infinitely varied in all infinite dimensions (metrics, times, etc) in the ether
  • Resonance is the pathway to perceive change in ether
  • To perceive infinitely varied change simultaneously (no focus, low Q), is to perceive nothing

The point is that the ether contains infinite diversity, i.e. is neutral. To obtain any state from the ether requires the ability to tune what is channeled-- resonance. The higher the Q factor, then the more narrow the focus on the specific change being perceived. Think of Q factor as the sharpess focus knob, and resonant frequency as the channel knob, on your TV.

So let's say we have some energy (perception of change) and we want to move it to some other perception in the infinite set of possible 4D spacetime perceptions. What we want to do is return that energy (perceivable change) to the ether (infinitely varied, unperceivable change), and then get it back as the same energy (perceivable change) with minimal losses (of perception).


Originally written 04-10-2008, 05:36 AM:
shelby wrote:Mass-Entropy Equivalence

E = mc2

So more mass, means more available energy to do work. Think of increase in mass as a form of potential energy. When the mass decreases (energy is transfered), that is kinetic energy. Concentration of matter (density) is mass.

Entropy (disorder) is inversely related to mass, read the red text on my page:

Because Entropy is the "UNavailability of energy to do work".

So when mass increases, entropy (disorder) decreases, and vice versa.

But there is one more crucial point. It takes exponential change in mass to get a linear change in entropy (in the inverse direction).

So that exponential relationship thus proves why everything in nature follows a Bell Curve distribution. If mass was linearly proportional to order, then everything in nature would be equal or a Uniform Distribution. If mass was exponentially proportion, but not inversely, then the distribution of nature would be like a funny looking Camel Distribution, with all the humps at either end and rising forever at end up.

Mass is related to Entropy via log2 function

(1 / density) = 2 (x^y key) Entropy

So an increase in 1 unit of Entropy, decreases Density by half.

In short, anti-gravity is disorder. The empty space is disorder, it is not void of matter (ether) or what ever you want to call the "boson" particle which when concentrated in order becomes mass and gravity. You will find this is what the Higgs Boson Field explains but in a less universal way of explaining it. Higgs is concerned with the equations at the quantum level. I explained it universally at all levels, even the spiritual level agrees.


Originally written 04-07-2008, 04:59 AM:
shelby wrote:Capillary force is predicted by my Mass-Entropy Universal Theory of the Universe

dash wrote:Originally written 04-07-2008, 04:17 AM:
shelby wrote:
dash wrote:...certain liquids "wet" other substances. If you stick a glass tube into a pool of water, the water will ride up the tube. The thinner the tube, the higher the water will ride up.

Conversely if the liquid doesn't wet the substance, the capillary force pushes the liquid down. If you put a glass tube in a pool of mercury, the mercury will be pushed down below the surface inside the tube. Mercury doesn't wet glass...

Notice the equation for Capillary force basically boils down to a lot of constants, and 1 variable-- relative Entropy between the 2 surface materials.

Thus you can see that Capillary force is just another form of gravitational force, but at the intermolecular level!!

This potential energy was stored in the surface which had the lower relative Entropy, thus was more "available to do work", by transfering some of it's mass (aka energy) to the higher relative Entropy surface...

Sounds plausable as an attractive force where the liquid wets the material. How about where the opposite is true -- mercury in glass, where the liquid doesn't "wet" the surface andd is instead repelled by it? How does it become a repulsive force?

Possibly the Entropy inside the mercury (just inside the surface) is more relatively lower than the Entropy at the surface, than the Entropy at the surface of the glass is lower than Entropy at the surface of the Mercury. So the Mercury attracts more to itself than it does the glass, to a degree (as noticed that Mercury can be spread out but not less than a certain thickness).

This may because Mercury is such a good thermal conductor and has one of the lowest boiling points. Whereas Copper is a much better thermal & electric think dialectric or capacitor) conductor than Glass. Glass is a moderate thermal insulator.

We would need to know more about what is going on at the intermolecular level. I haven't studied it yet in detail, but I think my theory holds good promise of being consistent with the actual intermolecular physics.

Interestingly silver is the highest thermal & electric conductor and (visible?) light reflector of any material on planet. Am I mistaken?

So I may just be on the verge of showing that Silver may be the most important material on earth, if mankind comes to discover that Entropy (and the conductivity, impedance or resonance pathways) are critical to technology!


Originally written 05-02-2008, 07:42 AM:
shelby wrote:Let me explain maximum disorder more succinctly

Originally written 05-02-2008, 07:27 AM:
shelby wrote:When debate becomes predictable, no new knowledge is being gained

I formulated a theory, which derived from some insight Jason Hommel shared, which we've both agreed is very wise.

It is fruitful to interact with antagonists only up to the point where the debate becomes predictable and redundant.

The reason is because all knowledge [information, i.e. mass] is contrast. Once debate is predictable, no new knowledge can be gained (by either side).

You (and I) may think you (we) are introducing new concepts, but I've reached the point where you (and I) are pointing out the same fundamental points over and over, even if they are covered with a different frosting.

The next step, is to spread one's reach and interact wider with more people, in order to gain new contrast.

Maximum disorder is the point of infinite contrast, where every actor becomes massless (no physical burdens to require commonality to other actors), where every actor is unique, and where interactions are infinite.

I have now defined love. Love is to head in that direction.

Energy is the process of breaking mass into smaller chunks, so there can be more interactions. Mass inhibits interactions. So when we reach infinite masslessness, then we won't need any more energy. In other words, the energy of heaven is infinite, because energy is not needed where there is no mass.

Originally written 05-02-2008, 11:55 AM:
shelby wrote:
Jim wrote:So eventually we are returning to Love, or to God? And God or Love is part of us, and we are part of God or Love?

And our relationship to God or Love is the same as the relationship of a drop of ocean water to the whole ocean?

We are spiritual beings, at the present time enjoying a human experience?

That is an interesting way of verbalizing it. I think it concurs. I might modify the "human experience" to be more specific, that we are suffering from not being able to fully comprehend God, because we can not have infinite interactions with all his creation, because we are limited by our mass (it weighs us down). Yet we are enjoying a progression towards the pure love of being 100% with God (interacting with all of him-- his infiniteness).

Maybe even "heaven" is both the journey and the end.


Originally written 04-14-2008, 12:40 AM:
shelby wrote:Resonance is the maximization of mutual information (mutual entropy)

We know that resonance lowers the impedance, or thus maximizes the signal throughput. The above link mathematically relates this effect to mutual information entropy.

Now we come "full circle" back to my first statement of this theory on the forum.

And you can search back in this thread for earlier explanations of how I visualized resonance (mutual entropy) and ether and mass...

...Thanks Telsa, Einstein, and Shannon!!

Last edited by Shelby on Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:38 pm; edited 3 times in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Shannon-Entropy explains wealth, knowledge, growth & decay, etc

Post  Shelby on Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:12 am

I bump this prior post to the top again, because it is brings more understanding to my Theory of Everything, which was explained in the prior post (which you should read too).

Originally written 05-06-2008, 03:40 PM:
shelby wrote:USA has devolved into a feudal economic state

USA has only 2 economics classes now:

The upper 1-3% which have a power law distribution:

And the lower 99-97% class, which have a bell curve (aka entropy or logarithmic) distribution:

What this means is that the bulk of population can not escape debt-servitude (represented by their expenses being higher than their wages). And it confirms my entropy theories about knowledge and prosperity. The upper class is like cliff, if you let your expenses or risk get too close to your income, then you fall off into the abyss of the lower class.


Originally written 04-13-2008, 04:22 AM:
shelby wrote:Wealth is knowledge.

If you want to measure wealth (knowledge) in gold, that may be valid, or it may not. If you want to measure wealth in IQ, that may or may not be valid as well. Measuring knowledge requires knowledge, so distribution of who is correct about what knowledge is, will be a Bell Curve, with the majority being wrong.

Distribution of knowledge (in a population of decision makers) will always follow a Bell Curve, and no amount of machine intelligience will change that is fact of Mass-Entropy-- which is a fundamental principle of the universe and existence.


Originally written 04-07-2008, 02:57 PM:
shelby wrote:re: Mathematics of socialism (the majority)

The non-socialist has a non-constant marginal utility for money.

dash, I agree and it is called "marginal utility" of wealth (the majority mathematically always lives at the margins of wealth). The New Deal in 1930s was used to increase society morale and thus used to further impoverish the masses in socialism. I had wrote about this in early August 2007 (just BEFORE the first huge crash in markets) as follows:,%20Peak%20Debt.html#Future

...Volatility will increase all the way [...], with the central banks occasionally threatening implosion or deflation. It will take strong hands, a strong stomach, and a non-emotional, well researched methodology [...] In particular, the contrarian investor must be totally devoid of the socialistic mentality of constant marginal utility of money, in order to maximize true wealth. From the New World Order section:

  • "...But do not despair by the current trend of the world. Actually it is a fabulous opportunity for the individual who loves liberty [...] However, an individual can not serve two masters. To simultaneously seek liberty and yield to control by others is an oxymoron, self-deceit, and desirious of failure. True liberty means an absolute break from outside control. An individual can not expect socialist elements to be peaceful towards an individual's desire to be free. The burden or cost of seeking liberty never outweighs the alternative of poverty, despair, shortages, and slavery. And it is important to understand that wealth, insatiability, laziness, convenience, pride, jealousy, greed, and debt are some of the trappings of socialism. Wealth is relative because it depends on and is thus measured by society; whereas, prosperity is a personal decision, discipline, sacrifice, satisfaction, contentment, and joy. True and absolute wealth is entrusted to those who maximize the free market, liberty, and the respect for private property. Ponder the concept that greed is the seductive, addictive mirage of the constant marginal utility of money, which is also why gold and silver are not commodities. Debt and thus greed are impossible on a gold and silver money standard. Real money and paper debt money compete because fear and greed compete. Thus, the liberty seeking individual forsakes fear and greed, transcends the "real world", and has a non-constant marginal utility for money. The socialistic world has a constant marginal utility (insatiability) for money, and that is what makes paper money the money for socialism, and makes gold and silver so valuable to the libertarian. But the libertarian who has an insatiable demand for gold and silver has fallen into the trap of socialism and the "real world". This means the truely liberty seeking individual forsakes all the trappings of socialism, e.g. jealousy, pride, debt, extravagance, etc..."

I have defined socialism mathematically.

So this means only the individual who is smarter than the bell curve can have a non-constant marginal utility for money. Nature does not allow everyone to be equally smart/wise/wealthy, because it violates the inverse exponential mathematical nature of mass-entropy equivalence.

Thus the majority of people are motivated and demotivated (thus ruled by) the majority. They sink or swim together. Like a school of fish. Like a row of ducks. Like a herd of cattle. Like a flock of birds. Only the liberty seeking, extremely wise individual is able to break free from the chains of mediocrity, and be an eternal optimist.

I argue that is not even measured in material wealth. The wisest libertarian is still the eternal optimist when his down to his last $1 living in a Nipa Hut in Philippines, because he knows about the love of God and does not worship false idols. It is the need for idols (need of material things, things of mass) that impoverishs the majority and puts them in the center of the bell curve of relative poverty, ignorance, and the unwisdom.


Originally written 04-13-2008, 06:05 AM:
shelby wrote:Why is Information Theory relevant to theory of universe (or existence)?

Read those above. Information Entropy measures the amount of non-random information in a signal. A "signal" can be electromagnetic, mass, boolean logic, gambling games, ... whatever.

So Information Entropy is measuring what is not random noise. Thus Information Entropy is measuring existence. In other words, Information Entropy measures how much of a signal is perceivable.

Science is learning that Information Entropy applies to more and more things. They even mention black holes and molecular structures in the links above.

So what does it mean "to exist"? It means you have mass or a signal (mass or energy). Mass and energy are different ways of expressing that something exists. Mass and energy are related, E=mc2

So Information Entropy measures existence. Maximum disorder or randomness, means 0 mass and 0 energy and thus 0 existence.

It is not like I discovered something that wasn't already known. I just think people are not interpreting Information Entropy as broadly as it applies.


Originally written 04-17-2008, 12:32 PM:
shelby wrote:Originally written 04-17-2008, 03:02 AM

shelby wrote:Math of knowledge & wealth

Been thinking about how I could explain the math of Entropy in a way that the light bulb would go on for more people, and also to remove any doubt that the math applies.

Let's say it was possible for all people to have the same wealth, which is dash's stated goal for his machine intelligience. The definition of wealth you use has no bearing on what I will explain here.

So then let's define our question (or "random variable" in math terminology) as:

Does any randomly chosen person has a wealth within some chosen constant range of my wealth?

In the case of all people having same wealth, then the uncertainty of the above question is 0, meaning the answer is always "yes" and never "no". This means the "information content" of the uncertainty is 0.

So look how the equation for Entropy applies:

-SUM( p log2 p )

where p is the probability that answer is "yes" over all people summed. So given there are N people, then the equation is "1 log( 1 )" summed N times, because p is always "yes" thus 1:

-N x 1 x log2( 1 ) = -N x Y, where 1 = 2 ^ Y
-N x 0 = 0

So the Entropy is 0. There is no "information content" if the wealth of all people is the same. This is because there would be no knowledge that can exist about wealth of people, when their wealth is all equal, because the result is always known. There is nothing to know-- no uncertainty. Thus equal wealth implies that the knowledge of everyone is equal, and equal to nothing. :eek:


Okay so let's use the same question ("random variable") as above, but let's change the assumption to: that no people have wealth that is within some chosen constant range of my wealth.

Again this would give the same result as above, no uncertainty and thus no knowledge, and 0 Entropy.


But now let us say that the answer to the question above, was like a fair dice where every time it was asked for each person of N people, then it had an 1/N chance of being "yes". Thus the Entropy would be:

-N x 1/N x -log2( N ) = Y, where N = 2 ^ Y

So if N was 1 person, then Y = 0, again no uncertainty and no knowledge.
So if N was 2 people, then Y = 1
So if N was 4 people, then Y = 2
So if N was 16 people, then Y = 4
So if N was 256 people, then Y = 8
So if N was 4,294,967,296 people, then Y = 32

So in that case, 4 billion people would only increase the Entropy (information content or differential knowledge) by only 4 times more than 256 people.


Thus we can clearly see that knowledge results from more N possibilities. This is why we need more than just differential wealth. In order to exponentially increase knowledge, we need exponential gains in interactions between the N people [i.e. a network of say N! or 2 ^ (N x N) interactions], so that there is exponential increase in uncertainty. This is what the free market means.

Knowledge only exists from disorder (uncertainty). If everything is perfectly ordered, then knowledge does not exist.

I hope you can begin to have a deeper appreciation for my theory of the universe:


So what does the equation for Shannon Entropy that I used above mean?

Realize that Claude Shannon formulated the equation above to measure the amount of information in a signal, because he was interested in maximizing the transmission of signals (in particular telephone signals in those days, although his work is applicable to any form of signal including radio (electromagnetic) waves, light waves, digital data, etc.):

So he mathematically determined the uncertainty (bits of information) in a signal. Anyone who has taken "Statistics & Probability Theory" course geared for a Mathematics minor or major (as I did) in a quality 4 year college, will realize that he derived this equation from the analysis of permutations of self-similarity in the signal. In other words, his equation is an obvious derivation and simple mathematical measurement of the amount of randomness (disorder) possible in the signal. In other words, the more non-self-similar permutations available in a signal, then the more randomness. This is not rocket science, it is pretty elementary mathematics for a math or engineering major.

In fact, it is already recognized that the Shannon Entropy applies to quantum physics and that it represents the difference between what classical physics is able to communicate (predict) and what is really happening at the microscopic level (i.e. Shannon Entropy is the universal theory of the universe): a more philosophical level, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon's information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount of further Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics...

So folks, it is not like I actually invented anything new. I am just explaining it, because apparently 99.9% of scientists have just glossed right over Shannon Entropy and failed to understand it's universal significance.


Originally written 04-13-2008, 01:56 AM:
shelby wrote:
dash wrote:Originally written 04-13-2008, 12:20 AM:
shelby wrote:The actual number of connections may go up like a square, but the permutations of the possible (potential) connection combinations goes up as a factorial (N!). This is a very key point. Make sure you understand it before moving on.

In other words, how many unique brains can you create with N neurons. It is not N x N, but rather N!. The range of possible combinations of N neurons is not the number of connections for each brain, but rather the number of possible unique structures that can be created from N nodes.

Remember the Shannon-Entropy is dealing with the probablistic distribution of matter (SUM p log2 p, where p is probability than an instance of mass can occur).

...Your N! would apply if you had N nodes and you just have to pick the order, but they're all in a line. That is not representative of real brains...

Afair, connection order (direction) does matter in real brains. But that is not the point. If you have N nodes, then the possible permutations is N!

dash wrote:...The connections neurons form are very specific, it's not random. Well, they grow randomly, but the ones that persist are very choosy -- other ones disconnect...

As I said, you must understand this before moving on. It is a key point.

The question nature (Entropy, i.e. from a random variable perspective) is asking is "How many unique brain connection structures can be created from N neurons given any random environment?", NOT asking, "How many and which connections we will end up with in one brain of N neurons for one specific environment?".

Thus all my prior conclusions remain valid:

Originally written 04-12-2008, 07:03 AM:
shelby wrote:...I have unwound the complexity and provided that universal theory:

I can now explain mathematically why the brains of all creatures uses neurons-- i.e. why knowledge involves breaking down decisions into billions of nodes (neurons) which each independently make a decision.

Very simple, just look at the equation for Entropy:

Entropy = SUM( p x log2( p ) ), where p is the probablistic distribution of matter

Do you see it ? Let me show you...

Let's say you have a brain with only 3 neurons. So the permutations of possible connections between them is:

3! / 1! = 3 x 2 x 1 / 1 = 6

So assuming any one set of connections is equally probable (before the environment is introduced, i.e. at birth), the Entropy of any one brain (one set of connections) is:

Entropy = 6 x ( 1/6 log2( 1/6 )) = log2( 1/6 ) = -2.58

Ok let's increase the neurons to 100, so:

100! / 1! = 9.3e+157 (a really big number with 157 zeros)
Entropy = log2( 1 / 9.3e+157 ) = -524.8

Ok let's increase the neurons to 10,000, so:

10,000! / 1! = 2.9e+35659 (a really big number with 35659 zeros)
Entropy = log2( 1 / 2.9e+35659 ) = -118458

If I try neurons greater than 10,000, my Windows calculator can takes several days, months, or years to solve for the answer!!

Thus the nature of mass and disorder and gravity and bell curves, is that it takes exponentially increasing mass in order to decrease disorder only linearly. Thus, knowledge (order or wealth or wisdom or being in the 99.9% percentile) requires FACTORIAL increase in mass in order to get an exponential increase in knowledge (decrease in entropy or disorder). Realize the bell curve for IQ is an exponential distribution, not linear.

Thus FACTORIAL increase in mass complexity of decisions making, is the only way that knowledge can outpace the bell curve probability of nature![/SIZE] In other words, knowledge must be FACTORIALLY non-linear, else nature would not be a bell curve distribution.

Wow, I think I've nailed it!!!

Interestingly, this is saying that the complexity of the free market (many small interconnected decisions) is more knowledgeable (than centralized decision making) and is in fact required by nature.

Let me explain this more simply. Imagine the brain was one neuron. So it's Entropy would be minimized (mass is extremely concentrated). It would be as centrally managed as possible for itself. In this example, I am not considering the free market network of brains/people that interact here, but that would follow the same logic, i.e. if all brains were merged in "groupthink" as mutual funds, insurance, government, etc do.

So thus the state of a brain with 1 neuron (not the brain itself doing useful work, but the state of the brain itself being improved) would have a very high availability of energy to do work, as it's mass was transistioned to a brain with many more neurons. The work being done is creating knowledge. This work is called "learning".

Thus the fact that brains grow as many neurons as possible, and the fact they involve massively parallel connections, is predicted by the fact that such N x N (or N!) structural efficiency of growth, is able to grow Entropy non-linearly. Thus it is proven mathematically that such N! structural efficiency of growth is the only way that an exponential Bell Curve of IQ distribution can be achieved. If the set of all brains of the population only learned (grew new connections and neurons) at less than 2 ^ N, then Entropy of knowledge would be linear, and we would end up with a uniform distribution of IQ. Realize I am not talking about the rate that one brain grows, I am talking about the probability distribution of knowledge, i.e. the N! possible permutations of brains that can exist in the population (where N is set by limits of energy due to net caloric food efficiency factor, etc). Statistics and random variables are very hard concepts for people to grasp. Note that humans have a much higher N, because our caloric food efficiency factor is much higher, as we learned to leverage our increased N (knowledge). But I am not writing here about the size of N for a species, I am writing about the distribution of the possible permutations of connections in the population of a species.

Now what does uniform distribution mean in terms of existence??

Think about it!

0% contrast (everything is same) is the same as does not exist, because can not be perceived. Thus the only way for mass to exist out of the disorder of Entropy, is for there to be exponential growth faster than 2 ^ N.

This is very profound. Take some time to think.

We have discussed in this forum in past the importance of contrast to existence. It is obvious that we need evil, in order to perceive good, light to perceive dark, etc.. Now I have shown you why mathematically, we need exponential growth greater than 2 ^ N in order to have existence. This now sort of proves everything in the Bible as well.


Originally written 04-14-2008, 09:46 AM:
shelby wrote:Decentralization trumps rate of growth

Originally written 04-14-2008, 06:03 AM:
shelby wrote:You can not increase the net information content of mankind, by creating machine intelligience which you control.

You can possibly do it, if you are willing to give up control...

...Your proposed extremely high (automated) growth rate of reproduction is rather insignificant, as I showed mathematically...

Let me explain it with an analogy.

Today we have the capability to build more lawnmowers than there are lawns. It doesn't matter if we can produce lawnmowers faster, or we can teach lawnmowers to build themselves, because we simply can not make use of an unlimited number of lawnmowers.

In order for something to continually increase and be useful, e.g. your concept of self-replicating robots, then they must be able to seek out and fulfill new and changing dynamic needs. Because for example, if robots can cook all our food for us, then new needs will arise, because humans will have more free time.

I hope you can thus see from that example above, that interaction between things is what make knowledge.

For robots to learn the way humans do, they will need motivation (i.e. the desire to eat, which means acquire electrical power, or the desire to protect themselves) to drive the rewards and penalties that cause the learning process within the neuron interactions. If a master will control these environmental inputs that drive learning, then the robot will not be interacting with the world, any more than a telephone interacts with the world. The master of the robot will be interacting with the world, and creating an unintelligient drone.

Intelligience is the freedom to learn. The accumulated intelligience is that knowledge which was gained from the freedom to learn. I can see this clearly from the math.

So in summary, you either recreate intelligient life, or you are creating automation for known tasks. You can't straggle the middle. There is no middle ground between intelligient life and drone automation.


Originally written 04-13-2008, 02:57 AM:
shelby theory supports the exponential growth and decay in the concentration of wealth. Concentration can only continue up to the point where relative knowledge of the concentrator is still growing faster than 2 ^ Y. After that, it decays exponentially.

Right now we have the situation where concentrated wealth (if measured in gold) is decaying rapidly, because of the slowing or decaying knowledge of the concentrators (Y has increased to 7 billion factorial people, their knowledge has not increased that much as they have further concentrated their decision making).

Eventually Jason your wealth will peak, when your relative knowledge is not growing faster than 2 ^ Y.

In short, there is no way to flatten the Bell Curve to uniform distribution (where all wealth is in 1 person, or all wealth is equally distributed, in both cases all people would have the same uniformly distributed wealth, i.e. no contrast and no existence)


Perhaps this is why some have felt the concentrators might try to commit genocide again.


Originally written 04-13-2008, 10:46 PM:
shelby wrote:Information Entropy can be used to optimize investing

P.S. Thanks dash for writing up your thoughts. I will read them. I am also doing a deep walk-through of everything we've explored up to now, so hopefully I will have some more well-focused comments to make soon.


I have read a bit of it and immediately I can respond to:

...There are tons of exceptions -- like gasses where the density is sufficiently low. It is a compromise -- you can figure out how a system will act in certain situations, without having to model the physics of every particle. Computationally speaking it is a great shortcut...

These are not exceptions, but rather not all the probabilities were calculated. Look at the many different ways to calculate Entropy:

...But at the atomic level there are fundamental principles that guide the behaviour of particles. It might be that regardless of what those principles are, thermodynamic principles will always arise once you get huge numbers of particles involved in a system. It might be that thermodynamic principles apply in all sorts of realms -- not just particles, but in behaviours of systems of entities acting on principles beyond the relatively simple ones that affect forces between the particles themselves...

Those fundamentals are controlled by Entropy, but you must have all the probabilities, including mutual information, etc..

...In light of Taleb's crusade against the bell curve, I am particularly leary of the original theorist's introduction of the bell curve in his arguments. Meaning right now I buy into Taleb's criticisms of the bell curve, so I am especially suspect of anything that refers to bell curve distributions as a part of the fundamental argument...

I did not argue that Entropy requires the specific exponentiation of the Bell Curve (Gaussian distribution), but rather that the distributions of populations must have an exponentiation > 2 ^ Y. Power series are thus acceptable.

Long-tail distributions ("black swans" for Taleb) are not distributions of information, but rather noise, because the mutual information of time duration was not considered. In other words, the sampling error was too great due to the short time scale. It is like saying I didn't have to piss for each second of the last 100 seconds, therefore I will never have to piss. But if sample over a few days, we will realize my pissing has a distributions with exponentiation > 2 ^ Y. Btw, I had a long, unfruitable debate with some researchers at NIST working on anti-spam, wherein I made the assertion that Nyquist also applies to the period, not only to the frequency. In order words, we must sample at 2x the longest period in order to capture the signal without aliasing.

...The mistakes occur because we didn't see the whole picture, and we missed critical aspects...

Understand what Entropy is:

[Shannon entropy or information entropy is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable]

[Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content the recipient is missing when he does not know the value of the random variable]

...Meaning MI would allow the exposure to the individual of far, far greater amounts of information, and the filtering of relevance so we're not inundated with noise...

[It quantifies the information contained in a message, usually in bits or bits/symbol. It is the minimum message length necessary to communicate information]

There is something very profound you must understand here.

Imagine you have a dice with a perfectly uniform density, thus the probability of landing on any of the 6 sides is equal. Thus the entropy = -SUM( 1/6 x log2( 1/6 ) ) = -6 x 1/6 x -2.58 = 2.58. So it takes 2.58 bits (on/off switches) to represent 6 possible states (number from 0 to 5).

Now imagine a rigged dice, where all the weight was shifted to two sides sand rest of it was hollow, such that the probability of landing on the other 4 sides is 0 (never happens). Thus the entropy = -SUM( 1/2 x log2( 1/2 ) ) = -2 x 1/2 x -1 = 1. So it takes 1 bits (1 on/off switch) to represent 2 possible states (number from 0 to 1).

So it is not the quantity of data or mass (e.g. the 6 sides of dice) that is relevant, but the mutual probabilities of the data occuring (do all 6 sides occur with same probability). If something is so redundant that is always occurs or does not occur, then it adds no useful information.

Again we will go back to my very first retort of dash's concept that MI can be controlled and save the world. The problem is entropy. In order to gain entropy (information), then dash must allow each of his new bots be an independent decision maker. If he tries to control the types of decisions they are allowed to make, then he is decreasing the information (entropy) and forming redundancy.

See the problem is that dash can at best just recreate life and accelerate the reproduction timeline. But he also has to accelerate the learning process. And to do that, he must mix the matter and get out the way. Once he tries to manage the decisions being made by zillions of new bots, then he will have slowed them down to his single mind.

I will be elaborating soon on this math of population is very profound and explains why the Bible said "go forth and multiply". As it turns out, each new person added to the free market, increases the information content of the world EXPONENTIALLY. But the key point is, that each new person must be free. Controlled bots are not free.

I will be coming back eventually to post more focused on the way that increases in free populations interact with entropy. As a start, remember that N decision makers have an uncertainty based on the number of permutations of interactions they can do. Let us say it is N! ([SIZE="1"]or perhaps it is 2 ^ N ^ 2, or 3 ^ N ^ 2, or 2 ^ N ^ N ^ N but it doesn't matter for sake of my point here[/SIZE]). So if we add 1 new decision maker, then the number of permutations increases by:

(N + 1) x N! - N! = N! x N

Since we showed above that entropy is the number of bits need to represent the number of equally likely states, then assuming all interactions among N decisions makers are equally probable (i.e. "100% freedom"), then adding 1 decision maker has increased our number of states by N! x N. Thus the exponential rate of growth of the number of states is greater than 2 ^ Y, thus the number of bits needed is growing exponentially for each new decision maker added.

But the world is not 100% free. We live within constraints, which made some interactions more probable than others, so the information content (entropy) of the existing world is not increasing exponentially for each new person added, but rather the potential energy of (potential contained within) the 100% free market is increasing exponentially. You see the size of the human population is causing the big showdown with the moneylenders. The size of the free market is what is driving all this. It would be much easier for them to control 2 people. Increasing population leads to more freedom, not the other way around.

Understand that increasing entropy (information content) is creating a higher level of disorder. One might get confused, because higher entropy has higher "UNavailability to do useful work". But remember that the world is not free, and thus it is the opposing force of this exponentially growing free market, that can do so much work in the form of the the unfree world doing the work as it disintegrates back to 100% freedom. The unfree world is straining to grow exponentially (probably already stalled, declining, or at best growing much slower than the) juxtaposed against the exponentially growing free market.

dash's goal of increasing the number of decision makers exponentially is noble. He wants to accelerate the exponential growth of the free market. He cleverly understands that the constraints to population growth are just unfreedoms (amount of energy, science, etc). However, I caution dash to know the math, in that unless his decision makers are 100% freedom to learn and make decisions that he is not monitoring, then the permutations of interactions in the population are not growing. He will have achieved nothing, and it would be an extremely wasteful use of energy (meaning the mass of the world will become more redundant and unfree, i.e. concentrated...not free decision makers).


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Did a tree fall if nothing observed it?

Post  Shelby on Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:22 pm

> Example: I write that a tree falling in the woods does not depend on any
> observer, not a human, or an animal, or an insect, nothing at all. It
> makes
> a noise. It's there, it's real, it occurs. Even if no consciousness is
> aware
> of it.

Wrong. You have no way to measure that until you measure it.

You can't prove it without measuring it.

That is sufficient to prove my assertion.

Besides, measuring alters what is observed-- we know this to be true at the quantum
information level. Read about that this week.

> And you write in one of your posts the exact opposite, that the tree needs
> an observer to make it real. And that even if a human wasn't around, there
> were doubtless insects or animals present to give reality to the tree
> falling.
> My god, can there be any common ground between us if you actually believe
> such drivel?

Agreed you are in denial about reality.

My gosh you are saying that measurements at quantum information level (that show measuring can only be done once, i.e. that measuring alters the thing that is observed), have been lies. But more importantly, the logic below has no possible refutation.

> If you've constructed some monstrosity of a philosophy on top
> of that ridiculous belief? Your structure falls to pieces if no observer
> is
> required, doesn't it?

If no observer is required, then there is no limit to what may be happening, which is exactly my theory in that I say that matter (ether) is infinite possibilities and nothing ordered (matter) happens until it is observed.

Yet if you claim a limit while still claiming that events happen without being observed, then you have no way to prove it, because you can't measure all things that happened and were not measured, then your theory is equivalent to my theory. I win the argument either way.

That is the undeniable proof that my theory is correct. There is no possible way to wiggle away from the fact that I am correct, except for illogical denial.


> Certain things cannot be measured. If something wasn't observed directly,
> one can only infer it occured by looking at what effect it had on the
> surroundings.

If nothing measured it, then it had no surroundings.

Your logic is going in circles. Semantic games ('insects, etc' replaced by 'surroundings') won't help you. You either have Butterfly effect (thus measurement) or you don't.

> I conclude the trees go on about their lives growing, living, dying,
> falling over because if you look at the forest floor you see layer upon
> layer of leaves in all levels of decomposition. If you watch for a while
> you'll see leaves fall. If you go away and come back, you can see that
> leaves have been falling at about the expected rate you measured while
> you were watching.

Yup, Butterfly effect.

> All throughout life one gets this same evidence. The world exists even
> when no one is there to observe it.

Oh really? You mean no humans. What about the other atoms that were impacted by events?

> Consciousness is not required to give
> stability to the world. Besides that, the explanation is so trivially,
> intuitively
> obvious. Occam's Razor. An alternative that makes the area go away when
> someone isn't observing it implies vast additional complexity.

Occam's Razor is a fallable heuristic.

Besides arguing against the Butterfly effect is insane.

> Where does
> it
> go? What happens to the information in all the positions of all the atoms
> that make up the tree / forest if it all vanishes when I look away?

Yeah that is my point. Where did it go?

Since when did I write that 'observer' means 'human'? Every quark and unit of mass is an observer.

Units of matter are not observers.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't apply, because you didn't understand that I meant even the ground that the leaves fall on is an observer.


For a more complete definition of God, go here to the References of this research paper:

>> > You never answered the big question. You claim the infinite disorder
>> > is your evidence of god, only god could have created the infinite
>> > disorder.
>> > So what created god?
>> >
>> > Why cling to so many ridiculous beliefs? What community do you want
>> > to belong to so badly that you will go along with such clear
>> falsehoods?
>> > What possible benefit do you get these days?
>> >
>> > How much more you could accomplish if you devoted your talents to
>> > the forces of Truth, as opposed to the forces of the flying spaghetti
>> > monster...
>> >
> I'm done trying to refute your tree-in-the-forest belief, or to even
> understand
> what the morphing point you're trying to make happens to be at every
> instant. The tree is there doing its thing without any observer, without
> any
> animal, without any human, without any insect, amoeba, whatever. The
> observer only influences the observer himself.

The sad thing is that when you lose the logical debate, you fight for your confirmation bias.

The tree can't be there if it has no environment. How did the tree get there without an environment?

You can't answer that, so you run and hide instead.

> I'm really curious as to how you can explain how god existed. You keep
> avoiding this question. Isn't it kind of critical?

God is the sum of all matter. God didn't create itself, it never existed, because matter does not exist until it is observed. We create God every day. That is why we were created out of matter.

It is important that you can not present any theory for the universe, which also explains what it outside the universe. No one can.

So that is why my theory says there is no outside.

The universe is 100% disorder meaning infinite possibilities. There is nothing outside, because there is no outside. You see infinite possibilities includes everything. It also explains how the universe wraps onto itself topologically via possibilities.


>> The tree can't be there if it has no environment. How did the tree get
>> there without an environment?
> Do you claim that if there are no animals to observe the tree then the
> tree isn't there?

I am claiming that if there is no soil, no earth, no sun, no water, no bugs to maintain the soil, no carbon cycle, etc... then there is no tree.

All of those things (and more) interact, and thus are mutual observers.

> Do you claim that the observer (be it human or an insect or whatever)
> has something beyond "matter" that causes the observed "thing" to
> exist?

Yes Q (a relative form of mass), which I defined very precisely. Go read my definitions again:

> Let's just clarify precisely what you're claiming. Perhaps I had made some
> incorrect assumptions about what your claims are.

I think so. I think you didn't read my definitions carefully and really contemplate what they mean.

Last edited by Shelby on Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:09 am; edited 2 times in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

If a rabbit dies in the forest, did it exist?

Post  Shelby on Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:07 pm

This is more a satire on the prior post, but it does show that perception is ephemeral.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Einstein's General Relativity -> My Mass-Entropy Theory of the Universe

Post  Shelby on Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:18 pm

The fundamental principle of General Relativity is simple to understand, although I've never read it explained simply.

General Relativity

Let me translate what Einstein said to an easier form:
Einstein wrote:Albert Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik, 49 (1916), Pages 776,777

The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations, which are valid for all coordinate systems, ie. are covariant (generally covariant) in relation to the arbitrary substitutions.

It is clear that a physics, which meets this postulate, satisfies the general relativity postulate. Because in all substitutions anyhow are also those contained, which correspond to all relative motions (three-dimensional) of the coordinate systems. The fact that this demand of the general covariance, which takes away the last remainder of physical objectivity of space and time, is a natural demand, results from the following consideration. All our time-spatial stating always end in the determination of time-spatial coincidences. Would for example all events consist only in the motion of material points, then at least nothing would be observable but the meetings of two or several of these points. Also the results of our measurements are nothing else but stating such movements of material points on our yardsticks together with other material points respectively coincidences between watch-hands, points on clock-faces and observed point-events, taking place at the same time and at the same spot.

The introduction of a frame of reference serves for nothing else but for easier description of the totality of such coincidences. One assigns four time-spatial variables to the world such that the value-system of the variables corresponds to every point event. Two coinciding point events correspond to the same value-system of their variables; ie. the coincidence is characterized by the equality of the coordinates.
Each entity perceives (aka observes) our world using a value-system that has 4 dimensions-- the 3 spatial dimensions (x, y, z) and the time dimension (t).

However, each entity is not an independent observer outside the universe (not 0 covariant with respect to the observations), rather each observer also exists as a point in an separate but covariant 4-dimensional value-system. For example, what you observe is dependent on where you are, what direction you are traveling, how fast you are traveling and accelerating. If you are in a very slow elevator, if you look at the back wall, you think you are not moving.

Einstein explains these must be separate but covariant 4-dimensional spaces so that the objectivity of the laws of nature are independent of the space-time value-system. As my theory explains[1], the reason is because the observer and the observed mutually create each other, i.e. that nothing is formed from matter (aka infinite disorder) until it is mutually observed[2], which is just another way of saying that they are covariant. (Tangentially, the implication of which is that existence of space-time order is an arbitrary mutual Q[1], and infinite parallel value-systems exist simultaneously, thus explaining the implication of the term "value".)

Thus our observed 4-dimensional space-time value system resides within a 4-dimensional mutually covariant space. This means that the 4-dimensions being observed (e.g. what you see), is mathematically intertwined (aka covariant) with the observer's position in the 4-dimensions. This is what is meant by saying the observed 4-dimensional space-time is actually curved.

Each entity's local 4-dimensional observation (a Minkowski space[3]) has a tangent space, which is a separate but covariant 4-dimensional (Minkowski) space. The latter tangent space is all the vector possibilities from any point on the former 4-dimensional observation space. To visualize this for all possible observers in the universe, first imagine in diagram (on the left) that the planar tangent space is instead spherical, such that both spheres touch at one point. An observer at that tangent point, would be able to observe all possibilities in the tangent spherical space. Imagine the spheres as 4-dimensional spaces, and you have the mental visualization of general relativity that Einstein had. Since a 4-dimensional space can't be drawn (without strange animation or topological folding) in 3-dimensions, the light-cone diagram (on the right) flattens the 3-dimensional space of a single observer to a plane, and the tangent space to a cone.

Because all possible observations in the universe are covariant with each other, this covariance of the orthogonal 4-dimensional observation and tangent spaces causes observed effects, such as gravity, orbits, bending of light, black-holes, bending of time, etc.. Einstein modeled this covariance with his 10 simultaneous differential field equations.

Mass-Entropy Theory

Although Einstein's model is useful for many observed effects, he ignored the complex plane (sqrt[-1]) of the Lorentz factor (1 / sqrt[1 - v^2 / c^2]), choosing to model only the covariant effects where nothing could move faster (i.e. v > c) than the speed-of-light. It has since been shown that only the light-cone restriction is necessary for coordinate transformations to be the Lorentz transformations[4].

Thereafter observed excessive gravitational effects on electromagnetic signals coming from outer space, can not be explained by general relativity in terms of the matter that can be detected to exist. This anomaly is evidence of some "dark matter" estimated to comprise 80% of the universe, which can not be detected by electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is assumed by general relativity to never travel faster than the speed-of-light, so any matter which exhibited frequencies faster than the speed-of-light would need to be explained by more a general theory such as Mass-Entropy[1].

This explains why quantum mechanics and general relativity have not yet been reconciled-- the frequencies that the quantum particles (and "dark matter") are exhibiting (note I did not write 'speed they are moving'[1]) is faster than can be measured in space-time, so quantum dynamics is modeled and measured in probabilities[5], a form of anti-aliasing. If the equation for Planck's constant where the constant is instead taken to be a value of 1, tells us how much faster the speed-of-light required to measure the quantum frequencies deterministically. Note that volume downscaling in 3-dimensions is cube root (10^-3), and the mass of an electron is 10^-31 kg, and Planck's constant is 10^-34 kg-m/s.

Mass-Entropy explains what is happening when quantum particles appear to be entangled[6] over large space-time distances is that the mutual Q is at a much higher frequencies (and I mean an abstraction of 'Q' and 'frequency' beyond space-time limitations)[1], than the traditional speed-of-light limit. Quantum particles do not physically travel large space-time distances (not even when a large space-time scale body travels), rather the mutual Q of the two locations in space-time is resonant. This is the mechanism by which mass is formed from disorder spontaneously due to mutual observation. The frequencies greater than the speed-of-light are not manifest in the time dimension, rather super dimension(s), so the effects appear in the space-time domain as probabilistic.

Mass-Entropy[1] works at all scales (dimensions) of matter, but in order to make it useful we need ways to falsify its relationships within measurable effects in the space-time domain, i.e. it must teach us how to escape our limited space-time understanding of our universe.

General relativity requires that an observer is at one fixed point at any one point in time. We know from copying digital information that mass[1] can exist in more than one place at the same time, this is macro-scale entanglement. General relativity isn't continuous in the time domain, because all points in time at frequencies greater than the speed-of-light occupy the same point in space-time. To generalize space-time, we need not make the speed-of-light go faster, we can model the higher frequencies by adding a 5th dimension to the tangent space which is the complex probability amplitude of the random variable that the observer is only at that tangent point at the (speed-of-light imprecision) point in time.

(I will be studying Q-orders as my available free time allows for me to come up to speed on the math for them, as I think they might be a self-similarity case for the "frequency" category in my theory)

(this is a work in progress, please come back from time-to-time until you see this message removed)


[1] Shelby Moore III, Mass-Entropy Equivalence Theory of Everything, 2008 - 2010

[2] Shelby Moore III, Did a tree fall if nothing observed it?, 2008 - 2010

[3] Locally flat spacetime, Minkowski space, Wikipedia, 02:30, 10 September 2010

[4] Erik Christopher Zeeman - "Causality implies the Lorentz group" - Derivation, Lorentz transformation, Wikipedia, 16:45, 12 September 2010

[5] Feynman's view of quantum electrodynamics, Quantum electrodynamics, Wikipedia, 16:24, 21 September 2010

[6] Quantum entanglement, Wikipedia


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Post  Shelby on Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:10 pm

Shelby wrote:(I will be studying Q-orders as my available free time allows for me to come up to speed on the math for them, as I think they might be a self-similarity case for the "frequency" category in my theory)

(this is a work in progress, please come back from time-to-time until you see this message removed)

Cellular automata may be what I am looking for:


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

You think you know reality?

Post  Shelby on Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:06 am

Reality depends on perception:


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to our perception of the universe, not the totality of the universe

Post  Shelby on Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:56 am

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.

So now I hope you agree the universe is trending to maximum possibilities (disorder).

But now I want to tell you another outcome of my Universal Theory, it is only our perception that is trending to maximum possibilities, because we can never perceive all the possibilities.

All those possibilities already exist, and that is God's order. Only God can comprehend it, because he is (or encompasses all those infinite possibilities).


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Wow, just as my Universal Theory stated!

Post  Shelby on Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:37 am

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.

See God is the universe and the universe is God. Infinite possibilities is God. God is not external to the universe, only to our limited perception. It all fits now. My universal theory is 100% unified with the Bible. Thank you.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Another infinite structure in math

Post  Shelby on Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:40 pm

Is this fundamentally different than any asymptote?

Note cellular automa are also infinitely recursive and not all of them are predictable repetition. Any recursive function is infinite.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Rational support for truth

Post  Shelby on Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:34 pm

Some expressed agreement with Russell's principle, stating rationality hinges on evidence or support. However, Russell's Paradox invalidates the utility of evidence (i.e. measurement, perception, or consciousness), as it might pertain to an existential question. Evidence is only valid within a shared consciousness, and thus inconsistent (on some scale) due to Godel's theorem. Godel's theorem is a category of Russell's Paradox. Russell's Paradox states that every set recurses itself infinite times, and we know the Halting problem is due to recursion. Other theorems follow.

* Liskov Substitution Principle: it is an undecidable problem that subsets inherit.

* Linsky Referencing: it is undecidable what something is when it is described or perceived.

* Coase Theorem: there is no external reference point, any such barrier will fail.

* Godel's Theorem: any formal theory, in which all arithmetic truths can be proved, is inconsistent.

* 1856 Thermo Law: entire universe (a closed system, i.e. everything) trends to maximum disorder (maximum possibilities).

* Continuum hypothesis + Godel: the real numbers are not discrete nor countable (they have infinite cardinality at any scale), thus there can exist no countable (i.e. realizable) proof of a weaker cardinality between reals and integers. Note, shared consciousness is a state of shared agreement on discrete state.

* Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem: any signal not sampled infinite times is aliased (might be aliased and there is no way to know without reference point). Long-tails are aliased by insufficient sampling duration, Nyquist limit (short) tails are aliased by insufficient sampling rate.

* 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. Thus existential questions are inherently unfalsifiable. Thus it is irrational to say that faith is irrational. The scientific method is a faith, albeit a very useful one which I prescribe to (under discernment of its ephemeral fragility). This logic does not defend the dogma of churches and religions, which is orthogonal to faith. (sometimes I may write carelessly in my haste or tired state, giving the impression that I do)

An interesting theory of the universe, is that the universe wraps onto itself topologically in the form of the equation of entropy, which is a continuum. So if the universe is the set of infinite possibilities, then Russell's Paradox is consistent.

So what is a God? It is at least the set of infinite possibilities. To go beyond that is faith (i.e. creator), and if such a faith requires any shared consciousness (churches, religions, dogma, judgment, etc), then it is inconsistent. Jesus said in Matthew 6, those who pray to be seen by others have received their entire reward already. So apparently the idea behind faith is that we won't bind ourselves in futures contracts (shared consciousness), so that all will be free to experiences the maximum possibilities.

So what is knowledge? Knowledge is the increase in (or the perception/awareness of) possibilities. The internet is spreading knowledge at an exponential rate of growth-- the key factor being there is no centralization-- no binding futures contracts and monolithic vested interests controlling the permutations of consciousness. Noam Chomsky's work in linguistics apparently has raised awareness (understanding) of the possibilities (disorder) in language. His generative logic systems may be ordered, yet they identify previously imperceptible (not fully understood) phenomena, thus possibilities were increased. Disorder is universal scale consistent, order is only shared consciousness scale ephemerally "consistent" (a temporal illusion or state, albeit sometimes useful or even necessary).

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. There are similar discussions about generative structure of concurrency that involves this issue of unbounded non-determinism.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

String theorists may agree with me

Post  Shelby on Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Shelby wrote in the prior post:
* 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.


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...

And that interview seems to indicate that String theory (mass as resonance) fits the model of my more general Theory Of Everything:

Last edited by Shelby on Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:15 pm; edited 1 time in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

re: Rational support for truth

Post  Shelby on Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:12 pm

I am trying to avoid the phenomenon of intellectual debate adversely impacting the heart. I think many people (myself included) really dislike the concept of religious browbeating and inquisition, e.g. the past Catholic church preventing public discourse on whether the sun revolved around the earth. But that wasn't faith at all. Saying that Catholic church was bad, but a new religion is good, is the disease continued. I am trying to explain how to unconflate religion and faith, as per what Jesus said in Matthew 6. Religion is man's disease, and is the antithesis of faith. Faith is universal, even in science. Man tries to run to something other than faith, but there exists no such safe harbor. Now on to the proof...

> Afraid I don't agree with your interpretation of Russell's paradox, or
> Goedel's theorem. Or the rest. It's been well understood since the 17th
> century that there are no empirical judgments cannot be literally proven,
> and always rely on assumptions that are posited and tested.

Thanks again for explaining your basis.

Afraid I must explain why I think your basis is a straw-man. In short, the empirical set is rationally known (by Godel, Penrose, Wolfram, String theorists, etc) to not be bijective with the universal set. Thus empirical judgments are a faith. It is still rational to do science. Think about thoroughly mixing chocolate and vanila ice cream, and then asking someone to empirically prove the shades of the original colors. Once information is lost in a non-invertible function, then the original set is not recoverable. This is what happens between the continuum of the universe and the measurable set.

This will be slightly long-winded, so my logic is hopefully more clear. One can make and test a hypothesis, but that measurement is not falsefiable to be a member of the universal set, and this is what Godel's theorem proves. We only can falseify that there is evidence within some limited (discrete, countable) set of shared consciousness. A key outcome of Godel's theorem is from it follows a proof that the Continuum hypothesis can not be disproven. Thus it can not be proven there exists a bijective mapping between the reals (the continuum of the universe) and the countable (measurable) discrete set (a/k/a natural numbers), although it also not be disproven. So any discrete sample of the continuum says nothing falseifiable about the universe (any more that combining chocolate and vanila evidences the shades of the original colors), but rather represents an ephemeral realized consciousness. Empirical repeatability tells us about a pattern that exists within the past, and we gain some confidence about it being true into the future, but on the universal scale, that assumption is rubbish. Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem says the same thing. Nyquist must be known a priori, so the experiment must know the result before it is measured. Thus no experiment can know if the result was not aliased, regardless if the result is repeatable, because aliasing error most definitely repeats. Look at any Moiré pattern, the only reason we can say it is error, is because the repeating pattern doesn't agree with our external experience reference point (shared consciousness). A non-aliased result is indistinguishable from an aliasing error result, unless one has a universal reference point. This is precisely the issue of unbounded non-determinism, which is fundamental to the universe. This is exactly what Roger Penrose is driving at lately with his The Emperor's New Mind, and the string theorists now realize too that there is no starting point for the Big Bang: (listen for 20 seconds, it will jump to the exact point in the interview of leading string theorist)

And that interview seems to indicate that String theory (mass as resonance) fits the model of my more general Theory Of Everything:

Thus I assert again, that science is just a faith, but it is very useful because the realizations of the continuum (scientific method) have very long-tails and thus are meaningful within the space-time scales of our generations. But given another 50 - 100 years, I am confident that our science will be as radically different, as now is compared to the 1800s. I am confident we are on the precipice of a radical new burst of fundamental science (no shattering paradigm shift since Einstein+quantum), with Wolfram, Penrose, nanotechnology, etc leading the way. Maybe within your lifetime, so I hope you are here to revel in it with me. My point being that what they thought in 17th century can be soon debunked. The earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth "rationally" at one time in history. Luckily a few people questioned that. But the difference is that I am asserting that some things can not be falseified. But look at Penrose's latest work, look at Wolfram's cellular automa and the fact that we can never know what an automa will do in the future, until we run it to the future. Look at what the string theorists are realizing by now. And realize that Godel demonstrated that some things can be proven to not be disprovable, even though no proof exists. In other words, proof itself has more than two states. I am sure you know that many computer theorems (e.g. Halting problem) say that certain outcomes are undecidable, i.e. they can not be proven yes or no. This all stems from the nature of the Continuum hypothesis. And the Continuum hypothesis and there being no starting point in the universe are mutually dependent issues. In short, our universe is trending to maximum possibilities (trending to infinity but never gets there), which was known since the 1856 Second Law of Thermodynamics. The issue since then has been whether there was a starting point of the Big Bang. The answer since Godel has been clearly no. But it is taking a while for the rest of science to catch up with Godel (and Telsa btw). My original point in emailing you, given an admiration of your rational approach and your statements on principles of freedom which derive from rationality, was I find it so ironic that Bertrand Russell did not realize that all of the above follows from his own Paradox, but he couldn't see it. The evidence being that he apparently (I've seen video) was very outspoken in asserting that faith is irrational, which in my view is as irrationally pitiful as the irrational religious browbeaters, whom Jesus disowned in Matthew 6. From Russell's own Paradox, it follows that science is too a (very useful) faith.

P.S. Incidentally Godel apparently thus had a very strong faith (but tried to hide it until the end), although I don't find any meaning in his ontological "proof" of God. He went too far and lost his rationality on that one (maybe that is why he hid it). Godel should have understood intuitively that one can not prove that which we have faith in exists, because then it would not be faith any more. Also it is more than intuitive, because he proved that the Continuum hypothesis can not be disproved, while he also was not able to prove it. That should have indicated to him something unique about why we employ the word faith.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

re: Rational support of truth

Post  Shelby on Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:22 pm

I agree with Hume. I equate "mitigated skepticism" with faith (but not religion, which is the antithesis of freedom). I wrote that science is rational. Caveats abound, e.g. inertia of debunked habits and inability of humans to respond to the slow creep of the exponential function until the nominal increase in some deleterious effect outweighs the benefits of their habit. My point is it is irrational to conflate religion and faith (by either camp of the antagonists), because faith is universal. Organized religion from either camp, is unmitigated disaster.

I understand that Hume wrote that every perception could not be rationally connected to the others (i.e. future's contracts are going to bind eventual failure, which is why religion and statism end up as enforcement), yet we must accept habit essentially because it is all we have in the physical world (when our mind is not in that pure place of thinking about philosophy as Hume noted[1]).

That has similarities with the quote of Jesus in Matthew 6, that we must pray alone to be heard. The issue of who is listening when we are that pure place of philosophy, is philosophy and faith. There is also the quote of Jesus in Matthew 19, that the only door to freedom is to give it all away and walk to that pure place (paraphrased). There is the explanation in 1 Samuel 8, that government will steal everything, and the fulfillment in 1 Samuel 15, where the even babies are killed. Some say "how can you have faith in a God that kill babies?". Men kill, because we can't stay always in that pure place, and we get ourselves bound up in vested (futures contract) situations. The point of 1 Samuel 15 is the ironlaw of statism that results in murder. I don't entirely know your views on statism, so I hope I am not pressing any "ignore" button. I think you have stated that governments murder. For me, it is not one political party, it is inertia of the power vacuum of democracy. There only solution is for individuals to spend more time in that pure place of philosophy. When people can walk without anything at any time, governments are impotent. I've lived in a Nipa Hut, in squalor, with every infection daily.

I have a reasonable intuition that Godel's work w.r.t Continuum hypothesis demonstrates this conundrum. You've inspired me to try allocate time in future to see if I can do anything new in that area, perhaps with some logic proofs. I am designing a computer language at the moment.

We are in a very exciting time, appears we are at a breaking point in world order, although it has to potential to perpetuate power structures of a higher kind. Google Android 800% annual sales growth, and amazingly the rate has been accelerating. I understand it is rare phenomenon, especially on that global scale. I believe we are on precipice of massive global changes. I suspect you have some internal thoughts too on the potential for the changes underway now to be exploited (perhaps that is why you've been speaking out more), and there appears also potential for technology to have an impact perhaps in a positive way.

I feel somewhat ashamed now (of my own ego?) for rambling on. I would rather think for a long time on this first, but I don't have that luxury. I want to send you this reply and get to work on my project.

Thank you so very much.



Shelby wrote:
> 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.

Shelby wrote:

> 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.

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.

Shelby wrote:
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.

Last edited by Shelby on Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:18 pm; edited 2 times in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

What are the "Frequencies" in my T.O.E.

Post  Shelby on Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:05 pm



Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory of Everthing

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum