Theory of Everthing

Reality depends on perception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygh1-ul6E94

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).

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.

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t33p300-silver-as-an-investment#4239

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.

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.

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.

[...snip...]

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

http://splicd.com/iLZKqGbNfck/480/573

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

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124-theory-of-everthing#3561
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124-theory-of-everthing#3681

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:

http://splicd.com/iLZKqGbNfck/480/573 (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:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124-theory-of-everthing#3561
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124-theory-of-everthing#3681

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.

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

[1] http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm

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.

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

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

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.

Ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_point_combinator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_point_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ising_model

The reason that there is a logarithm difference is because the organization of matter and natural systems (e.g. even political organization) follows the probabilistic relationship of entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The reason is because a linear relationship wouldn't work in nature. Imagine if it was just as easy to go from 99% to 100% (perfection) as it was to go from 98% to 99%. This would mean perfection is possible. Perfection is never possible, this is why each step closer to 100% gets asymptotically more costly, such that you never reach perfection. This is also stated in Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, wherein we can never know the true reality unless we can make infinite samples of it.

Tangentially, note there is a more complete (adds images and important links) and easier-to-read version of the essay Understand Everything Fundamentally.

Someone who debated with me in the past about my Theory of Everything, just emailed me this. I haven't studied it yet, but perhaps it is vindication time!

> http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/132
>
> It is an approach to explaining gravity using thermodynamics. Black
> holes show up, entropy, disorder... the sorts of things your own
> theory involved. Perhaps this confirms your own approach. I'm just
> starting to look into it a bit now.

You can re-read all the posts in following thread and the links off to other threads, wherein my theory was documented since 2007 or 2008 roughly:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124-theory-of-everthing#3681
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124-theory-of-everthing#3561
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Mass-Entropy_Equivalence.html

Okay it looks like I was first to have this realization that gravity is an entropic force, the way a dimensionless entropic metric relates to 4D spacetime, and the distant entanglement of matter due to the global entropic consideration, as you can study my published comments at the above links, which go to back to as far as 2006, and Erik Verlinde had his eureka in the summer of 2009:

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page20/page18/page18.html

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

But he was the first to formalize the theory, so of course he should get the recognition and appreciation. I do hope he (or the world) will recognize (as a footnote) that I independently had a similar conceptual eureka some years before he did. I think it is important to give credit to those who put their effort into contributing to the scientific method. I am pretty sure that I had emailed Roger Penrose and others my ideas (I probably have proof in my archives).

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3697&cpage=2#comment-322546

Shelby wrote:

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

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

Let add my quickly written rambling conceptual understanding of the math involved, without getting too precise. These near-term "paths of least resistance", which are semi-closed local orders, are essentially local minima or maxima in the global N dimensional solution space, where N are the independent probability terms in the equation of entropy, i.e. the degrees-of-freedom. Gradient path solutions tend to be non-optimal local valleys that are traps, because the gradient solving wants to always move downhill. Only the random "jump" experiments of simulated annealing can find a distant deeper valley in the solution space. So these gradient moves of the local orders, can be seen as the most efficient (more efficient than randomly jumping around within a valley) way of finding local minima. Whereas, the global trend of the entropic force is trending to maximum N (entropy), and the solution to this space is simulated annealing, which is the only global optimization technique when the structure of the solution space is not known a priori (which it can't be since N is always increasing). Hope that makes sense, as I didn't take time to think about how this plays in the mind of the reader, nor formalize it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This relates to my work on the Copute computer language, in that Copute's technology of "declaratively Turing complete" (see "Copute Tutorial" at http://copute.com) removes the cost of needing to maintain collective knowledge of all the modules of logic, in order to use those modules. Thus removing the transactional cost (i.e. key employee quits who knows all the modules of logic of a project, thus need for management control of risk costs) that enables corporations to exist (google for, "Theory of the Firm"). The corporation is only economically viable because management is necessary. Once the need for coordination has been removed technologically, as I claim Copute will do (in final stages of implementation development), then the corporation loses economic viability and disappears from the earth. Actually I visualize a mixed result of more smaller companies, because there is no perfected outcome in nature (nor would we want one, as uniform outcomes have low entropy).

These transactional costs that give economic viability to the corporation, are the "path of least resistance" semi-closed orders of lower entropic efficiency that Velinde refers to in the above quote. Once these are removed, in theory the overall economic system can bypass the corporations and move directly to higher-entropic efficiency of more often uncoordinated development of group knowledge (logic), as a collection of orthogonal (i.e. declarative, not imperative) Turing complete logic modules (a/k/a programs).

The point I have been making about "passive capital" is that society has given value to fungible money that can be stored, and has recognized the value of "passive capital", i.e. capital that owns the corporation and has salaried managers and knowledge workers, while the profits go to the owners, who may not even be active in the production of knowledge that the corporation does. In fact, the more industrial the corporation, the more passive the owners, precisely because the natural profit margins of industry are near 0, because there is near 0 new knowledge (innovation) being generated, rather just a robotic replication of material production. And thus most of the active portion of the profit generation is in the area of eliminating competition via political control. What I find is that more software oriented a company is, then the more active the owners are in the knowledge production portion of the corporation (as opposed to active in gaining political leverage for the corporation), but yet due to the fact that no mainstream computer languages are declaratively Turing complete, the passive capitalists still own the high-tech software behemoths, for example go look who are the major stockholders of Facebook and Google, besides the active founders. You will find JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc..

Passive capital wants to lower the entropic efficiency, because it is impossible for them to control and own widespread uncoordinated knowledge formation, because it is UNCOORDINATED. The key thing Copute proposes to accomplish is make this UNCOORDINATED logic work integrate without management force. That is a checkmate technology for passive capital's current control over the world order. And it accomplishes nothing for the passive capitalists to kill me, because I am not the only person with this idea, especially now that I have published this. Why do you think I am publishing this? It is because I want all of you to retain the idea and the technology in case something happens to me in intervening time until I can make Copute widespread (probably within 2 years).

I haven't until now adequately summarized how individuals can earn an income with Copute in such an uncoordinated marketplace. I have explained it in abstract terms. Let me make it more concrete. Copute's compiler is to be a "no royalties" open source computer language (independent from the repository). It will be free for anyone to use and modify the compiler that converts the logic statements in the language, to running code for computer. I envision repositories of modules of logic written in this language. A module is simply a collection of logic predicates, known as functions. The fundamental unit of logic is a single function and they are all orthogonal in Copute. So individual programmers will on their own free will decide to share their modules on this repositories. Copute.com will offer one such repository, and it will offer non-exclusivity (meaning the programmer could also put his modules on other repositories) and it will license these modules to everyone who wants to use them. It will be free to come grab any module and use it in a new program. This widespread uncoordinated reuse of modules, will radically accelerate the advancement of knowledge, since most everything (of high knowledge value) depends on expressing logic in software. This uncoordinate reuse is enabled technologically by the declarative Turing completeness of Copute (and the unconflation of interface and implementation which is unique to Copute). The Copute.com repository's license terms will be that there are no restrictions on the reuse of the modules, and note that due to the orthogonality of modules in the Copute technology, there is no need to fork modules ever (modules are so small and orthogonal, just rewrite a new one, if you can't find the one you want). The Copute.com repository's license terms will say that each licensee is responsible to self-report and pay the maximum of 10% of the amount they spend on programming development costs for project, or 1% of the gross sales if the overall project is salable software good. However, these theshold amounts at the minimum will only be due and payable when they represent more than what is necessary for a one individual to support the basic needs of his/her family, and this will be a forever promise (to prevent some capitalists from purchasing a large repository and destroying the entropic efficiency by collecting natural monopoly rents). And these threshold amounts will likely be kept somewhat higher, so that fledgling small businesses can gain market momentum before needing to pay royalties. Copute.com will then distribute these royalties to the developers (i.e. owners) of the modules, using a novel market driven price x quantity metric. Copute.com will take a small percent of the royalties to cover costs and to pay me a ROI for developing all this-- probably 1% of the royalties or less (i.e. 1% of the 10%, so 0.01% or 1/10,000 of the marketplace generated). However, I will probably choose to make Copute.com's fees = to costs, and gain my ROI on the actual modules I contribute. For example, I am developing the standard library of modules now. However, I am not yet decided if the standard library will be instead "no royalties" open sourced. This causes me to raise the point that the modules in Copute.com's repository will be open source, but with a royalty stipulation at certain thresholds as mentioned above. Thus any derivative modules do not have to pay this royalty on income their owner earns from distributing those derivative modules on the same repository. Does this royalty diminish the desire for people to use these modules in projects external to the repository? Okay here is a very key point. One goal of the thresholds is to remove such a disincentive for individual and fledgling business use. And to place the "tax" on the larger corporations. In other words, if all individuals are sharing knowledge (a gift economy in the Inverse Commons, per Eric Raymond's Magic Cauldron). Thus if the government taxes these royalties, they are not taxing the individual developers, but rather the more inefficient (at reusable, high-entropy modules creation) corporations. Thus the higher the government's tax, the more entropically efficient the market is motivated to become! That was a key insight I gained recently! Instead of the corporations and government enslaving the knowledge workers, the knowledge workers will enslave the corporations and government. They will work for us.

Tangentially, note there is a more complete (adds images and important links) and easier-to-read version of the essay Understand Everything Fundamentally.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744&cpage=6#comment-324856

Shelby wrote:

@Winter:

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

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

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

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

I also did anticipate Verlinde's result, when I wrote the following in 2008:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaboom!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before you read this, some background on this Lubos guy:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/lubo-motl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lubo%C5%A1_Motl&oldid=450852068

Here are my rebuttals to him:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html

Shelby wrote:

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

This is your mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then explain dark matter completely in your limited spacetime model.

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> average laymen could understand are
> not signs of creativity

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