Theory of Everthing

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Why nature is logarithmic, not linear

Post  Shelby on Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:33 pm

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.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Someone has proven my Theory of Everything

Post  Shelby on Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:50 pm

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).


Last edited by Shelby on Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

"Entropic Efficiency"

Post  Shelby on Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:19 pm

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.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

matter vs. anti-matter

Post  Shelby on Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:02 am

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.


Last edited by Shelby on Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Rebutting the argument that the entropic force is violated by reversible processes

Post  Shelby on Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:55 pm

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.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Summary of entropic gravity rebuttal, basically science has been corrupted by politics

Post  Shelby on Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:22 pm

I don't know if any of you can understand the rebuttal I made in the prior post, but basically what I submitted to this Mensa dude's site, is that until he has a workable theory for the dark matter of the universe (which btw mainstream science admits must make up a majority of our universe, even though they don't know what it is), then he is just blowing air out of his arse with his so called "falsification" of the entropic gravity theory.

His falsification is based on the one-way direction of entropy, as it always increases in "total". But the problem is that no one has this total frame-of-reference. And it can never be that any entity will have this total frame-of-reference, because if it were so, then entropy would stop increasing, because that frame-of-reference would see all the independent possibilities. To visualize what I mean here, takes a very high IQ, probably the Mensa level is not sufficient. Realize that I am not talking about a spacetime view of "possibilities", but in terms of the fundamental unit of the universe which is an abstract known as matter. One might attempt to visualize it as microscopic in spacetime units, but this would be myopic.

What is frustrating is that we have such cretins spouting off attacking with the label "crackpot" those with a higher IQ than them. It is really a sad state of mankind. This is politics. Knowledge is about seeking and sharing. There is nothing wrong with debating, but the person who debates with 100% certainty in their fundamentals, is inherently suffering from unwise hubris.

I am open to the possibility that dark matter doesn't exist and/or that there could be an explanation which fits with the current scientific model of the universe. I am not going to tell someone they are a crackpot for exploring that direction.


Last edited by Shelby on Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Fundamental limitation of the scientific method

Post  Shelby on Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:09 am

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=7#comment-327029 (click this link to read more, and about recent science discoveries validating me)

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

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

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

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

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

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


Last edited by Shelby on Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:58 pm; edited 2 times in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Theory of Everything: Entropy

Post  Shelby on Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:43 pm

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

See also this post which has shorter elucidation, and another version of what is written below, but in the context of the man-made global warming debate.

There is also a discussion of how Adam Smith was wrong, buried in the middle a long post about knowledge formation, intelligence, censorship, degrees-of-freedom, and fitness.

The following is an unfinished article I was working on and was planning to submit to financialsense.com, zerohedge, etc., but I gave up trying to finish it when I realized even high IQ people can't understand it. I had planned to tie in the role of gold and silver, and that how a gold standard can not solve anything, if the people don't understand the following economic model (because as in the 1800s, they take on debt in gold promises or certificates, which forces the economy to be debased, e.g. the private banks held fractional reserve in order to service customer demand for compounding demand debt).

Theory of Everything: Entropy

The meaning of "economic" is different when comparing individual investments and the performance of society overall, and thus most people have a nebulous definition of capitalism that prevents society from attaining capitalism.

Entropic Economic Theorem: every activity that promotes social equality (or uniformity) is uneconomic.

Equality is always collective economic failure; conversely, diversity is individual optimization, i.e. freedom.

Proof: Every society has a limited amount of resources.

click images to enlarge

If society gives most of these resources to those who don't produce the most new resources, then poverty and failure will result.

click images to enlarge

It is not sufficient to handout the resources to some people who produce more, and others who produce less (than they consume). Even if the total production of society exceeds the total consumption, failure will eventually result because:

<-- this image has the wrong conclusion!


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


Nobody can know in advance how much savings is enough for society to survive all potential future changes in circumstances. Not only natural disasters, also for example a technological or political paradigm shift, such as the sudden migration of jobs to another country (e.g. China) and offshore call centers enabled by the internet.

The salient point is that maximizing productivity and savings, goes hand-in-hand with maximizing diversity of fitness (i.e. inequality and degrees-of-freedom); conversely, increasing equality lowers fitness, degrees-of-freedom, and thus society is unable to adapt to change. Unadaptability is failure in nature, because life is change. So equality leads to unadaptability, i.e. death.

Insurance always destroys productivity and savings, so it can not substitute for the need to maximize them. Insurance is always pooled savings held in interest bearing investments (e.g. bonds, savings accounts, mutual funds), i.e. the savings is loaned out to borrowers. Debt creates more low productivity, thus lowers savings.

Government always destroys productivity and savings, which is explained towards the end of this document.

Debt Causes Unmitigated Proliferation of Lower Productivity

Lending is not investing, because debt returns an interest rate, thus not a greater gain for a greater productivity investment. Productivity performance can not be known before it occurs.

Thus, debt attracts the dumber and/or lazier passive investors. The more knowledgeable and proactive investors are disincentized from participating, as they prefer equity investment where they can maximize their returns.

The low producers are asymmetrically more incentivized to pursue debt instead of equity financing, because they are more likely to get funded, due to the lower discernment of the financier. The high producers are diluted by (intermixed with, i.e. equated with) the lowest producers seeking debt, because the lender (which is an investor in an interest bearing investment, e.g. bond, savings account, mutual fund) is not paid enough opportunity to maximize evaluation and interaction effort, to optimize the discernment between the lower and higher producers.

Employing any low effort (i.e. low knowledge and equality aggregate) metric is not a discernment solution, e.g. past performance as an indicator of future performance, rewards gridlock, laziness, inability to adapt and improve productivity. Increased regulation is even worse, because it reduces the knowledge applied to discernment to a fewer number of decision makers, and increases corruption, which will be explained more in the section on government.

Thus for debt, returns (real interest rates) tend to be low, and attract passive capital that isn't being paid enough interest to justify the effort to know much about the individualized (i.e. diverse or unequal) circumstances that determine the productivity that results from debt.

In other words, debt does not encourage the highest performing R&D projects, and thus disincentivizes knowledge formation, and results in a dumber and lower productivity society. As explained in the prior section, this effect proliferates as additional low producers jump on board to borrow to produce to supply consumption of the pre-existing low producers, and this repeats ad infinitum until the economy implodes.

Debt is clearly a scourge and parasite on society that wastes (misallocates) capital to the lowest producers, even incentivizing both savers and borrowers to apply less effort to maximizing production.

Debt reduces the ability of the society to adapt and produce optimally. For example, making financing available to all college students, or equivalently the government providing public education, misallocates capital under the assumption that all students return the equivalent learning productivity to society. If instead education was only for those who are most motivated to work and save to pay for their education, capital would be more optimally allocated to those who are most motivated to learn.

As with education, houses, health care, and everything in the economy that is financed with debt, the price is greatly increased as compared to those same things in societies which do not use debt to finance them.

The reason is because the society is composed of diverse people and situations, i.e. they don't have equivalent knowledge, skills, aptitude, personality, preferences, attitude, philosophy, circumstances, location, mobility, etc.. Debt accelerates demand by the term of loan into a concentrated area, e.g. education, thus saturating the available limited supply of those that have optimum fitness, e.g. to be a college professor. The supply is limited because the inventory is diverse and thus have optimum fitness only if the demand if also diversified.

Whereas, if spending will only originate from people who are motivated to work and save, they will spend on diverse things that best-fit to each of themselves individually (i.e. each case is not equivalent), i.e. the sacrifice and delay reduces the demand for "monkey see, monkey do" equality. Thus saving before spending results in many cases of diverse optimum fitness via many more degrees-of-freedom, instead of concentrating demand into a few "monkey see, monkey do" areas of poor fitness to limited supply. This will be explained further in the section on the theory of the universal entropic force, degrees-of-freedom, and fitness.

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

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

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

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

=======================================
what the people want
=======================================

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111

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

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

=======================
The human brain is wired to favor "borrowing from the future", i.e. from degrees-of-freedom and thus borrowing from "fitness".

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111

Too Fat to Fly

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

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

=========================
Jason Hommel explains how the human brain avoids "fitness" after it has "borrowed from fitness"

http://silverstockreport.com/2011/dollar-done-5-stages.html


===============================
the masses aren't the root of the problem?

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111

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


Last edited by Shelby on Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:18 pm; edited 7 times in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

My interpretation of the interview with the self-proclaimed deep insider of the elite

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:52 am

Here is my interpretation:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/good_vs_evil.mp3

Those with a theological (even if Buddhist) and/or macro-economic world view, may find this introduces concepts in a way they hadn't thought of. The concept of "free will" is extremely important, and how it relates to the balance between "compassion vs. wisdom", and I tie this into a unified economic theorem.

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

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

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

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


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

Here was the interview:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018

Here are links about my entropic economic theorem:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124p30-theory-of-everthing#4640 (illustrated)
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124p30-theory-of-everthing#4628


=========================================================
Some PRIOR writings in HTML format, were not organized enough to publish
=========================================================

<p>Many people say they are "pro-capitalism" but yet they don't understand that their participation in debt, insurance, bonds, saving-at-interest, and government are <i>always</i> ponzi schemes, i.e. they steal from themselves.

<p>If society all

<p>They did not learn the science of how nature and thus economics works.

<p>As a result, humans perpetually blame the wrong causes for their financial difficulties. Gathering to protest is counter-productive because the protesters demand that the government stop the ponzi schemes that they themselves participated in. Their <a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c#t=488s'>incorrect notions of sanctimonious social justice</a> demand and endorse the very ponzi schemes that are causing their pain. It is analogous to, but not so humorous as, a dog that bites its own tail, and not knowing what caused the pain.

<p><b>Debt is a Ponzi Scheme</b>

<p>The inherent flaw of debt is that in order for it to produce the optimum return for society, it <i>requires</i> that everyone who receives a loan (of the same amount) is equally capable of producing at the same rate of productive return for society. But the reality is that knowledge and return on capital is not equally distributed in society. Only the free market of competition can allocate capital optimally. Thus debt reorders resource allocation from an optimizing free market, to slower and even negative rate of productivity growth. Think about that. Debt causes productivity to be less than the free market of competition.

<p>If society gives 100% of the people, each a loan for $909, and 99% of the borrowers produce only $1,000 a year as compared to 1% of the borrowers who produce $10,000, then society gets an average return of $1000.

<p>However, if the debt-free market of competition had allocated all the capital to those 1% who are more productive, then the return for society would be an average of $10,000. That is 1000% difference in GDP growth rate between the example indebted and debt-free society.

<p>Typical economic growth rates are a few percent, so 1000% difference is astronomical. Debt-based societies produce astronomically less prosperity, because they steal from their own productivity, by misallocating capital to those who are less productive.

<p>But debt is even worse than that, because the increased spending creates more demand for debt to expand production of the things that the less productive people want to buy. This creates jobs and the increased spending creates more demand for debt to expand production of the things that those (who create things for the less productive people) want to buy. This creates even more jobs and the increased spending creates even more demand for debt, and on and on repeated.

<p>The problem is that when low producers can get access to debt to start businesses to sell things to those who are spending debt, each derivative stage of additional production is astronomically less productive than if the free market of competition had allocated the capital only to those who produce the most. So the losses in relative productivity multiply, e.g. 1000% x 1000% x 1000% = 1000,000,000%.

<p>The amount of debt (i.e. the money supply) <a href='http://www.goldmeasures.co.nz/2008/05/fiat-debt-money-how-it-drives-countries.html'>increases by the interest rate</a>. Note that money is debt in fiat based financial system. When the average productivity has been sufficiently diluted by multiple derivative steps of debt misallocation of capital explained above, such that it is less than the interest rate (which is also the increase in the money supply, i.e. approximately the nominal GDP deflator), then the real GDP growth is shrinking. This results is unemployment, shortages, stagnation or decline of wages, and increases in prices. This explains the boom and bust of debt-based economies.

<p><b>Debt is Not Investment</b>

<p>Some economists <a href='http://home.earthlink.net/~schiffeconomics/30.htm'>claim that debt is economically equivalent to equity investment</a>, because of the erroneous notion that the increased production from the successes pays for the loss of capital from failures.

<p>The difference is that with equity investment, the investor can justify more evaluation and interaction with the venture to increase the chances for success, because the return is variable and dynamic. Whereas with debt, the amount of effort the investor is being paid for, is static and set before all the future information and situations are known.

<p>Thus debt-funded projects inherently underperform equity investment because the effort and reward can't adapt. Worse, the inability to make variable gains disincentivizes the highest producers from participating. Thus returns (interest rates) tend to be low, and attract passive capital that isn't being paid enough interest to justify the effort to know much about what the debt is being spent on (i.e. bonds and interest-bearing savings accounts).

<p>In other words, debt does not encourage the highest performing R&D projects, and thus disincentivizes knowledge formation, and results in a dumber society.

<p>Debt is clearly a scourge and parasite on society that wastes (misallocates) capital to the lowest producers, even incentivizing both savers and borrowers to apply less effort to maximizing production.

<p>Debt reduces the ability of the society to adapt and produce optimally. For example, making financing available to all college students, or equivalently the government providing public education, misallocates capital under the assumption that all students return the same productivity to society. This causes the price of education to be higher for everyone. If instead if education was only for those who are most motivated to work and save to pay for their education, education would be much less expensive (less false wealth to overspend on education), and capital would be more optimally allocated to those who return a higher production for society. And it will disincentivize those who are not so motivated, from running up a huge debt while wasting their time pursuing a degree that won't pay well or isn't well matched to their abilities.


<p>Compounding of interest rate is


<p>For example,

<p>But the common rebuttal is that the free market becomes inequitable, corrupt, and that debt also causes growth in economic activity. So the dog who bites his tail and steals from himself, thinks that combining "well-managed" debt with regulation is the best possible solution.

<p>Ah, but the correct science concludes that debt and other ponzi schemes are the cause of the inquity, corruption, and that the debt induced economic activity is waste that accumulates until negative productivity and economic failure results. Centralized regulation increases corruption, because only a few decision makers need to be bribed, unlike a free market of competion where every market participant is a decision maker.

<p>The key difference is that a market driven by ponzi schemes can't optimize itself, because a ponzi scheme can not stop until it destroys all the participants.


<p>Most economists will tell you that debt is inappropriate for financing R&D (i.e. knowledge development), and that equity investment should be used. Why can't they understand that a market is always based on knowledge, and the alternative is a non-market of self-theft?


<p>Before that can be explained in convincingly, we must overcome the closed-mindedness that originates from a miseducation of how nature and thus economics works.




<p><b>Naive Self-theft Is the Root Problem</b>

<p>The inability of humans to comprehend how they STEAL FROM THEMSELVES, is the cause of unjust boom and bust economic failure that periodically results in widespread bankruptcy, extreme disparity in wealth distribution (i.e. rising Gini coefficient), destruction of the middle class, megadeath, totalitarianism, fascism, widespread fraud, etc..

<p>Humans are unable to comprehend that the use of debt, insurance, and imperialistic trade are ponzi schemes which steal from the future.

<p>The inherent flaw of debt is that it assumes that everyone who can get a loan is equally capable of producing a return for society at the same rate. But the reality is that knowledge and return on capital is not equally distributed in society. Thus debt reorders resource allocation from an optimizing free market, to slower and even negative returns on capital. Most economists will tell you that debt is inappropriate for financing R&D (i.e. knowledge development), and that equity investment should be used. Why can't they understand that a market is always based on knowledge, and the alternative is a non-market of self-theft?

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3854#comment-332499
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3854#comment-332650
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3854#comment-332612
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324868
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324298
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324286
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324478

<p>Equating debt stimulus with production is the mistake of equating production with productivity, or labor with production or productivity:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3753#comment-332495
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324342

<p>Debt pulls demand forward by the term of the loan (e.g. 30 years for a mortgage), thus stealing from (30 years of) future demand. Humans incorrectly irrationalize that adequate future demand will be created from the increase in economic activity caused by the debt spending. Humans fail to rationalize that if you giving capital to people before they produce makes it impossible to reward high production and impossible to disincentivize low production. In order for finite resources to be optimally allocated, there needs to be a feedback loop that can adjust to changing situations at the individual level in near-time. Yet it is mathematically proven that the money supply increases at the prevalent interest rate:

http://www.goldmeasures.co.nz/2008/05/fiat-debt-money-how-it-drives-countries.html
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324278

<p>This is because interest payments increase the demand for money by the amount of the interest rates. In other words, the money supply must grow at the rate of interest charged on the outstanding debt, else the debt has to stop growing. But the debt can't stop growing, because debt increases demand for a mix of resources that was not the optimal mix for maximum production, and thus society must choose either an implosion back to the economic (optimized mix of) resource demand level (i.e. no debt, demand not pulled forward by debt), or to continue the exponential increase in uneconomic demand for resources by continuing to exponentially incease debt to fund the interest payments. Thus debt is money and the money supply increases by the interest rate. The use of a gold standard doesn't stop this, because the people still use debt and this forces the banks to debase the gold standard with fractional reserve leading of paper or digital money (or historically shaving and diluting coinage).

<p>Insurance is especially difficult for people to understand. Insurance is another form of debt. There are several reasons that insurance leads to economic failure, but the most important reason is that the pooled capital has to be invested. The economc viability of insurance is to compare the investment return had that money been individually invested (or consumed) versus a collective investment. The problem with a collective investment is that every participant has different priorities on what they would do with their money, and thus the collective is forced to buy a bond, which is just making more debt. Insurance thus feeds the debt system, as the people think they have insured themselves, but have actually fed their own self-destructive debt self-theft system:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324552

<p>There are other negative economic effects of insurance, the biggest inherent, such as the fact that it incentivizes people to have riskier uneconomic behavior, i.e. health insurance motivates people to McFat their diet. Insurance provides the collective mechanism for corruption, e.g. the insured industry uses the insurance system to raise prices well above market level and then co-opts the government entitlement and regulatory monopolistic capture too.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324530

<p>(todo incorporate the point about dumbing down society that I made to Cynthia in email)


<p>Humans Don't Identify the Root Cause
-------------------------------------------------------

<p>It is pitiful that instead of trying to comprehend how they steal from themselves, the masses want to blame their own actions on other phenomena which are not root causes, or they erroneously expect that some law or change in governance or monetary system can stop them from stealing from themselves. For those few of us with a well developed pre-frontal cortex, most humans look like hamsters on a wheel labeled "how I steal from myself, do not know it, and continue to chase non-solutions and blame non-causes".

<p>These hamsters are those who erroneously claim that the lack of a gold standard, the existence of a corrupt power elite, or some politics, are the causes of unjust economic results.

<p>Repeated historical examples of gold standards, and even beheading the power elite (e.g. the French Revolution), have been unable to stop unjust boom and bust economic failure. As will be explained objectively, this is because the system of money (and power elite managers) of a society are caused by the amount of self-theft that the masses do, i.e. they are an effect of what the masses choose and are NOT A ROOT cause of the mass self-theft.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324073

<p>Humans steal from their own future and that of others, when they fail to comprehend the long-term cost to themselves. The current way this is done is with the ponzi schemes of debt, insurance, and imperialistic trade.

<p>The predominant method of self-theft during the Western Roman empire, was a trade (conquest and tax) system that provided benefits (e.g. the infamous Roman roads and bridges network) to pre-existing subjects funded by the imperialistic conquest of new subjects further to the west and north. Those nearer to Rome gained more benefits than those farther. This was a ponzi scheme that imploded when the supply of new conquest subjects diminished. As the supply of new subjects decreased, Rome was forced to debase (shave and dilute) the gold and silver coinage in order to finance the exponential growth promise it had made to existing subjects of the state.

<p>The imperialistic ponzi trade system exists today. Currently China has capital controls which keeps the wages (consumption) of its people suppressed below free market valuation, which keeps its economy overconcentrated in uneconomic export industry, and recycles its surplus by loaning it to the overindebted western countries (primarily the USA):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3753#comment-332065

<p>This supplies the western countries to steal from their future, and have an excessively high rate of consumption. But do you hear the westerners saying they want to reduce their standard-of-living (drastically to payback all the self-theft they have accumulated as debt)? No. They want to continue stealing from their future, and they would rather blame China, politicians, or the bankers for their own self-theft. China's power elite and politicians are an effect caused by the Chinese people's desire for unrealistic exponential growth, which is an irrational attempt to hide all the self-theft they've being doing for decades with a one-child death policy and the INSURANCE of a collectively (top-down) managed economy. Killing the youth (42 million abortions per year, much more with birth control), is more efficient than all wars at stealing from the future. Who will work to produce for the elderly?

<p>Some think that the stability of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire was due to the non-debased gold coinage. However, this was the effect (not the cause) of the fact that the Byzantine empire was prevented from imperialistic conquest by the Arabs to south and east, and the implosion of the Western Roman empire (into the Dark Ages) and thus barbarian resistance of the prior imperialism to the west and north. The only governance that could take hold in western europe was highly localized feudal enclaves. The Byzantine period was not an empire, but rather they were forced to be traders and were unable to launch any exponential growth imperialistic ponzi conquest schemes. It was not until China invented paper money and later this being adopted by fractional reserve banking in western europe, that the ponzi schemes of debt, insurance, and imperialist self-theft were restarted on a grand scale. Thus the end of the Dark Ages, as the gold and silver (passive capital) came out of hiding (and out of the feudal enclaves) and humans were again able to maximize their instinctive exponential ponzi, self-theft, dopamine-fix large scale societies.

<p>In the 1800s when the USA was on a gold standard, the people gorged on debt, which the bankers are only able to supply by fractional reserve banking of gold deposits. This lead to numerous booms and busts (bank runs), which ultimately lead to handing control of the banking system (and thus also the government) to JP Morgan (he bailed out the financial system in the late 1800s), and then by 1913 the formation of a central bank to backstop the system of self-theft via debt that the people wanted.

<p>Some people argue that the elite are deceiving the people and are the cause. But the fact of nature is that any economic opportunity will be fulfilled by the free market. The elite are the managers of the collectivist system that is demanded by people's use of the aforementoined ponzi schemes.


<p>Humans Instincts are Self-theft in Large Societies
------------------------------------------------------------------------

<p>Humans are instinctively seeking good, have compassion and want to help those in need. Humans instincts do not result in widespread self-theft when the society is smaller than the Dunbar limit (approx. 150). The problem is that human brains are historically wired to operate in tribes where it is possible to observe every member of the society. The human brain without a highly developed pre-frontal cortex is unable to detect self-theft paradigms that involve impersonal collectivism. Instead such impersonal collectivism (e.g. debt, insurance, and imperialistic trade) can appear to meet instinctive needs, and the humans are unaware that they are stealing from themselves.

<p>Nature is inherently random (tangentially this is a good thing, which will be explain later). Because of this, human brains have been instinctively wired to prioritize immediate resource consumption (i.e. instant gratification), lest the resource be wasted, lost, stolen, spoil, destroyed, etc.. The brain receives a dopamine reward for prioritizing immediate consumption of resources (you know that happy feeling you get hanging out with your family, going to restaurant, shopping, etc). At least during tribal history, this had optimized genetic spread in the wild uncertainty of nature. Humans with a well developed pre-frontal cortex are able to override this impulse, when they can analyze long-term cost-versus-benefit payoff. For example, agriculture is an example of delayed gratification.

<p>However, long-term investments (i.e. delayed gratification) have a risk to be wasted, lost, stolen, spoil, destroyed, etc.. Thus those hamsters who think that have a well developed pre-frontal cortex, say that insurance is a rational choice. Unfortunately, their pre-frontal cortex is not well developed and not rational, as was explained in the discussion of why insurance is a ponzi scheme.


<p>The Future
----------------

<p>Yet we can see that the world has improved materially, and knowledge as spread. Due to technological innovation, even the poor today have more conveniences and a higher material quality-of-life than the Kings of yore.

<p>Thus nature's non-uniform distribution of knowledge works overall. The center of the bell curve of intelligence supports these ponzi schemes, which leads to booms in order and chaotic busts. This phenomenon of how nature advances with logistic (i.e. exponential boom and bust) growth, with local orders (uniformity, i.e. everyone indebted, same house, car, etc.) that boom and bust into increasing overall spread (i.e. disorder, a/k/a possibilities) of an attribute (i.e. technology), has now been described as a fundamental force of nature, called the Entropic force:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324672

<p>In fact, non-uniformity is required for anything to exist. Imagine if everything was the same color, there would be no vision. Imagine if everyone had the same knowledge, then knowledge would be static and thus not exist.

<p>The logistic uniform orders are necessary stepping stones to greater possibilities (i.e. disorder means independent possibilities). For example, the industrial age was necessary to create the knowledge (software) age. Note that many humans (like many animals) are lazy. If they have enough food and sex, they become less motivated to produce more than they need and trade. Thus debt serves the function of playing on their primitive instincts for a dopamine-fix, and this entraps them into debt-slavery where they are forced to produce more (under the direction of someone who is motivated to manage production and trade). This is a good thing, in the sense that they produce more than they would have otherwise. Debt becomes necessary to maximize production, because humans are lazy and need a master.




<p>(todo talk about individuals using gold and silver to avoid being trampled by the ponzi system bust periods)

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Something I wrote publicly on 09-10-2006, 11:26 PM

Post  Shelby on Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:33 am

http://jasonhommelforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1786#post1786

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.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

putting this prior comment in its own post, so I can link directly to it

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:41 am

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

Shelby wrote:
==============================================
another explanation of why uniformity distorts market fitness
==============================================

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

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

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

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Corresponding with Mark Zimmer about Dark Matter

Post  Shelby on Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:30 am

http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/future-part-1.html?showComment=1328522014803#c5104584168512127014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps there isn't much substance in my contribution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post  Shelby on Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:49 am

http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/future-part-1.html?showComment=1349595986692#c5777400563582846468

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

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

http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/future-part-1.html?showComment=1349416344212#c6697041835716762284

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

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

Final proof:

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

Initial proofs start here:

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


Last edited by Shelby on Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Metric of enlightenment and knowledge

Post  Shelby on Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:21 pm

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4683&cpage=1#comment-390172

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed,
Banned.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4683&cpage=1#comment-390492

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

What do -z and z represent, respectively?

The answer is what does a negative frequency mean:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124p30-theory-of-everthing#4752


Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Math for maximizing success

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:06 am

Maximizing degrees-of-freedom as a superior strategy for goals that have many possible paths and a lot of chance along the way:

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/#comment-19222

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to apply that to chess sometime.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Infinity is constructed coinductively, which allows for the possibility of a coinductive God

Post  Shelby on Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:51 am

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393293

JustSaying (shelby) retorted:
I posit that Eric is smart enough to recognize his mistake. Eric, you are conflating the mathematical duality of the inductive construction of the universe with the coinductive construction of infinity.

> First, give up one of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, or omniscience.
> Then we could talk contingent existence.

Indeed it would be impossible to construct an INSTANCE that is simultaneously all good, all powerful, and all knowing, because nothing imperfect could be constructed. Perfection would require infinite degrees-of-freedom, thus a dynamic, competitive world could not exist-- the Second Law of Thermodynamics could not exist.

In type theory, top is the inductive bound and bottom is the coinductive bound. Top is the intersection of all types and bottom is the union of all types. Thus bottom can never be constructed as an instance, yet it exists as type bound.

Shift your frame-of-reference into the type of types domain of the universe to find the existence you claim is impossible.

Note that the operations (e.g. methods of a class) of an inductive type are a coinductive type and dually vice versa, e.g. the top class type contains the union of all methods of all types in the universe, thus can not be constructed. And dually, the bottom class type contains the intersection of all methods of all types, thus can be constructed.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393314

> The relationship between mathematical theory and observed reality is not even nearly that simple.

I understood your tripartite impossibility claim to be that a good God would not be powerless to make good all that is in the universe.

The claim is illogical in several orthogonal ways.

1. Good does not exist without evil. Perception requires contrast.
2. Good is evil, and vice versa, from different perspectives.
3. Some cases of global or greater good require local or lesser evil.

Essentially by implication you claimed that infinity (infinite degrees-of-freedom to attain good at all possible perspectives) must be observable, else it is impossible. Or by implication you claimed that we can prove the universe is finite, thus the necessary degrees-of-freedom would be observed and achieved by such a God.

Some theories of the universe posit that infinity exists as an unreachable bound in some domain, e.g. entropy, space, time, or precision. True or not, we can not prove that infinity does not exist as unreachable bound. Your claim of impossibility is too strong. Such a God can not provably exist, because we can't observe for infinite time, precision, etc..

A possible interpretation of your linked essay on math, is that an infinite universe can not be completely described by any finite set of theories or axioms.

Infinity can not constructed inductively from a starting point, because infinity (final unreachable bound) can not be observed.

Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.

How sad a finite universe would be, where the scientific method could be shelved and knowledge would cease to expand at some finite bound. The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck's constant precision) as final and continue searching and testing forever.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393338

> I read JustSaying’s comment and maybe I don’t know enough math to appreciate what he is saying

Induction is the construction of expressible structure, e.g. defining the natural numbers with an iterative function. Co-induction is the decomposition into parts from a structure that is unknown a priori and not until all parts have been enumerated, e.g. reading a stream:

http://tunes.org/wiki/algebra_20and_20coalgebra.html

> to me it reads like someone trying to apply science to religion

I reasoned that the tripartite attributes god that Eric proposed could not provably exist, yet it also can not be logically impossible. This is congruent with the following.

> Faith consists in emotionally fixating on propositions which are unprovable
> or contrary to evidence.

> Faith, and insanity, would enter if I emotionally fixated on that theory,
> and began distorting my reasoning to maintain it against contrary evidence.

> The Horned Lord doesn’t want my faith. He’s not like the vicious, soul-eating
> totalitarian parasite-God that inhabits Christian and Islamic brains.

> “Faith” is not a relationship with the divine, it’s the perversion of one.
> Like the difference between love and obsessive stalking.

Agreed. I understand your sanity now. Faith that squelches free will (degrees-of-freedom), reason and evidence is insanity. The suppression of free will destroys degrees-of-freedom, resiliency and fitness. Sane and prosperous faith channels hope, love, and positive creativity without binding free will.

The Christian bible mentions this.

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Matthew 6:5 Jesus said “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

Unfortunately religion degenerates to indoctrination, control, emotional manipulation and thus the subordination of free will, creativity, love, etc.. This phenomenon appears to be driven by emotional insecurity and the need to validate via social power the faith which can not be provably observed.

Jesus instructs to not be worried about the future, to live in the reality of the day. Scriptures warn against destroying freedom with surety, governance, and attempting to construct a perfect society. One way of interpreting the bible is that we are free to sin, yet we become slave to the repercussions of our actions. Unfortunately the bible also contains scriptures that seem to encourage rebuking unbelievers.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394189

JustSaying (Shelby) wrote:
@JustSaying
> True or not, we can not prove that infinity does not exist as unreachable bound.
>
> ... Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as
> observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.
>
> ... The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck’s constant precision)
> as final and continue searching and testing forever.

> Faith that squelches free will (degrees-of-freedom), reason and evidence is insanity.
> ... Sane and prosperous faith channels hope, love, and positive creativity without binding free will.

My understanding of Hawking's position is that if the universe is unbounded, thus self-contained, then there is no place for a creator deity:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/645162-professor-stephen-hawking-quotes-on-god-and-religion

Of if the universe is finite, then has a 100% probability of existing from the summation of all possible finite histories, thus a creator deity with free will (to not create this universe) could not exist:

http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm

I find his position to be illogical. If the universe is finite, there is no guarantee that our space-time is the only possible construction of a universe. If the universe (or quantity of universes) are unbounded, who can prove the totality of existence is comprehensible by the scientific method.

Thus I separate the possibility for "Sane and prosperous faith that channels hope, love, and positive creativity without binding free will" from "Faith that squelches free will".

Is it more rational for me to contemplate the limits of the scientific method (and math) allowing for the possibility of the faith in the divine which maximizes free will with the inexorable trend of entropy in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or to ignore the aliasing error of modeling a potentially infinite universe with only what is observed finitely?

==============

Indeed both science and religion are faith at some point. I have admitted that many times.

I prefer a system that can make predictions. Religion prefers a system that can't make any predictions.

However, any cogent theory of the universe much allow for infinity and thus a God:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

More details on my view of relationship of faith to science:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124p30-theory-of-everthing#4758

Thus I separate the possibility for "Sane and prosperous faith that channels hope, love, and positive creativity without binding free will" from "Faith that squelches free will".

Is it more rational for me to contemplate the limits of the scientific method (and math) allowing for the possibility of the faith in the divine which maximizes free will with the inexorable trend of entropy in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or to ignore the aliasing error of modeling a potentially infinite universe with only what is observed finitely?

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Matter as a continuum

Post  Shelby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:30 am

I think I may have finally unified quantum mechanics and Einstein's spacetime:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

You may want to also (re-)read the prior section "Entropic derivation", as I improved and simplified it.

There is more work that needs to be done on this theory, but I can't do it now, as I need to do more urgent programming work that applies to the 2015/16 confiscation window.

At least I finally tied my entropy and Nyquist sampling theory insights into a cogent unified theory.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory of Everthing

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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