Powered By Saaraan

Paradigm Check

Information and advice for those new to the Occult.

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:07 pm

Getting ready to read your last post, but wanted to share this article with you.

http://thepowerofideas.ideapod.com/new- ... ife-death/
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:20 pm

The idea of standard data reads to me seem exactly like the acceptance of reality as it appears. In your example you read the wound, and need to conform to the requirement for medical equipment, however if you refuse to read the wound data, then one of the two observers are no longer enforcing it. By laying the data read trap you are enticing the other observer to not confirm the wound and the requirement for medical equipment. Essentially that is analogous with the idea that the rules of reality are born of our conscious or subconscious acceptance of those rules, which seem to exist even though you and I dont have a good reason for it.

Summary:
Scenario: 2 observers exist, one of them is wounded severely.
Using the Paradigm: 1 observer refuses to read the data on the wound, instead lays a data trap to subvert the data read by the other observer so that treatment requirements are altered.
Alternate Paradigm: 1 observer perceives another observer who is wounded, this observer refuses belief in either the wound or treatment. The first observer performs an action that allows the second observer to suspend belief in either the wound or treatment.

Both suggest that the wound data infer some kind of traits or requirements that appear to be initially coded in such a way that both observers would default to a particular action to remediate the wounded condition.

In this instance a data trap could be:
1) A demonstration of the supernatural/paranormal
2) A ritual to align beliefs/mental states/suspend disbelief
3) Any action that can change the second observers constraints/conditions placed on the wound
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:04 pm

Getting ready to read your last post, but wanted to share this article with you.


I don't know how I forgot about biocentrism. I remember seeing it back when I was a skeptic, and I waved it off as woo, without really looking into it. I think I'll be picking up his book. Thanks.

I think it's safe to say that I can agree with the many worlds theory, but only from the perspective of a single observer. Someone can shoot me and see me die, but I might perceive myself as living on. There's only problems with it when we try to remove the observer aspect, and try to make it work on an objective level.

The most key thing that I agree on from Lanza is that: There is no "out there". That makes things rather complicated though, when it comes to attempting to explain how observers might interact without a standard interface.

The idea of standard data reads to me seem exactly like the acceptance of reality as it appears. In your example you read the wound, and need to conform to the requirement for medical equipment, however if you refuse to read the wound data, then one of the two observers are no longer enforcing it. By laying the data read trap you are enticing the other observer to not confirm the wound and the requirement for medical equipment. Essentially that is analogous with the idea that the rules of reality are born of our conscious or subconscious acceptance of those rules, which seem to exist even though you and I dont have a good reason for it.


Exactly.

But we can't quite yet decide what sort of reads enforce rules. I think there's a big difference between reading the raw data, and interpreting it. Believe it or not, you're going to die if someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger. Interpret that any way you want, and the outcome is still the same. You might not believe it, but physical matter believes in the bullet.

However, if you look at the moon, and you see a face in the patterns, is there actually a face there? If there is no "out there", and your brain makes out a face, who's to say there isn't actually a face? After all, you are observing one, and observation is reality. The biggest problem with this no "out there" paradigm, is that what you are observing is not always factual. People can see illusions.

I feel more comfortable saying that there is in fact an "out there", but that it exists made out of the same stuff as our illusory perceptions. We aren't permanently separated from the real "out there", in the sense that it's unobservable. It's just that the "out there" might be what someone else is seeing. There's got to be some sort of "most correct" or "most accepted" definition of the "out there". If I see red, and I appear to be seeing an illusion, it's because the rest of the observers are seeing blue. It's not that there's no "out there". I'm just out of sync.

Of course, it seems perfectly plausible that there might not be a "most accepted" definition of the "out there". Maybe 50% see blue, and 50% see red. Then it seems like we're all seeing illusions, because there is no centralized location / standard.

If we posit an "out there", we then have to figure out how interactions between observers work out. If we don't posit an "out there", we basically have to accept that there's only one observer.

Using the Paradigm: 1 observer refuses to read the data on the wound, instead lays a data trap to subvert the data read by the other observer so that treatment requirements are altered.


That's like magick + faith.

Alternate Paradigm: 1 observer perceives another observer who is wounded, this observer refuses belief in either the wound or treatment. The first observer performs an action that allows the second observer to suspend belief in either the wound or treatment.


That's like modern medicine + forced belief. You could see surgery as a very well done placebo. It's kind of hard to not notice that data trap when it feels like your flesh is being cut into.
Look up placebo knee surgeries. Some studies have found that they can be just as effective as actual surgery.

Placebos can also work even if the subject knows they are taking one
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me ... -placebos/

Both suggest that the wound data infer some kind of traits or requirements that appear to be initially coded in such a way that both observers would default to a particular action to remediate the wounded condition.

In this instance a data trap could be:
1) A demonstration of the supernatural/paranormal
2) A ritual to align beliefs/mental states/suspend disbelief
3) Any action that can change the second observers constraints/conditions placed on the wound


Agreed. But I think there's more to it than just the two observers' subjective data. Let's say we have a big metal box, and we have two people pushing in opposite directions (cancelling each other's efforts). Each person's push is like the data read. Just because the two people are cancelling each other out, doesn't mean that if one of them was alone, they could successfully move the box. If it's 50 tons, the people are basically irrelevant. Faith healing doesn't always work, so we have to assume there's more variables. At the same time, we can't assume it's impossible for the two people to move 50 tons, because causation is arbitrary.

There's a catch 22. If you're in the realm with the wound, you've already accepted its gravity. If you want to change the wound, you can't accept the gravity, so you can't be in the realm.
Enactment of acausal forces, then, would seem to require an otherworld origin. Make the force somewhere else, then slowly ease it into the problem world.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:04 am

I just got the The I and the Not-I: A Study in the Development of Consciousness book and the first two chapters already have had a big impact on my thoughts regarding what we are talking about.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06910 ... 2LTW&psc=1

In the beginning of chapter 2, it talks about the question of an observers perception of the external and how biologists have attempted to understand and measure it. Essentially it comes down to a conscious creature (animal) will only perceive what concerns them. It goes on to demonstrate examples from ticks, to animals, to people, on how aspects of our environment are disregarded as they have no bearing on the observer.

"The biologist Jakob von Uexkull discovered that a living organism responds only to stimuli that produce in it either an efferent or an afferent impulse; that is, it responds to stimuli that produce in it either an impulse to action or a sense impression. In other words a living creature is responsive only to those stimuli that correspond to its own needs and capacities. To all other things it is indifferent, deaf, blind, and unresponsive. "

I would greatly recommend picking this book up, I think I paid $2 for it.

The point of this rant, is that up till now we have assumed that all observers have equal perceptive qualities (well observers on the same plane), but if we account for observers on the same plane (humans for example) to have a range of perceptive abilities, this could account of disparities between what is "real". This is where the mastery or more real aspects of an object would come into play.

Also, you mentioned earlier about being in tune with an object in order to read / manipulate it, but that could prevent modification of the object. A couple weeks ago I posted something on the benefit of being able to hold paradoxical ideas simultaneously. I think that this would be crucial to achieving the attunement, and yet not being bound by rules of it.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:30 am

I would greatly recommend picking this book up, I think I paid $2 for it.


Thanks. I'll check it out.

The point of this rant, is that up till now we have assumed that all observers have equal perceptive qualities (well observers on the same plane), but if we account for observers on the same plane (humans for example) to have a range of perceptive abilities, this could account of disparities between what is "real". This is where the mastery or more real aspects of an object would come into play.


It's not so much that I've assumed that observers all see the same things, but that I can't easily quantify where observation starts, and where it ends. Part of the problem is that I can't know if something is within observation unless I am intelligently able to notice the information. Either there's some limit that I literally cannot notice, or there is no limit, and I have only assumed the existence of a limit. Theoretically, I think it's safe to say that it would be possible for me to notice every possible thing, over an infinite amount of time. I don't see the difference between moving my eyes to change my perspective, and moving my time to change my perspective.

Putting it all together

I think there's a serious problem with expecting observation to have some sort of "force", by itself. That's like saying that if I set all the RAM on my computer to "1", they''ll spontaneously cause some effect. By declaring a necessary effect, we're violating the arbitrary causation principle. If "1" does something, it's likely because some other thing has decided to make use of that "1", not because the "1" actually has a strong force itself. But this creates a dichotomy between what is acted on, and what acts: program vs state. Which doesn't make sense, because program and state are both made out of the same type of data: qualities.

My previous solution was to give the state its own velocity. The program IS the state. Much like a ball is not programmed to move, but can still contain a velocity. Perhaps we could recognize that there are multiple types of objects. Weak forces (slaves), and strong forces (effectors). That "1" in RAM, still has a force which makes it persist, even if it acts largely as a trigger for other stronger forces. But then I have to wonder what thing, which has a representation, as it must, would be acting on that "1". If it is a state itself which has a force, I could say it is the "1" which transforms into the outcome, or applies a force, but we know that the "1" is not responsible, as it can mean many things. Instead, it would seem necessary that something else be the state with a force.

Assume that a certain bit being set to "1" causes a car to appear spontaneously out of air. We could say the air was the state-force, but then we'd have to wonder why that air was special, and the car didn't appear in some other air. And if it was the air, we'd have to wonder where the programming resided, that made it different than the other air, as any programming must be representable in some way, according to the observation = existence principle. Then it occurred to me, what better representation for the programming, then the visual change itself? What set of information, for example, could better describe a bomb exploding, than a bomb exploding? The action itself is the programming, because anything less, would be a loss of information.

If the programming is the action itself, and the present does not contain the programming, as the action has not yet occurred, how could the present possibly know what future it is supposed to move to? How can a ball know where its velocity will take it, if it cannot reference its future, in order to call it into existence? Just as our past is ambiguous to our present, our present is ambiguous to our future. There is a loss of information as we move down the temporal chain. If the present cannot call the future, how does it bring itself to it? It can't, so it doesn't. Rather than look at the present as pushing itself to the future, it would appear that the future is pulling the present. The flow of time, it seems, would actually be backwards. We don't reach forward in time, rather, time reaches backwards to get us; the arrows of force are always facing the past, and are always pulls, never pushes; it's like how a centripetal force is a real force (pull), but a centrifugal force is an imagined force (push).

This is basically the origin of where the temporal space vs classical space thing came about. I was trying to figure out how different times could interact with each other, and quantify things. Information systems use memory registers, and since observers are the memory registers in this paradigm, it's necessary to be able to read them. Hence, temporal addresses.

So, back on topic, we could say the present is a state, and all other states are forces. A present state has a force, in that it must always be readable, and thus, must have an influence on the pull of the future. The problem with this though, is that if data is lost from present to future, the future cannot contain the past, and therefore, cannot reference the present any better than the present can reference the future. Neither of the states should be able to push OR pull. It seems it's a linked list thing. Each node has to reference the next node, and a previous node (in the case of a doubly linked list). With an internal causation principle (there is no "out there"), and a many worlds perspective, it seems necessary any present which leads to a future, would need to contain a complete reference (what is an effective copy) of said future. In other words, the future is contained in the present. However, I don't think any present would require a past, as any past can lead to any future. The list would be singly linked (always in "forward" direction). Thus, the we have the internal causation principle: the node "has a" reference to the next inside of itself.

Side note: a state with the same information, must always lead to the same future, as state is paired with force. At first glance, it appears that if we have a graph where each dot is a state of existence, and a line is a sequence of states, there can be many different lines which pass through the same point, but end at different points. However, they cannot be passing through the same exact point, because there must be different data in each point, in order for there to be different outcomes. Therefore, for any one point, there may only ever be one following point. If we assume that it's possible for one observer to experience all possible states (what rule could prevent this from being true?), we would have to recognize that there is only actually one observer.

This rant seems inconclusive, but I'll leave it in case you find it useful. At the very least, it rules out things, even if it does not find the answer. Where does causation / force reside?

Causation as an Illusion

We've covered that causation is arbitrary, but how have we managed to prove that it actually exists in a solid state, at any given time? Trying to nail down causation, is sort of like trying to prove that certain states in a movie result in other states in a movie. You're just watching a moving picture. There's no data in the movie which forces the pictures to behave by certain "laws". Why is our reality any different than watching a movie?

I suppose you could argue that though a movie does not have laws, where it was recorded, must have had some laws. Therefore, the movie also has laws. However, a movie can be edited. Then we could say that a movie abides by both the laws of editing, as well as the laws of where the recording occurred. We could show a pipeline of where causation occurred in layers. First, recording, then editing, and so on.

But at the end, you're still just watching a sequence of images. Given determinism, we know that any one of those images must lead to another image. Because of this, we say that it is one of the images which caused the next image. But did it really? Where was the causative mechanism? We could just as easily have placed a different "next image". If A -> B, we say A leads to B. If A -> C, we say A leads to C. But how can A lead to both B as well as C? Hypothetically, let's say A has the exact same data in both cases. Why should A be different in either case, after all? What about A points to B, and what about A points to C? Can A actually be the same in both cases? Or does there have to be a hidden variable? Can A lead to B if it does not contain a reference to B? Can A lead to C if it does not contain a reference to C? If so, why is a reference necessary?

My opinion, A cannot lead to both B as well as C. A must be different for both cases. A must contain a reference to its next state.
What do you think?

Side note: If an observer is a memory register, like A, must it contain a reference to that which it will change to? If so, would it not be safe to say that it must already have data about its future, and so, must have access to potentially infinite data (of futures), as a link to a future node, must result in access to a future node's pointer its own future, and so on. So, even a restricted perspective (at present time), would have access to an infinite perspective (across many times). So, even though we can limit the observer's perspective at present time, would it not still have an infinite perspective, even if it were bottle necked by the present time? With this in mind, we could say that an observer's perspective is restricted by its intelligence, as it is the intelligence which might facilitate an observer's ability to process a certain amount of future data at once. In other words, the observer's perspective size is directly correlated to the intelligence, quite literally, because it is the intelligence which causes the perspective size.

Reference Extrapolation

Can information be stored in a compressed format, within an observer, and then be uncompressed? Can data be extrapolated from lesser data, or is there always a loss in meaning? Can a pointer with less information than its target, properly reference its target? Or, is the only thing that has enough precision to deduce a piece of information within temporal space, the information itself? Can less data result in more data?

For example, can memory be stored in a short hand format, that is then processed in order to provide an actual memory? After all, you cannot expect the brain to be able to use memories which it cannot play. That would be like failing to understand that no matter how many DVDs you have in your archive, they are worthless without a DVD player. Like this, if the brain theoretically had a perfect memory ability, it could only remember memories as well as they can be played / processed. In this way, you cannot expect to have a photographic memory unless you are perfectly capable of visualizing anything at will, with minimal effort (is this true for you? I remember you saying you had a photographic memory.)

Preservation of Chaos State

Based on our current definition of chaos, where a small change can result in a large change over a very short period, it would seem that we live in a chaotic system.

Given:
Observer's Path = [weight] * Force A + [weight] * Force B + ...

All variables must have a weight in the observer's path, no matter how small. Therefore, even the most minuscule of variables (kicking a rock), must have large effects on the observer's path.

Paradox

Also, you mentioned earlier about being in tune with an object in order to read / manipulate it, but that could prevent modification of the object. A couple weeks ago I posted something on the benefit of being able to hold paradoxical ideas simultaneously. I think that this would be crucial to achieving the attunement, and yet not being bound by rules of it.


That makes sense. Like linking to two separate realities at once, and acting as a conductor between them, forcing one to turn into the other. The core rule of any realm is "things are like this". Therefore, if you take two separate realms that have the rule "things are like this", and try to fit them into the space of one realm, the inertia property, I imagine, would be stronger than any specific rules which might exist in either realm. I imagine they'd be quite happy to break their own lesser rules in order to maintain the greater rule of: resist each other.

This concept, overall, seems incomplete. We don't really have a solid ground for explaining magick yet, except, "it happens because it's theoretically possible that it can happen". Yes, causation is arbitrary, but we really need to focus on how to make a procedure to not only override rules, but to make new ones which can aid our goals.

Summary

Please contest these "facts" where necessary:

State-Force: State is paired with force. Separation is impossible.

Internal Causation: State-forces are used to make up any instant of reality. So, forces must always be internal. It is not the past which propels the present, or the future which pulls the present, but the present which moves all by itself.

Existence as a Singly Linked List: A single state-force must always lead to a specific next state-force. In this way, it is impossible for different pasts to reach the exact same future. Because of this property of existence, it can be said that there is only ever one observer. If it perceives a force coming from another pseudo-observer (second, third, ... observer), it is not from an actual observer, but from data within the single observer, which gives the illusion of there being other observers (ex: a human will act like a human, sentient or not).

Observer Perspective Restrictions: If an observer's perspective is restricted to some quantity of the present time, it's ability to expand and fill the future, is determined by the processing power of its intelligence. In this way, a greater intelligence is directly correlated with a less restricted perspective.

All variables must be accounted for. Existence is in a constant chaos state.

For The Record

How much of my posts do you actually read? I try to add a lot of detail in order to avoid being vague, but if it becomes a wall of text for you, and you don't actually read, then that effort is wasted. It would be better if I simply truncated content. I've noticed that your responses are usually short, and to me, this implies that you have minimal time free for this conversation. That would also imply that you have minimal time for reading.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:22 am

I was going to wait and respond to all of it, but I wanted to respond to the last question first. I read the whole damn thing, ha. I wait all day and an hour before bed I read your post, I mull it over, sometimes I paste it into a word doc and answer portions, other times I need to respond to a certain bit sooner and so they end up short. I stopped just posting agreed, so if I dont call it out, assume I agree. lol. You really have the ball on this thing, I think I am adding to it, and minimally steering, but this is your baby. If you haven't please update the google doc with some of your stuff, I think the re-interpretation in a succinct form, after debate, really hones the idea.

But rest assured, I am reading it. I think you are clearly a computer science major, with some graphical programming under your belt, hence the references and analogies. If nothing else, you have helped me learn about quite a few different things, such as multi-threaded processing.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:28 am

One last response, the links between points such as A and B and C are probably in that order because of the gravity wells as we described. For example, rather than A -> B -> C, we have
-----------
----B-----
A-------C
----------

Where A is the starting point and B is the closest actor. A moves to B because the pull of the likelihood is greater. Now, keeping in mind that I am using proximity as an indicator of probability. If we used the same layout, but said that B has a pull of 1 and C has a pull of 9, then it would be A -> C -> B.

Each point could exist independently and its proximity would shift as various factors came into play. Like the butterfly theory, where small actions can lead to big results. Then magick would be applying force in such as way as to redefine the proximity of events.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:38 am

Observer Sequence

While time can be said to refer to the sequence of events which occur in an objective realm, I am unaware of any word which refers to the sequence of events which occur subjective to a single observer. Given a single observer, which interacts with itself many times over objective time, it would likely be useful to analyze the order of said objective realm's construction. Though construction might occur all at once in objectivity, that single moment of objective time is likely constructed of numerous moments of observer time.

Observer Time: Time as it appears from a subjective view.
Objective Time: Time as it appears from an objective view.

Given the existence of only a single observer, the progression of reality can be described by a single line which does not start or end. Given that any point on this line's graph represents a unique instant of reality, and that because of state-force pairings, any unique point can only have one previous point and one following point, the line is never allowed to cross itself. Because of this, if it helps for visualization, a 3D graph might be a more useful representation than a 2D graph, as it is much easier to draw lines which do not hit, when there are more dimensions.

Given a 2D representation, make a line vertically and move it across your graph from left to right (vertical line test style). This represents motion from objective past to objective future. Each instant of objective time may have any number of stacked lines (which would make a vertical line test fail). Each of these lines crossing the vertical test line, represent an observer within that objective time. Each line could, therefore, be thought of as a force which is merged with the other forces in order to create the coherent, singular instant of objective time. To imagine this, visualize the stacked lines collapsing inward on the horizontal axis in order to create a single line on the axis. If you wanted to preserve the ability to count the stacked lines, perhaps you could make certain parts of the line thicker than others (as in thicker = more force).

Observer Time, unlike moving straight left to right on the horizontal axis, follows the line itself. Pick any point on the line, then move your finger across down the line; that is observer time. So, given an objective time of 5 (marked on the horizontal axis), there could be observers at observer time 25, 90, -2, etc. (measuring along the length of the line itself, perhaps you could put markings on the line at every cm or so).

Given the potential for infinite lines stacked at any given observer time, I find it reasonable to think that an infinite amount of forces could resolve to a finite moment. Or, perhaps, the finite nature of the moment is an illusion as well. After all, if the vertical line is the moment, the vertical line itself, can stretch up and down forever. Perhaps the finite nature (limited data) of a moment is merely an illusion created by the observer's limited perspective; we think there is limited data, simply because we can only see limited data.

An infinite number of finite data bits, creates an infinite total moment. That's an interesting mechanic. The infinite, then, would be a creation of the finite. Perhaps if we can find certain inherent limitations of reality, we can identify ways in which reality makes up for these limitations through clever combinations of limited things.

Data Groupings

Reality is not created as it is observed, at least not entirely. Because it is possible for an observer to come across unknown data, a mechanism must exist for an observer to access data which it has no references to. Though it is not clear if it is possible for data to be stored in a lossless compressed format, in order to provide a reference to the complete original data, it must be, at the very least, possible for a reference to some version of complete data. Even if the reference might not lead to the original data, it must be possible for it to lead to some group of data with a certain room of deviation from the original.

There is a trade off between ambiguity & low size vs definite & high size. It is like how if you didn't know what a house was, and you were given a photo of one, you would likely be unable to find the house in the photo, but would be able to find some house.

This means that there is no "out there" which is independent of all observers, but there must be an "out there" which exists as a result of collaboration from multiple observers (the same one, over objective time), across observer time. If we assume that observation results in a force, as it must, given the state-force pairing, then it is not the observer which creates the reality it enters, but rather, it is the observer which selects the reality (which already exists), then applies its own minor force to the selected reality. It is a collaborative effort. The reality is selected, then the observer drops its own bit / mark / trace into it.

This is an important concept, because it means that its possible for things to persist beyond subjective observation (so they exist in objective observation). If you leave something somewhere temporally, it has to stay there. Even if the moon does disappear when you're not watching, it still exists in the moment before you looked away. This allows for a level of "I and not I".

I'll call these groups of associated data, that can act as traps: data packets.

Summary: You do not create the world as you look at it.

Read / Write Amplification

From a single instant in objective time, when the subjective observer's motion is ignored, and we focus on the objective reality, that reality looks like one point with a bunch of arrows pointing into it. Subjectively, the observers all receive force by selecting the realm and by reading it. Objectively, each of these outward forces look like inward forces. Each observer experiences a force applied to themselves, subjectively. On an objective level, because the objective world is not "out there", but is constructed collaboratively, for each observer which enters the realm and receives a force by reading, ALL of the other observers receive a force because they have to update themselves (you are new, so they need to refresh for new data). Your one read results in many other reads (amplification).

Summary: For any one write (subjective read), there are likely be many reads. So, for every received force, there are many dealt forces, even if those dealt forces don't have to occur right away (forces may be delayed for when they are read later).

Practical: How can you cause delayed forces to happen right now?

Observer Restriction

It is irrelevant if an observer's perspective is infinite, or finite. If an intelligence is not capable of using observed infinity, observed infinity might as well be finite anyway. It is the intelligence which is controlling change / actions, and so, it is the intelligence which is deciding what parts of observation have certain forces; it is the controller. If an observer is not capable of controlling certain things, why would we attribute those things to the observer's possession?

A force is implied whenever a change in information occurs. Force is not restricted to the physical interactions of big objects, which occur within space.

Therefore, if no change occurs, no force occurs. If an observer is always aware of all things, there is no room for change; no room for force. So, even if an observer could be aware of all things, at all times, in any given time within that infinite field of observation, it would be the intelligence that is changing, not the observer. So, it's the intelligence which causes force, not the observer. If the unintelligent parts of an observer cannot do anything, why do they need to be there? We can truncate them, and only keep the relevant parts: the parts of observation associated with an intelligence. If something is observed but not noticed, can we really say it was observed? As far as anyone is concerned, said thing was never there.

Alternate point: The most complete paradigm must allow for all conceivable things to exist. We can conceive of a limited perspective, therefore, limited perspectives must exist. Because large perspectives can be constructed from the addition of multiple smaller perspectives, we could infer that infinite perspectives are made from smaller perspectives. Therefore, small must come before large.

Alternate point: You cannot conceive of an infinite perspective, therefore it does not exist. Infinity is not finite, therefore it does not have a boundary. We cannot conceive of perceiving something without a boundary (fixed size), so we cannot conceive of perceiving infinity. The closest thing to seeing infinity, would be to start at a restricted perspective, then slowly increase the size of the perspective over time (like stretching a view port). This, however, is a motion, and not an instantaneous thing. You cannot fit a progressive scan of infinity (multiple moments), into a single moment.

Memory = Data + Processing

You never answered the question: you said you have a photographic memory. Has this, for you, meant that you can visualize things with zero effort?

Summary

You do not create the world as you look at it (though you do leave a mark); you select the reality. Reality is a collaborative effort. There is a collaborative "out there".
An accepted force (subjective read), is likely to result in many dealt forces (objective write), even if said forces are delayed.
Force can be temporally delayed.
Force is implied at any change of information.
An observer's perspective must be restricted to a fixed size at any given moment (but is subject to change in size over time).

I was going to wait and respond to all of it, but I wanted to respond to the last question first. I read the whole damn thing, ha. I wait all day and an hour before bed I read your post, I mull it over, sometimes I paste it into a word doc and answer portions, other times I need to respond to a certain bit sooner and so they end up short. I stopped just posting agreed, so if I dont call it out, assume I agree. lol. You really have the ball on this thing, I think I am adding to it, and minimally steering, but this is your baby. If you haven't please update the google doc with some of your stuff, I think the re-interpretation in a succinct form, after debate, really hones the idea.


Alright. That makes sense to truncate the "agreeds". I've updated the document slightly.

One last response, the links between points such as A and B and C are probably in that order because of the gravity wells as we described. For example, rather than A -> B -> C, we have
-----------
----B-----
A-------C
----------

Where A is the starting point and B is the closest actor. A moves to B because the pull of the likelihood is greater. Now, keeping in mind that I am using proximity as an indicator of probability. If we used the same layout, but said that B has a pull of 1 and C has a pull of 9, then it would be A -> C -> B.


Rather than look at A as being within a space with B and C, and as being attracted to each in turn, as if they are objects, I would see A as having a velocity towards angle B. Then, B has a velocity towards C. So, instead of attraction, we have internal forces which are driving the motion. A is moving towards B, and B is configure to move towards C. So, once A reaches B, it must have reconfigured its internal forces to aim at C.

I'm trying to simplify the causation. We've assumed gravity between points, and I think that might be an error, as I would assume gravity is an arbitrary phenomenon. If it's arbitrary, it makes more sense to say what the causative forces at any point are, rather than try to make one master rule set. B does not attract A. Within A, there is a gravity towards B. C does not attract B. Within B, there is a gravitation towards C. Define the rules relative to each point.

So, rather than give B a pull of 1, and C a pull of 9, to have A->C->B, just say that B doesn't exist until C is reached. Otherwise we're working with arbitrary numbers, and we have to explain why a higher value means more attraction, and we also have to explain why a larger distance means less attraction. The force value is ultimately a human measurement, of our own observation. So instead, we have A->C, then C->B. It gets rid of the arbitrary assumptions.

Practically, this would be a pain to use as a functional paradigm, as it would assume that causation can change, and so, you wouldn't be able to ensure that the rules stay the same from one second to the next. You wouldn't be able to pick A as a start, then build a to get to B then C, in one easy fell swoop. You'd need one procedure for A->B, then one for B->C, unless you could magickally ensure that A and B have the same causation. But that would likely be an undesirable thing to ensure, because the whole point of magick is to change the causation. This sort of infers to me that if you want a successful magickal procedure, you'd likely have to have a very varied procedure. Standard reality encourages repetition, so it would make sense that magickal reality would require minimal repetition.

Each point could exist independently and its proximity would shift as various factors came into play. Like the butterfly theory, where small actions can lead to big results. Then magick would be applying force in such as way as to redefine the proximity of events.


Exactly. It's like you're bending space. If you need to reach a destination in 5min, and the laws won't let you get there in under 20min, then I guess it's time to reposition your friend's house so it's closer.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:45 am

Glaring Problem with Causation

How does information result in a change to other information? It's data is supposed to be static. I've posited that force and state are paired, which works OK in theory, but kind of breaks down when you try to look at things as single instant frames, rather than as a motion picture.

Let's say there's a ball, and it has a force which is making it move through the air. This is force is easy to see if you imagine a motion picture. Now, stop the animation at any point, and try to find the data that says that the ball is moving. You can't. The force is implied in the motion, and when you pause things, there's nothing. We've decided that things which exist, must be represented in some way. Therefore, if a state has a force, there should be meta data visible, which tells us that the ball is moving, and exactly what angle, magnitude, etc. Basically, when I pause the animation, I should see a list of numbers beside the ball, much like a debug output.

Now, the data of course, could still be there, but be invisible. However, it has to be visible to someone, maybe a watcher, or else it doesn't exist. That's still a problem, because even if we have a debug output, we need to explain why that debug output means what it means. Why does a string such as "35 degrees at 15 km/h" make the ball move as said? The meta data still needs an interpreter. And if we throw in an interpreter, we have to explain where the interpreter's programming is, and why it interprets things in certain ways, to cause certain forces. Ultimately, all we're doing is offsetting the meta data down an infinite chain of interpreters, which doesn't really work.

It seems that an absolute is actually required. But we know that objects with the same representations can mean very different things to different entities, so that seems like a poor solution. We could posit some sort of code which exists solely for the purpose of programming, but that't about as useful as saying "god did it".

Another issues is that I'm not sure it's even possible to describe a force within an instant. Without an interpreter, meta data describing a force must be extremely explicit, and I think that means that nothing short of an animation of the force would be sufficient to describe it. That's a problem because I don't think you can store an animation into an instant. Even if you were to store the animation as frames in a single instant (like a sprite sheet), there's nothing animated about the data anymore. It's just a bunch of still images. There's no interpreter to put all the images back together into a motion picture, so it's garbage.

So, my current understanding is that we live in a world made up of information, with arbitrary rules, and information cannot properly describe said rules. That's a massive contradiction.

Side note: Perhaps it's incorrect to try to think of reality as being made up of still images that are traversed by an observer. After all, we don't experience reality as still images, but as a flowing process. If you can't pause real life, why should you be able to pause it theoretically?

"What you see is what you get" style memory addresses

In a computer, it's possible for an OS to give a program a virtual address space, rather than direct access to the system's memory. This means that different programs could each be given an address range of say, 0 to 5000, and each program would be referring to its own memory space. Program A's address 0 does not equal program B's address 0, etc. The OS allows the same representation (address) to mean different things to different programs.

In our actual world, I think it's safe to say that we don't have virtual address space, nor do we have an OS. This means that all the "programs" have to access the same memory, using the same addresses. The exception to this is when we implement our own versions of virtual address space on small scales. For example, house number 255 will not be the same house in two different cities. However, the total address to access that house, would include the country, city name, etc., so it's not truly virtual. This means that even though those houses might share that 255 on their address, everything else is different, and the address is ultimately globally unique.

Because we can't have virtual address space at the highest level of addresses, reality needs to use an address system where every unique thing has its own address. Given that we also need to be able to address things across time, we need addresses that are temporally unique. I can think of no other way to address things in a unique way, except to address them by their descriptions, origins, environment, etc.

Given a singly linked reality, where state-force reality frames are not allowed to repeat, I think it could be inferred that any reality frame must have some sort of meta data about its surrounding frames (past & future). Given that it's possible to experience the same event over and over again (in say, a VR game), the only thing different between each play of the event, would be the order that the event occurs in. If identical events occur 5 times in a row, event 1 is different than event 4, because event 1 leads to events 2,3,4,5 while event 4 only leads to event 5. Unique events could be separated by something akin to a play counter.

Side note: A significant side effect of not allowing completely identical events occur more than once, is that time looping is not an issue. If it were possible to truly travel from the future to the past, reality would essentially break, because said past would be required to lead to a future which leads to itself. It would be impossible to exit that existence (infinite recursion). I don't think that the flying spaghetti monster would allow reality to ship with game breaking bugs. It works a lot better to think of event looping like a slinky rather than a circle.

Resolution of Temporal Forces

If forces can cross time, then that means that for any single state, there could have been any number of forces interacting to create that moment. Because time is non-linear, I don't think it would be fair to give each access to said state a different state, in order to produce a slowly building state over time. Because the state can be accessed from many different times, it effectively has to be timeless. I think that addresses are resolved such that all forces across temporal space affect the space at once

If you read one position 5 times, all reads of that position must show 5 total reads (even if you are only on the first one, so far).

I'm not sure how relaxed memory ordering would fit in here. I'm not sure that "most recent" (constant reading to refresh to latest data) even makes sense without some sort of linear time line. It'd be more of a deductive target for a specific thing, rather than a search for "recent". Your "recent" would be whatever you make it (or whatever is force upon you by your current perspective: current perspective + deductive target = entropy?)

Given that "out there" is a collaborative effort comprised of many "in theres", I'm not sure it even makes sense to think of objective space as having some sort of time line. That concept seems deprecated. If each observer can be at their time, and objective reality is made up of many different observers, then any "out there" of an objective reality would be constructed from many different times. There is no server + client. Rather, it's client + client + client + ...

It would be a state of flux rather than something solid and centralized. There'd be many different versions of "out there", so you'd just have to pick one, or make a perspective out of a combination of parts from select ones.

Ambiguous References

If observers have restricted perspectives, then it's effectively impossible for them to fully reference anything. This means that it must be possible to access a definite state without just a partial address (though you might not always get exactly what you want).

Temporal Objects

For some reason I've been treating time as a special dimension. That seems very incorrect. If we are treating time as a space, it should have all the characteristics of classical space. This means that objects from different times should be able to influence each other, and that one object should be able to exist across multiple times, just like an object in classical space can take up a certain width, height, etc.

Going back to the causation thing, it has occurred to me that you could probably fix the data issue by pulling a few tricks with this. I haven't quite thought things through, but I'll give an example:

If you have a ball that is moving at 0 degrees at 5 m/s, at any paused instant, the data for causation is missing. However, that might just be a perceptual thing. Rather than treat the motion of the ball as being on separate frames, treat the ball in each frame as being the same, but as having a "width" through time. The ball isn't actually moving. It's the observer that is moving its restricted perspective.

I'll re-explain with a piston style example. Imagine you have a surface that can raise itself to 5 different levels.

A
AA__A_A
AAA_A_A
AAA_A_A
AAAAAAA
12345678

Each column represents an instant of time. The observer is restricted such that it can only see one column at a time. In reality, the changing piston is a single 4D object. Causation is about as complicated then, as following a line, or moving your eyes across a landscape. The environment isn't moving; the observer is. Or, conversely, the observer is still, and the universe moves around it (the observer doesn't "move" in a physical sense, rather, it's data just changes).

If this solves the meta data problem, there's still the issue of figuring out why the observer is forced to move a certain way. That seems like it'd be more of an IO thing than an environment thing. Given that it's impossible to imagine an observer that isn't reading anything (as awareness cannot have breaks), you could posit that something about reads causes changes.

An alternative idea I had for fixing causation was to think of the observer as being in multiple times at once. Technically, that's as simple as holding data, especially if its ambiguous (each time has different data). If you're holding ambiguous data, that's like deductively targeting towards all times which are similar to your current one. If you kept reading like that, change would pretty much be a given.

Ultimately, we just know that causation happens, and what we're really interested in is learning to change it. If there are no absolutes, I can't expect a "why", only a "how".
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Previous

Return to Beginners Info

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Bridge by mehdiplugins.com