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: 75
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: 75
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.
If all brains are made roughly the same, then why do I perceive through my own? What special characteristic places me in this skull?
I do not move throughout the world. The engines do not move the ship, but the universe.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

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: 75
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.
If all brains are made roughly the same, then why do I perceive through my own? What special characteristic places me in this skull?
I do not move throughout the world. The engines do not move the ship, but the universe.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

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: 75
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: 75
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.
If all brains are made roughly the same, then why do I perceive through my own? What special characteristic places me in this skull?
I do not move throughout the world. The engines do not move the ship, but the universe.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

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".
If all brains are made roughly the same, then why do I perceive through my own? What special characteristic places me in this skull?
I do not move throughout the world. The engines do not move the ship, but the universe.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:36 pm

Ok, I have to read your last post, but I came across the following in regards to observer-driven reality through quantum mechanics and I wanted to share it with you, as it parallels things we have already discussed.

"The Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky demonstration (ERP, for short) indicated that, if quantum mechanics is true, some particles are in instantaneous contact even if at opposite ends of the universe."
(This is Quantum Entanglement, before it had a name)

"In order for quantum entanglement to occur you need one of three things to happen. Either quantum mechanics is wrong, and we start over, or Heisenberg's theory is correct, or Wheelers."
(There is actually another, since what I am quoting was published in the late 70's, the newer theory is that its not distance that is being overcome, but the flow of time. Ill find that link and share it)

Participatory universe or observer-created universe of nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg (Heisenberg principle) and Dr John A Wheeler of Princeton.

"Heisenberg's version, quantum events exist in potentia before human measurement, and in reality only after such measurement has occurred. Weirdness, Heisenberg says, is the characteristic of potentia, time flows forward and backward there, and none of the usual laws of physics apply. Those laws only come into action after human intervention has occurred."
(Heisenberg is saying that the laws of reality only apply after observation)

"Wheeler's observer-created universe, like Heisenberg's portrays "reality" as the result of human-quantum interaction, but adds the possibility that Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky transmissions may effect this result even before measurement is made."
(Wheeler is saying that quantum entanglement can happen without or before observation, so reality has rules, but those rules are influenced by observation)
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:40 pm

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.

This is where the flow of time comes in. Each frame exists without motion, just as you describe, but as each still frame is observed through the flow of time, we become aware of movement/motion.

However, time is its own difficult beast to unravel.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:47 pm

"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.


Ah-ha! But just as you said the house with the same street address can exist in more than one location, but the greater portion of the address differs, each person could be the virtual memory space.

An orange ball is = 1001
Observer 1 has a memory address precursor (like IP octet) of 10
Observer 2 has a memory address of 11

The ball while perceived by observer 1 is 10.1001
The ball while perceived by observer 2 is 11.1001

If observed at the same time its probably some style of hyper position, where both/all observer's are referenced.

Also, thinking that the most basic of shapes/objects that repeat, probably would have universal ID's where the meta-data is tagged on along side to show how it diverges from the "perfect form".
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:50 pm

Resolution of Temporal Forces


That is the crux.

Client + Server is just like Wheeler's theory, and Client + Client is like Heisenberg's.

The bottom line is "Does reality have a base set of rules that it operates by, when no one is watching".

Ambiguous References

EXACTLY. This is a problem even without our theory. Best represented by the "what color is your sky". As humans we do not know, nor can we currently measure, that we observe things in the same way, and we know for a fact that we perceive only a fraction of what is really going on.

Temporal Objects

I agree, and this makes me think of objects in a hyper-quantum state, where everything that can happen to it is/was, and the way that we observe it is dependent on the time. In the piston example, when factoring in the limitless things that could affect it, it essentially would exist in every possible permutation.

Also, when you say there is no break in awareness, what about sleep? Dreams or no dreams, the awareness is "turned off" as it refers to reality. Also, accounting for the time that we are awake, we are not aware of everything everywhere, so there would be breaks in that sense as well.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:33 am

Flow of time

"The Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky demonstration (ERP, for short) indicated that, if quantum mechanics is true, some particles are in instantaneous contact even if at opposite ends of the universe."
(This is Quantum Entanglement, before it had a name)


That makes sense. I don't see why particles at opposite sides of the universe wouldn't be able to interact. The universe is just a blob of data. Remove all your biases about how physical things should act, and it's easy to realize that reality's programming can do whatever it wants.

"In order for quantum entanglement to occur you need one of three things to happen. Either quantum mechanics is wrong, and we start over, or Heisenberg's theory is correct, or Wheelers."
(There is actually another, since what I am quoting was published in the late 70's, the newer theory is that its not distance that is being overcome, but the flow of time. Ill find that link and share it)


I'm not actually sure what you mean by "flow of time". Are you referring to the idea that reality changes over time regardless of observers?

I prefer to attribute the flow of time to observers (the observer moves across permutations of reality, instead of there being one reality which the observer is a part of and stays with) Then, to account for the perception of slow downs or speed ups in perceived time, I like to think that it's not some clock speed attribute of the observer that is changing. Rather, it is that the observer is moving through "shorter" 4D objects, or "longer" 4D objects.

If you perceive that walking down a road is slow (at 1 m/s) then your observer must have experienced a fairly long stretch.
If you perceive that walking down a road is fast (at 1 m/s) then your observer must have experienced a fairly short stretch.

In either case, the road is the same size, but that's because measurement is relative.
If you shrink the universe, pick a length to be 1m, and determine that a road is 10m, you'll find that if you then stretch the road,
and pick the same length to be 1m, the road will still be 10m. However, the shrunk universe will appear smaller than the stretched one.

So, time perception is a quality of objects, not the observer.

Participatory Universe

Participatory universe or observer-created universe of nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg (Heisenberg principle) and Dr John A Wheeler of Princeton.

"Heisenberg's version, quantum events exist in potentia before human measurement, and in reality only after such measurement has occurred. Weirdness, Heisenberg says, is the characteristic of potentia, time flows forward and backward there, and none of the usual laws of physics apply. Those laws only come into action after human intervention has occurred."
(Heisenberg is saying that the laws of reality only apply after observation)

"Wheeler's observer-created universe, like Heisenberg's portrays "reality" as the result of human-quantum interaction, but adds the possibility that Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky transmissions may effect this result even before measurement is made."
(Wheeler is saying that quantum entanglement can happen without or before observation, so reality has rules, but those rules are influenced by observation)


I remember reading about that in high school physiscs. Very interesting. It makes sense, but I'm not sure how a universe would be "created". Can we agree that the quantum evens in potentia are equivalent to the set of possible temporal spaces (states of existence) that might be ambiguously targeted by an observer?

I'm not sure what is meant by reality having rules independent of observation. Does this imply a universe independent of observers? If there is an independent universe, I think it can still be explained in terms of observers.

Imagine that an observer is a player in the game Tron. They leave behind a trail as they move. Naturally, it is possible for a Tron player to hit their trail, and be affected by it (that's how you lose the game). Like this, we can think of the trail as the independent universe, and the head of the trail as the observer. The trail has no beginning because observers are not created. The plane that the game is played on is the space of permutations of existence (each square is one possible reality). Like this, the independent reality is "weaved" out of these observer threads. Given that observers do not begin, the trail is infinitely long. However, with the assumption that the set of possible universes (plane) is infinite, this infinite the trail will still never fill the plane, which would leave us with "gaps" or "null space" between certain trails (which would inevitably be filled in the future by the observer)

If we keep the assumption that the observer can never repeat the exact same event, so as to prevent time loops, the tron analogy works nicely.
This is because in tron, the player can never hit their trail, or else they lose. Think: because the observer cannot "lose", they cannot hit their trail.

Given some potentia of observer paths, and some infinitely long trail, how can we figure out which path is taken?

Also, I'm not too sure how quantum entanglement would fit in here. Except, going back to the memory thing, objects that look the same, are the same, so if you had two very similar particles, it would make sense that changing one could change others that are within a certain degree of similarity to it. This would likely be an effect of ambiguous targeting. Because you can only ever reach a certain degree of accuracy, there must always be a "accidental effects". I'm not sure why this effect would only be apparent at quantum level though. Maybe bigger objects have too many details, so targeting errors are not big enough to have an effect?

An interesting note on this topic: if you had two unlike particles, couldn't you force them to entangle by manually making one particle as close to the other as possible?

Variable Absolute

This is where the flow of time comes in. Each frame exists without motion, just as you describe, but as each still frame is observed through the flow of time, we become aware of movement/motion.

However, time is its own difficult beast to unravel.


Yes, but assuming non-linear time, how do we explain why the observer has to take one path (reality is deterministic, so it must).
All the possible frames exist as stills, but they aren't ordered in any way, so there's no reason for the observer to follow any specific sequence.
Unless I assume that each frame is like a slide, and the observer is "falling" from slide to slide (no pun intended).
I'd prefer to remove all assumptions, but I feel like this one is necessary. It is a sort of variable absolute.

The absolute is that each frame contains the rules which lead to the next frame. But the rules change every frame, so causation can still be arbitrary.

Virtual Memory Addresses

Ah-ha! But just as you said the house with the same street address can exist in more than one location, but the greater portion of the address differs, each person could be the virtual memory space.

An orange ball is = 1001
Observer 1 has a memory address precursor (like IP octet) of 10
Observer 2 has a memory address of 11

The ball while perceived by observer 1 is 10.1001
The ball while perceived by observer 2 is 11.1001

If observed at the same time its probably some style of hyper position, where both/all observer's are referenced.


I love this example. It adds a lot more questions to my list.

What do you think the greater octet would be though? Keep in mind we're talking about addresses that aren't numbers, but are experiences.

If I visualize a house, and that visualization refers to many identical looking houses that exist in different places, how would I expand my visualization in order to reference a specific house? This problem is difficult already when thinking of a single planet. Now expand the issue to every permutation of every possible moment.

...actually. Perhaps we have some leeway on accuracy still. Going back to the tron analogy, if we assume that from the observer's perspective (scope), the null space in front of it hasn't been filled yet (as it has not happened yet, relative to the observer). Then there's some infinite amount of null space, and also some infinite amount of permutations... actually. This needs some thinking. I'll leave it incomplete as food for thought.

I'm not sure you could say that the observer itself has a memory address precursor, because the observer doesn't actually own any data (it just contains it) I'd say that the precursor is associated directly with the ball, so the ball must be in two separate locations, so the observers must be observing two totally different balls. Keep note here that to me, two people in the same room could be classified as being in different locations (same observer, different part of the observer sequence, so must be in different temporal spaces)

Assuming the ball was exactly the same in both universes, we can assume that it would be in a state of hyper position, because we know that if one observer moves something in our "objective reality", another in the same "objective reality" will notice it, I think it's fair to assume that the ball is a hyper position. Same with the humans in the scenario, but I wouldn't equate the humans with the observers.

Memory Storage

Also, thinking that the most basic of shapes/objects that repeat, probably would have universal ID's where the meta-data is tagged on along side to show how it diverges from the "perfect form".


As an aside, I'm really struggling with the idea of data being "stored". For example, imagine that this world is a simulation, and that the world simulating it is also simulated, and so on. This means that the memory defining this world is stored in the next higher simulation, and so on. This also means that the memory for the lowest simulation cannot actually be resolved because there is no end point for the infinite chain of simulations.
In other words, the data cannot be stored, but it exists anyway. (assuming my logic is correct)

I'm not sure what form a "perfect" object would take on, but thanks for that idea, as it made me think of compound objects.

Notice that if you feel pain in any location on your body, the pain signal feels roughly the same? But, you feel it in different locations, so the experience is different. So, we could think of bodily pain as being a compound experience of "position" + "base feeling of pain".

I think we could also scale experiences by masking them. For example, if you've ever experienced anythin similar to neuropathy you could have the
feeling of touch in your hands being equal to "feeling of touch" + "surface touched" + "numb" + "position".

By having compound objects made of out of "perfect" objects, it is now possible to do comparison operations between different experiences; our paradigm now supports basic logic. You can recognize that the feeling of touch in your hands and also pain, have the perfect object "location".
Even though we're talking about perfect objects, which cannot be created or destroyed, and so cannot be directly compared to other perfect objects,
we can compare compound objects to each other because we can compare perfect objects to themselves (I think that logic is fair; similar to 1 = 1; it's intuitive)

Rather than have meta data, we can have a compilation of different perfect objects, which "filter" each other based on logic circuits.

For example, if we have a logic circuit that says that "green" + "blue" -> "cyan", "green" and "blue" appears to be "cyan", even though it is stored as
"green" and "blue". The "green" and "blue" are meta data for each other. We don't actually have to add "green" and "blue" to create "cyan" as composition is an environment dependent rule. The logic circuit can just have its own copy of "green" and "blue", and then check to see if what it has is equivalent to what is passed to it (via boolean operations). Then it returns the arbitrary value "cyan".

Client and Server

That is the crux.

Client + Server is just like Wheeler's theory, and Client + Client is like Heisenberg's.

The bottom line is "Does reality have a base set of rules that it operates by, when no one is watching".


Does reality even exist if no one is watching? Assuming it does, and assuming any reality requires observers, if you (observer) are not in a specific
reality, I think that said reality must have a base set of rules as they are enforced by the remaining observers.

I may have a solution to the Client and Client vs Server and Client problem though.

Given that reality defines both client and client, as well as server and client interactions, this implies that reality depends on both of them, and that both of them are derived from some like system. So, the solution to the problem would to realize that both of the interaction models are exactly the same from a top level perspective.

First, realize that a client is a server. Then the distinguishment between client and server becomes redundant. In order for a client to be a server, the client must contain all the data pertaining to a specific environment. It hosts an "environment". It must also support incoming and outgoing connections.

Given that data can be extracted via processing and some arbitrary starting point, an observer can be considered a server, as observers are effectively an entry point to a collection of other observers (their own futures, pasts, addresses contained therein). What the "server" is then, is a cluster of observers, where each observer is a connection point to the cluster. What makes a cluster of observers a server then, is that they share related data (which is equivalent to links because of hyper position when objects are identical)

What better a way to store all the data for a specific closed off environment then to simply use all the observers within the environment itself? If the contained observers cannot look outside of the environment, and they contain all the data for the environment, then they satisfy the needs of an environment server. The server is the environment, and the observers are also the server.

As all observers are the same, a server can be represented as a set of ranges on observer time (the sequence of events relative to the single observer)
This is much like memory addresses.

So reality is server/client & server/client based.

Also, auxilliary components to the server to do computations would be unnecessary, as the observers themselves would be doing "computations" as they progressed through their own experiences. A function takes x and returns y. An observer starts at some state (x), and ends at another (y). Of course though, you would probably have to do some fancy stuff to get observers set up properly in order to create the closed environment. And there's probably observers enforcing rules (going back to watchers, etc.)

Odd, you can equate your own existence to a form of computation.

Awareness Breaks

Also, when you say there is no break in awareness, what about sleep? Dreams or no dreams, the awareness is "turned off" as it refers to reality. Also, accounting for the time that we are awake, we are not aware of everything everywhere, so there would be breaks in that sense as well.


When wrote "awareness" I was referring to the continuity of an observer's experience (falling back on my old term, "experience" would have been a better word).

This has actually been a fruitful mistake though. It hadn't occured to me to think of sleep as a break in the observer (relative to earth).
I imagine that if you could see observers on some sort of graph, only showing ones on earth, you'd see a bunch of blinking dots.

Observer Size and Continuity

When I was thinking about how to make an observer follow a certain path (as what it contains determines where it goes), it occured to me that I'd want to be able to get a list of all the pieces of data contained in the observer.

Specifically, for magick, if I wanted to create an effect, I'd want to be able to list all of my current experiences in order to decide what kind of resistance I might be facing.

That's when it occured to me that trying to read the number of elements in your own observer is a lot like trying to make RAM compute its own number of memory registers. The problem is that is simply isn't a CPU. So, you need a second observer to evaluate the first.

The next problem I noticed is that I'm not actually sure how to divide an observer into elements. Surely there must be a limited number of elements though, as we've already decided that since infinity isn't a number, it can't define a boundary on a size. The trouble then, is about continuity. To myself, my experience appears completely continuous, especially in relation to movement through time. When I look around, my vision also appears continuous, same with audio, etc. I mean continuous in the sense that I can't see spaces between my experiences. I don't see a grid of colored squares with "nothing" in between each square. It's not granular. Every element flows into the next.

It occured to me then, that it might be wrong to think of a list of experiences as a bunch of discrete elements. While pixels on a screen are like integers (countable, 1,2,3,4,5,...), the color elements in my vision are likely more close real numbers (not countable). The real numbers aren't countable because there are infinite numbers in between each real number. You can't count like 1,2,3,4,... because there are infinite possible decimal parts for each number. However, despite there being infinite numbers in any interval of reals, the reals can still be bounded, so I could still say that my vision size is finite. However, I'd have infinite color elements in the bound, so the clause that observers must be restricted would fail.

Another solution would be to assume that the observer contains some ultra high resolution of color elements, but still has a finite number within natural numbers. Then I could explain a lack of perceived granularity by saying that I can't notice breaks because my brain isn't wired to do so (and also because "nothing" does not exist)

That somehow doesn't seem quite right though.

Infinite Universe Problem

We've decided that observers need be restricted, but somehow we've allowed the universe (a chunk of data) to be infinite. This doesn't work because we've already decided that infinity isn't a number, so data cannot be bounded by infinity.

A solution would be to reinterpret the universe's infinity as being made up of "chunks" (think minecraft). Instead of infinity, we have groups of very very large chunks of data, each of which are constructed from the base unit: observers. So, we have infinity emanating from the finite. (Or at least an infinite number of the finite observers)

Unless of course you want to think of the universe as a some n-dimensional graph where each dimension is a possible value of a categorical variable.

To be honest, I'm really not sure what to think of memory, storage, etc., in relation to the universe. I've covered from the simulation problem that the data shouldn't be storeable, but then where is it? We've covered that the address of some piece of data is described by itself, but does the data actually reside anywhere? Perhaps it is a mistake to attempt to put the data anywhere, because if it is somewhere, then that somewhere must also be somewhere, and infinite regress occurs.

I could write more, but this is already a wall. Also, are these walls constructive, or are they annoying? I could spend more time trying to boil down my ideas, but it would probably make me a lot harder to follow.
If all brains are made roughly the same, then why do I perceive through my own? What special characteristic places me in this skull?
I do not move throughout the world. The engines do not move the ship, but the universe.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:22 am

Ambiguous Pointer Dereferencing

Can we agree that an ambiguous pointer should dereference to the object best described by the pointer?

Different Interpretation of "Nothing"

While we've decided that the concept of "nothing" cannot exist because it does not contain data, and is thus impossible to exist within our data based existence, the concept of "nothing" can still be useful in a different way. If we think of "something" as some kind of bounded environment, then "nothing" is whatever is not within those bounds. For example, let's think of our earth existence as existing within a sphere (just pretend nothing exists beyond the surface of the sphere / sky). We do not know what "nothing" could be, but we know that there are things which do not exist, because we can see the edge of our reality (sphere surface), we can try to move past it, and we can fail.

We can redefine "nothing" to be equivalent to a meaningless pointer, or "null" pointer; a pointer which itself contains data, but does not reference any valid address. An undefined word.

We know that if something can be imagined, it is theoretically possible. Then, we also know that if something is theoretically impossible to be imagined, then it cannot exist.
For example, try to take the square root of negative one. Or, do some math and try to find a limit that does not exist, then the pointer to that answer cannot be defined.
For both of these examples, we can write the pointers sqrt(-1), and lim f(x). There are addresses, but they do not resolve to anything.
We can call these pointers "null", "edge pointers", whatever.

A very simple way to find an undefined pointer is to take some pointers that are defined, and then try to find the object that lies between them. For example, though we could take some location addresses, and then find the location between them quite easily, if we were to take objects like "banana", "red", and "salt", it would be quite difficult (maybe impossible) to find the object between them.

"Hanging Pointers"

Another interesting case of this topic comes up with ambiguous references. We've covered that it's impossible for an observer to contain an infinite amount of data, and so, it's impossible for an observer to fully reference any object (given an infinite universe). What if we have one address, and two or more objects which all have equal similarity to that one address? Because we are looking at an instant and not at a sequence, where it would be likely that the pointer would drift in some direction, the address cannot resolve to any of the similar objects because it would have to pick one on the basis of some non existent rule.

Because the pointer is unable to resolve to some other object, it must resolve to itself, as it is more similar to itself than all the other equally similar objects are to it. Because any object which is 100% similar to another object must be the same object, we know that the 100% similar object is unique. Thus, the special case of a pointer being non-dereferenceable cannot apply to the object with itself, as there is only one object which could have a highest similarity to the object, and thus no possibility of an equal similarity object.

I like to think of these types of pointers as being "hanging" because it is as if the pointer is a floating point between magnets, which cannot move, because the magnetic forces are in perfect equilibrium. Imagine triangle. Now keep only the points. These are magnets. These magnets do not attract each other. Now place one more point in the exact center of this triangle. The magnets do attract this point. Because the point is an equal distance from the other points, and all the magnets have equal strength, the point cannot move (it is "hanging" between the magnets).

This is of course, assuming that it is possible for objects to have equal similarity to some object, which, I think is trivial to show as being possible. Given that similarity is based on the rule set (Ex: blue and green don't have to mix to get cyan in every realm, so the similarity of cyan to blue and green is specific to this realm), it is seemingly possible to make any object similar to any object (just change the rules). However, for simplicity, just look at numbers. 2 and 6 are both an equal distance from 4. Now look at any two or more n-dimensional points, and it is possible to find many points which have equal distance to point. Take a circle, then all points on its circumference are an equal distance from its center.

Pointer Equilibrium

Recall, we decided that states / objects must be paired with forces, as each total state of existence may only move to a single next total state of existence. Now, as force is more of a verb than a noun, a sequential thing, it cannot be contained in an instant. However, a pointer can easily be contained in a state, and also points to some next state. So, a pointer is basically equivalent to a force, as it is a force's "trigger" (the pointer could probably be thought of as something like potential energy).

Now, because we treat causation as arbitrary, but the progression of the observer's sequence (experience of time) can be treated as an axiom / given, in order to have arbitrary causation, causation must be dependent on some variable. So, treat reality itself as that variable. This is simple because objects are equivalent to pointers. So, reality is a pointer, and each step of reality dereferences that pointer, and then modifies that pointer in preparation of the next step.

Because reality cannot be exactly the same from frame to frame, though ambiguous pointers would typically dereference to their most approximate targets, this cannot happen. This is because the most approximate target of a pointer is the pointer itself. Thus, the pointer must resolve to the next most similar object. Given that the pointer would be equally similar to the previous as well as the next object, it would make sense for it to be able to move either way, but because we cannot allow frames of reality to repeat, the pointer must move to the next object (that's a very poor bit of reasoning, I know, but I can't think of a good reason right now).

Now, recognize that not all objects are changing from frame to frame of existence. Thus, their pointers must not be resolving to different values. After all, only the total reality must be different from the last; may things can be constant. We could say that these pointers are in some sort of "equilibrium", because they are not "in motion". However, at all times, some part of the total reality must be in motion, so it is a wonder what the difference between pointers at stationary equilibrium and pointers in motion is.

Side note: Though we've been assuming causation must be arbitrary, here is a proof of sorts. If causation were fixed, given that any instant of reality may only have one precursor instant and one next instant, reality would have to be finite because there would be only a finite number of manipulation steps before data would have to repeat. Reality / time cannot be finite because we cannot posit how it would be created or destroyed. (Is this valid? I feel like the intuition is correct, but the explanation is poor / incorrect.)

Instance Resolution Sequence

What order does each instant of reality resolve to? If we were to treat reality as being composed of a number of pointers, and these pointers were able to modify each other when each were resolved, we would have to create an ordering for calling each pointer in sequence.

A simple solution might be to instead realize that though existence contains many small pointers, reality itself also satisfies the conditions of being a pointer. Thus, it is unnecessary to worry over which sub-pointers resolve first, because the observer only ever needs to resolve one pointer: the largest one which contains all other smaller pointers.

This would likely put the burden of figuring out what does what in an instant of reality on figuring out what similarity rules were at play. Oddly enough, I'm now not sure where to put the similarity rules. They need to be arbitrary, so they need to be stored as some data. However, I would think that a similarity test would not be a one step instruction, especially for complex objects. Unless of course you had some kind of precalculated table for each frame which decided exactly how similar each object was to each other object. But then you would need a way to generate that table, or at least manipulate it from frame to frame (we can assume it always existed, because time has no start, so we need to worry over how to construct it initially). But because we cannot separate existing data from the observer, it must be possible to see any kind of meta data that would be like this.

An interesting side note: if there were something like a similarity table, it would have to be defined for all the infinitely many objects which can exist. So, because the observer is finite, we cannot have a similarity table, as it would contain infinite data. It would seem that the paradigm is missing something rather significant in regards to this topic.

Data hidden in plain sight

Data can be stored in the observer without the intelligence the observer is associated with being aware of all data. In other words, though your observer could contain graphs, tables, etc., of reality meta-data, you wouldn't be able to notice it and actually see it unless your intelligence were able to do so. Would that be workable?

I'm not sure that quite makes sense. That's trippy. It would be weird for there to be graphical displays in my field of vision, always there, that I simply never looked at. They wouldn't be hidden either. They would have to contain color data, etc. It would be as if you always had a car floating in front of your vision, but you never took notice.

Archetype Finite Time Duration

You cannot play a single character for all eternity. This is because there is only one observer, and there are many archetypes (types of actors / people to play as). This means that the single observer must be split across all possible archetypes. This also implies that there must be a mechanism for all archetypes to lead to each other (somewhat circular).

This also means that it is impossible for a single piece of data in the observer to remain constant for all eternity. It is possible for that single piece of data to be different, so the observer must change it eventually.

This is important because it means that change is enforced within finite lengths of the observer sequence.

Impossibility of Data Singularity

The observer cannot be filled with a singular piece of data. This is because then it would be unable to reference anything but itself, especially because it would not be able to contain any data regarding similarities, etc. A level of data complexity is required.

This is interesting because it means that you could never actually see something like "total pitch darkness", because you can't fill the observer completely with black. Even if you intended to, the observer would have to contain some logic not equivalent to black, which would be used to fill the rest of the observer with black.

Summary

Objects are Pointers
Pointer Behaviour: Will try to dereference to the most similar, but not previously used object (only applies to the largest pointer in the observer)
Edge Pointers: Pointers which can be represented but cannot be dereferenced to return anything but themselves. This is caused by the pointer target not existing (logical fallacy).
Hanging Pointers: Pointers which can be represented but cannot be dereferenced to return anything but themselves. This is caused by the pointer having an equal chance of resolving to multiple objects (ambiguity).
Axiom: Pointers must be dereferenced on each "step" of reality
The specific of moving from one frame of reality to another are difficult.
The observer may contain data which is obscured to the intelligence. (trippy as it is)
Any single unit of data within the observer must change within a finite length of the observer sequence.
The observer cannot be filled entirely with a single type of data.
If all brains are made roughly the same, then why do I perceive through my own? What special characteristic places me in this skull?
I do not move throughout the world. The engines do not move the ship, but the universe.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

Previous

Return to Beginners Info

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Bridge by mehdiplugins.com