Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Parry: on 11/26/12 at 7:41am UTC, wrote Hi Shawn, Why you need to fail This short video makes me feel better...

S Halayka: on 11/13/12 at 4:58am UTC, wrote Hi James, Thank you for the link. I did a google search for your name and...

James Putnam: on 11/13/12 at 3:57am UTC, wrote Thank you Shawn, I am not Anonymous. I always intend to sign my name even...

S Halayka: on 11/13/12 at 3:34am UTC, wrote Oh noes, there's movement in the tall grass. Yawn.

S Halayka: on 11/13/12 at 3:28am UTC, wrote A teacher is one who makes himself progressively unnecessary. - Carruthers ...

S Halayka: on 11/13/12 at 3:05am UTC, wrote Hi James, I was replying to the anonymous comment when I said that....

S Halayka: on 11/13/12 at 2:44am UTC, wrote See 'Open Letter to the President: Physics Education' by Minute Physics.

James Putnam: on 11/13/12 at 2:11am UTC, wrote Who is 'your': "You're presumptuous to think that you just didn't prove my...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

RECENT ARTICLES

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: On Whether or Not Non-Gravitational Interaction Can Occur in the Absence of Gravity by Shawn Halayka [refresh]

Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:29 GMT
Essay Abstract

The Standard Model of particle physics is built upon the implied assumption that non-gravitational interaction can occur in the absence of gravity. This essay takes this implied assumption at face value and then considers the alternative assumption -- non-gravitational interaction cannot occur in the absence of gravity. The alternative assumption is then discussed in terms of the dark sector of the Universe.

Author Bio

A non-professional who spends time playing around with software development, physics, and art.

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 18:19 GMT
More babble: I wonder if gravitation could be related to a UV cutoff pertaining to photon creation and annihilation. For instance, if the cutoff value decreases with increasing distance, and a lower cutoff value translates to increased or decreased virtual photon emission, would a form of "virtual" propulsion arise because of the cutoff gradient? Just a thought.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 06:34 GMT
Dear Shawn,

Your hypothesis is that "non-gravitational interaction cannot occur in the absence of gravity". I essentially agree with you-- recall that Einstein said there is no space "empty of field" and it was the gravitational field he was referring to. My own model of the universe begins with a 'free lunch' big bang in which the (positive) outgoing kinetic energy of the expanding gravitational energy/mass exactly balances the (negative) potential energy of the gravitational self-attraction, thereby achieving zero net energy required for Creation. A brief synopsis of this is in my previous FQXi essay.

However not only do you hypothesize that such interaction cannot occur, you then propose a limit to allowable interaction energy depending upon the local gravity. This is both novel and ingenious. While I doubt it is true, it is the kind of idea that many physicists wish they would have, and many could probably milk quite a bit out of an idea this novel. Your application of the idea to dark energy is well thought out and reasonable, and your application to renormalization is interesting too. The fact that the limit is variable and location-specific makes it even more so.

I'm quite sure there's more in the water up there than Pickerel.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 19:39 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I do have serious reservations about the physical validity of the model presented in my essay, though at the very least it does make for a nice toy. Even if the mechanism is not useful for physicists, perhaps it could be somehow useful in a (video) game. I guess the main point of the exercise...

view entire post

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
Thank you to FQXi for giving a platform to the "crackpots" and professionals alike. There are a lot of great essays about block universe, the limits of mathematics, quantum (and "unquantum") gravity, and many other interesting topics. It's quite awesome.

An extra reference that did not make the final "cut" in my essay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

And, hi to EB. :)

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
I like induced gravity theory

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
Hi Yuri,

I'm glad that you like the idea of emergent/induced gravity. I do too. That doesn't mean that the idea is necessarily right, but it is at least appealing in its relative simplicity.

- Shawn

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 10:52 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 02:54 GMT
To add a little bit more "rigour", just in case some eyebrows are raised:

Using a calculation of E_max = E_p * -2U/c^2, where U = 2/3*pi*G*rho*(-3*r*r) is the gravitational potential at the centre of the Earth (based on a simplifying assumption that the Earth has uniform density -- rho), a photon of energy E = 4.0 J would be able to pass directly through the core of the Earth. As mentioned in the essay, a photon of energy E = 2.7 J would pass through us on the surface of the Earth (where U can be taken to be -G*M/r). Hopefully my calculation for the centre of the Earth has been correct. It was a small detail that naturally leads to more complicated calculations using a non-uniform density, which naturally leads to...

In other words, this calculation was a small thread in a very large sweater that would have only cluttered the essay, so I snipped it off instead of tugging on it. I hope that it doesn't affect anyone's judgement too much. Thank you.

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:39 GMT
More babbling: Would Angry Birds be more fun/challenging if your bird would fly right through a pig if the bird was moving too fast?

You could make the model from the essay even simpler by eliminating the dependence on the gravitational field and just base it on the pig mass alone. King Pig would be more massive than the normal pigs, so you would be allowed to hit him at a higher speed. Those normal pigs would require more finesse to take down.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Shawn,

You make an assumption : < The maximum allowed energy scale of non-gravitational interaction is dependent on how much the metric deviates from the metric of at spacetime.> In connection with your assumption I can add that I tried to solve the problem of interrelation of mass and charge of proton. Can the charge of proton be more then well-known elementary charge? The result is the next: the charge of proton is the charge which is maximum possible for proton. For solution of the problem the process of neutron star creation was studied with the charge. A condition of the creation is that density of zero electromagnetic energy can not exceed the density of gravitational energy otherwise the star can not be created by gravitation. The proton at the level of atoms is similar to neutron star according to the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (see my essay). I found a lot of your paper at vixra.org , for example: http://vixra.org/abs/1002.0009 , about dark matter. I have there a paper too about dark matter: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
Hi Sergey,

Thanks for your comment, and for pointing our your vixra paper and your essay. I have to admit that there are many different points of view when it comes to gravity, dark matter and dark energy, but I don't have the experience to quickly judge which viewpoints are more realistic than others. I suppose I can hazard a guess that since the neutron is similar to the neutron star, and you take this to mean that there is an infinite nesting structure to the Universe, that the Universe is some kind of fractal. I'm not sure if this leaves us with the possibility of a Big Bang? Please feel free to explain your model a little more, if you like. It will take me a while to read through your papers completely and grasp the subtler points.

Indeed, my essay takes part of my old vixra paper from 2010, chops off a part of it and then replaces that with photon creation and annihilation. To be fair, I did list the old paper in the references section of the essay.

Well, I hope things are going well for you, and good luck in the essay contest.

- Shawn

Sergey G Fedosin replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 08:32 GMT
Dear Shawn,

I am sure Big Bang is not necessary to explain the cosmology. There are many other explanations of red shifts of remote galaxies, Microwave Background and other effects. I prefer other idea that not only stars and galaxies are collapsed with the time but the Metagalaxy itself is collapsing as a whole. See the book: Fedosin S.G. Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Hi Sergey,

Thanks for the extra information.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
Another great book on the dark sector of the Universe is:

"Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Cosmos" by Iain Nicolson. (2007, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press).

Lots of pictures and equations.

Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 21:34 GMT
Some related stuff:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10089/gravi
tational-time-dilation-at-the-earths-center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#Spheric
al_symmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

Schutz B. A First Course in General Relativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) - Chapter 10, Section 5: Spherical solutions for stars, the interior structure of the star

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 10:50 GMT
Shawn

What do you think about variation gravitation constant?

my opinion here

Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:01 GMT
Hi Yuri,

Why do these numbers change? Is e the base of the natural logarithm? How are electromagnetism and gravitation related (ie. is gravity emergent)?

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Vasily Kletushkin wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Shawn. I tried to understand your essay on annotations and comments. Official physics, you can interact without gravity to justify the Higgs particle. Your thought is correct: any interaction can occur only under conditions of gravity. At my metaphysical theory, all forms of energy and matter come from heat and information. Heats and information (structure) gravity does not. Gravity is going to heat and the real world. (This excludes Big Bang.) The real world has a mass and gravity. According to this, any interactions can take place only under the force of gravity of matter and gravity of the universe.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 18:10 GMT
Hi Vasily,

Спасибо за чтение моего эссе, и благодар
02; вас за оставив коммента
88;ий. Это веселая тема для размышле
85;ий. :)

Thank you for reading my essay, and thank you for leaving a comment. This is a fun topic to think about. :)

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Copy and paste from Google Translate did not work good. :)

report post as inappropriate

Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 16:58 GMT
Some bets:

- I bet on the chance that an evolved conscious entity did not create or alter life on Earth: I will pay out a nickel if we otherwise find out that life was created or altered.

- Bet on chance that an evolved conscious entity did not create the Universe: two nickels.

- Bet on chance that a Boltzmann brain did not create or altere life on Earth: one nickel.

- Bet on chance that a Boltzmann brain did not create the Universe: one nickel.

- Bet on chance that the many-worlds interpretation is correct: no bet.

- Bet on chance that American Sign Language will never be renamed to something like American Arm-Hand-Finger Meme Language: I will grind up a copy of Jung's Red Book and a copy of the Bible and eat the mixture if this ever does occur.

Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 22:55 GMT
I recently got into some debates over whether or not there is a distinction between information and data.

The distinction can be seen to be real within the context of graph theory and Huffman coding of very short strings made from very small alphabets.

The relevant comments can be found here and here.

What disturbs me is that I regularly see this kind of confusion coming from professional biologists and physicists. Of course, because I refuse to ignore the abuse of Shannon and Jung's work, I've been called a mathematically-illiterate, naive, religion-tolerant, mentally ill man. Well, so be it... it's still obviously better than being one of those biologists or a physicists, because at least I'm right.

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 05:53 GMT
Shawn,

Though you had no way of knowing it up front, you were destined to lose that one. Your views of information are simply different. Consider the exchange:

"I view meaningful information obtained from a physical message as a physical reality that leads to (possible) physical outcomes. [...] by contrast, the "info content" and the "data content" don't seem to lead to physical outcomes."

Unless one is claiming that particles attach "meaning" to information, then one is bringing consciousness into the picture, without of course, defining consciousness. Conscious interpretations provide the 'meaning' for information extracted from data, as I have argued in earlier comments. [I ignore here automated decoding-and-action systems that, in the end, trace to consciousness.]

The bottom line: "...information is physical..." As you noted, a lot of physicists seem to believe this. We can argue until we're blue in the face. I think it's a semi-religious thing based on naive materialism.

The problem: "...subjective experience is the entirely natural way that information is apprehended in the universe. Subjective experience is meaningful information."

Although we all have it, I don't believe 'subjective experience' was defined in that series of exchanges, so how can you argue with "information = undefined thing"? If someone cares to redefine information as "subjective experience" rather than use Claude Shannon's definition, there's no point in arguing. You can't win this one.

But I did find your arguments interesting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I'm not debating the fact that information (entropy) is physical.

What's the information content of a single state? S = ln(1) = 0.

What's the information content of a single particle (think pre-relativistic quantum field theory)? S = ln(1) = 0.

What's the data content for either? Not zero.

No one debates this because it's obviously true. As for anyone who fails to recognize the difference between dsta and information content, they surely do not recognize that Shannon's entire theory relies on more than one distinct state (symbol) to produce information. This isn't some limitation of the log function -- it's how it really is. Information can only emerge from multiple, non-repetitive symbols.

Perhaps if you wish to swap "information content" with "ideal information content" and swap "data content" with "manifest information content", I can see your point of view, but in that world there is no room for the word data. I doubt that the people who study data compression would be obliging. They didn't call it "information compression" for good reason.

- Shawn

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT
And for what it's worth, I'm being quite polite. The debate was about dishonesty (not my word), and I'm simply pointing out the dishonesty of those biologists and physicists who clearly did not thoroughly study pseudo-random number generation, graph theory, source coding (data compression, etc. I really have nothing against the people that I am debating with -- I gave them both quite high scores on their essays.

report post as inappropriate

Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
New bet:

Against the chance that "data compression" is renamed to "information compression" before "sign language" is renamed to "hand gesture meme language": I will pay $20.00 CDN if data compression is renamed first. Thomas Wagner wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 19:54 GMT In spite of all that has been written about gravity over the years we still do not really know exactly just what gravity is. When it comes to motion we haven't a clue. Here is somewhat different approach to the subject of gravity. Einstein, who, more than anyone else gave us our current view of the nature of gravity, said that gravity is not a force and yet in most of contemporary physics... view entire post report post as inappropriate Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 22:41 GMT It is intersting Mr Wagner, You know, all spheres turn .The force of gravitation exists,it is evident. They turn so they are Mr Wagner.in fact the gravitation is proportional with the rotations of spheres.Furthermore the system can be fractalized towards the quantum scale cosidering a cosmological sphere for example. It quantification is correlated. ps the light and mass turn in opposite sense....see the comportment of the gravitation with the volumes of spheres, their finite serie and the finite number, the rotations spinal, the rot.orbital,the motion linear(hv)..... the evidence appears.:) Regards report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT Hi Thomas, First off, I'd like to say that I liked your essay a lot. I absolutely love music, but I did not know a single technical thing about it. I believe that I've learned a lot from the essay. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from with the sine calculation that you're talking about. Could you elaborate further? Usually when I "do" Newtonian gravity, I do... view entire post report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT Jedi, Your powers are no match for the dark side. Just kidding. I've just wanted to say that for a while now. :) - Shawn report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:25 GMT Some links about entropy (information) in physics: http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/physinfocomp/lectures/03.B oltzGibbsShannon.pdf http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/752.mf 1i.spring03/DensityMatrix.htm http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vazirani/s07quantum /notes/qinfo.pdf From what I have read, the calculation of the von Neumann entropy essentially boils down to an equation that is of the same form as the ones in the theory given by Boltzmann/Gibbs/Shannon. Also from what I've read, a mixed state consists of many distinct pure states, and the probabilities of those distinct pure states are used to calculate the entropy. If the probabilities are entirely balanced, then it's referred to as a "maximally mixed state", in which case the entropy is just S = ln(number of distinct pure states in the mixed state). My language may be sloppy, but I am not in any way trying to say that ALL physicists and ALL biologists are wrong. I'm saying that the ones that are wrong are the ones who do not recognize that the Shannon entropy and von Neumann entropy are effectively measuring the same thing -- probabilities of distinct states. Whether a state is defined by spin, charge, etc or by a fixed size block code (ie. ASCII), or by a variable-bit Huffman code, or whatever. A distinct state is a distinct state is a distinct state. Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:51 GMT So, it stands to reason that the entropy of a single pure state, as a whole, alone, is S = ln(1) = 0. This is just like how the letter-state 'a' all by itself has an entropy of S = ln(1) = 0. Entropy emerges only when there are multiple, distinct states under consideration. How informative would English be if it only had one letter? Not informative at all -- it would tell you that the person you're communicating with is there, making sounds or scribbles on paper, but that's about it. Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:50 GMT We were talking about how the universe is or is not like a computer, and I had mentioned 't Hooft's model of a black hole from his paper Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity. I have no idea if it's a correct model or not, but it does illustrate a good point about the higher orders of entropy. Essentially, the black hole's event horizon is made up of N spin-like Boolean degrees of... view entire post Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT Surely I am not the first to try this line of reasoning in order to illustrate the general importance of the second and higher order entropy. I just am not aware of it because I do not read every single paper that comes out, and I would love to read about it if someone has shown the reasoning to be true or false. This kind of thing is used very often to analyze English, where each state is a distinct letter from an alphabet, so it's not like it's an alien thought. Jedi of the Sphere replied on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT Hello, Tell him that a young belgian has found several relevances imrpoving the universal automata. The fractal is from the main central sphere, the biggest volume of the serie of uniqueness. The lattices disappear in the perfect contact. it is the same for our cosmological fractal and its number of spheres. If the space between cosmological spheres disappear, we have the same relativistic logic. It is relevant considering the encoding of evolution and my equations about the mass energy equivalence. The volumes of spheres more their motions(linear,orbital, spinal) are very relevant considering the universal proportions and derivations and integrations. The universal automata is on the road ....of a pure spherization. Regards report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT Needless to say, when I read a sentence such as that from http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/wilkins_js.html : ... "Memes are those units of transmitted information that are subject to selection biases at a given level of hierarchical organization of culture. Unlike genes, they are not instantiated in any exclusive kind of physical array or system, although at base they happen to be stored in and expressed from neurological structures." I come to realize that people are confusing data with information. A meme (symbol/sign) is a unit of data, not a unit of information. The information arises only in the context of multiple memes, their probabilities of occurring, their probabilities of being time-adjacent, etc. Perhaps I'm misreading the intent of the author, but as soon as I hear unit of information, I have to wonder... Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 20:31 GMT At least the guy acknowledges, indirectly, that the data content per meme is flexible, and it's all but independent of the information content ... up to the point where there's a defined less-than operator, which is all that's needed to produce a Boolean test for equality/non-distinctness vs inequality/distinctness. If you do not understand my meaning about the less-than operator, then look up the use of the STL 'set' container and encapsulation/blackboxing via classes and private data members in C++. Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 22:13 GMT Here's a cool link about information and energy: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428670/entangled -particles-break-classical-law-of/ Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT I left this message for Robert McEachern on his essay page: Hi Robert, Here's another attempt at answering your question... "So what is the big deal? What makes this so significant?" After reading: - Your essay - 'The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem' by Pierre Millette - 'An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise' by John Pierce - 'Communication in the Presence of Noise' by Claude Shannon I am left with the impression that Shannon and Piece predicted that the holographic principle would become a naturally accepted concept in physics. They detail how the volume of the signal space "creeps" away from the origin of the space as the dimension of the space increases; how there is dimensional reduction in the message space when compensating for phase "differences" (same message, different phase) that can arise when sampling of the signal. Seems at first glance to be hint at how to get rid of singularities at the centres of black holes. Perhaps it's not quite the same thing. On the other hand, if it's the same thing, then that's quite significant. In any case, I note that Shannon was not directly referenced in 't Hooft's first paper called 'Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity'. - Shawn Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 18:00 GMT P.S. The book 'An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise' by John Pierce makes the distinction that I was making earlier by referring to the difference between the information (referred to as bits) and the data in the message (referred to as just "binary digits"). Let's give the content sent as "binary digits" a name: data. So, you send x bits of data, it has y bits of information, and the redundancy in the data is x - y. Now, if someone wishes to say that "the information is physical", and wishes to take that to the extreme, then you can say that the redundancy will never be greater than 1 bit. In that case, nature automatically would implement variable-length quantum Huffman codes. Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 18:07 GMT What they call a message, I would call a composite datum (a symbol, made up of binary symbols0. Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT Oh yeah... do notice how the data bits x per message is always an integer, and that y and r are not necessarily so unless the number of messages is a power of two and all messages are equiprobable. Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 20:04 GMT Dear Shawn, This is a very interesting idea you are proposing. I have two questions. 1. Have you thought about inflation in the early universe in this context? It immediately comes to mind after reading your essay as something your ideas could possibly explain. Some physicists have proposed an as-of-yet unidentified "inflaton field" that drove inflation but seems to be absent today. From the perspective of your idea, one could hypothesize that the decrease in energy density (and hence gravitational interaction) "turned off" or "damped out" the inflaton field after the initial expansion. 2. There is a theoretical energy limit (called the GZK limit) for cosmic rays from distant sources, based on the hypothesized interaction of the particles with background radiation along their trajectories. However, cosmic rays have been observed with energies above this limit. This seems to be another piece of data your idea could possibly explain: along most of their trajectories, cosmic rays from distant sources would be in regions of low gravitational interaction, and hence would not interact with the background radiation. Thus, they would preserve more of their energy than conventionally predicted. Have you thought about this possibility? If you like, take a look at my essay On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics. It has a completely different viewpoint, but it's possible you may get some interesting ideas from it as I did from yours. Take care, Ben Dribus report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 20:38 GMT Hi Ben, It's really hard to say for me whether the model is just a toy or would have a desirable effect on the real phyiscs. I have tried to think of how things would have been like near the Big Bang in the context of the model, but I haven't any crystal clear thoughts on the matter. It was actually the GZK limit that got me started on this. It started out as a numerology (centred around the energy scale 10^19 eV) and then came the creation and annihilation idea a while later. I have thought about how this would affect the propagation of cosmic rays, but again, nothing crystal clear. To be honest, it's been a month now since I thought about the whole thing for more than a couple of minutes at a time. I'm bored with it. At worst, it is a toy model that can make for a possibly useful video game idea. - Shawn Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 21:09 GMT Notice that when you analyze the classical binary messages that the mean radial distance increases, but the standard deviation decreases. It does kind of seem, at first glance, like a "spherization" of the positions in the message (state) space. The C++ code is attached. In the following list, the "max message size" is the number of bits per message. So the first in the list... view entire post attachments: radius.txt Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 23:41 GMT Attached is an image of the radii for different spaces of n bits, where n = 10, 18, 26. The radii are normalized by sqrt(n), binned, and then drawn. The lighter coloured lines (bins) have more messages in them. The radii slowly creep together as n increases. attachments: shell.jpg Author Shawn Halayka replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 17:25 GMT ... This is all equivalent to saying: The set of n-bit messages contains 2^n messages total. The bits in each message are Cartesian coordinates in the message space, and the radial distance squared of each message (the count of the bits with the value 1 in the message) can be any one of the integer values 0 through n. The number of n-bit messages with the radial distance squared x is f(n, x) = n! / [x! (n - x)!] which is a way of counting the combinations (see binomial coefficient). Summing the various f(n, x) for x from 0 through n, the grand total is 2^n. Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 01:23 GMT Dear Shawn Halayka Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable. So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us. Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model. Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter: You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere. Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth? The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ? Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not? You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion. Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ? Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems. Kind Regards ! Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 21:53 GMT Hello, Thanks for your comment. Have a good day. - Shawn report post as inappropriate Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:13 GMT After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours. Cood luck. Sergey Fedosin report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT Hi Sergey, Thanks for your rating, whatever it may have been. Good luck in the contest as well. - Shawn report post as inappropriate Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:31 GMT If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is $R_1$ and $N_1$ was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have $S_1=R_1 N_1$ of points. After it anyone give you $dS$ of points so you have $S_2=S_1+ dS$ of points and $N_2=N_1+1$ is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have $S_2=R_2 N_2$ of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: $S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$ or $(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$ or $dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$ In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points $dS$ then the participants rating $R_1$ was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process. Sergey Fedosin report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:40 GMT Okay! report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT Dimensionology. See attached (some references still missing). attachments: shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT "Van der Pauw sheet resistance and the Schwarzschild black hole" The entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole is considered in terms of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication and van der Pauw's theory of sheet resistance. attachments: 1210.0021v1.pdf S Halayka replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT Could very well be "sheet conductance", if you want to think of a black hole with zero temperature as a superconductor... Which might be more reasonable than taking the backwards approach in the paper. Will add this in for v2.0, with references re: extremal black holes. report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 23:26 GMT v2 attachments: 1_shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 19:27 GMT "Van der Pauw sheet resistance-conductance and the Schwarzschild black hole" v3 With section on black hole interior volume / volume derivative. attachments: 2_shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 23:59 GMT v4 Added intro, conclusion. Expanded sections on binary discrete signals and black hole interior volume / volume derivative. Made it clear that it's not the theory of everything handed down to me by alien space gods... attachments: 3_shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 00:04 GMT Oh yeah, moved the mention of the factorial / Stirling's approximation to the section on binary discrete signals. ;) S Halayka replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 17:32 GMT Perhaps it is not obvious that getting the "root" signals (a set of points on an (n-1)D shell) from all of the signals (a set of points on an nD ball) is a matter of ignoring noise and phase distortion. Came up with a toy "wavelet" reconstruction of the continuous signal to show how this "dimensional reduction" is straightforward and natural (even for toy models). Will add it in soon. I got a job in construction! Should be indoors. Bonus. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT LOL. Outdoors! report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT Looking around at all the comments from the past two weeks... Like I kind of hinted at a month or two ago: if this particular essay contest was not a psychology experiment, it should have been. report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 19:23 GMT v5 Added section on noise and phase distortion, touched up other areas. Not quite done. attachments: 4_shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT v6. Cleaned it up. Added a few more references. Mentioned the distinction between the signal space and the message space. attachments: 5_shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT v7. Added some more references (Foundations of Physics is free to view for now, so that's nice), touched a few things up. attachments: 6_shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT v8. Spell chek. attachments: 7_shannon.pdf Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT v9. Added some discussion of signal-to-noise ratio and temperature. attachments: 8_shannon.pdf S Halayka wrote on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 05:10 GMT v10. Tried to make the discussion of temperature more coherent. attachments: 9_shannon.pdf report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 14:26 GMT Looking through the work of A Khrennikov. Emailed them... asked for comments, suggestions, criticisms. report post as inappropriate Jedi of the SPHERE replied on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 19:04 GMT Hello, I didn't know the works of A.Khrennikov I see also on google that Mr Khrennikov has made several experiments proving the indivisibility of a single photon. It seems relevant. I ask me what is a single photon.In my line of reasoning correlated with my theory of spherization in 3D. The serie of uniqueness is also for a single photon. The serie of spherical volumes decreasing from the main central sphere can answer to several doubts.I beleive simply that we have uncompleteness due to our limits of evolution, indeed we are still young at the universal scale. We are far of our walls separating this infinite light without motion , time and dimension and the physical sphere in evolution with its intrinsic physical cosmological spheres and quantum spheres. The serie of uniqueness is very intriguing. A photon probably possesses this serie, this fractal. But we are far. The indivisibility is just a relative perception. In fact it is indivisible for our physicality, but not for an extrapolation of our mind. The informations can be correlated with volumes and the rotations. The main central sphere like the main code, the biggest spherical volume. Regards report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT I can sense the force in you. :) report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 00:04 GMT v11. Minor touches. Contemplating adding something in about a shell of n qubits being modeled as a string of n 2^n classical bits, decided against it. Just added a link to fuzzball black holes instead. Pretty much it for now. attachments: 10_shannon.pdf report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 00:13 GMT I do gotta love it when people give me heat for not including 50000 references to papers that are likely buried behind a paywall... when my argument is based on the notion that people are REALLY TOO BLOODY CHEAP TO PUT A REFERENCE TO SHANNON'S ORIGINAL WORK IN THEIR OWN PAPERS. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 00:16 GMT Jeeze, or maybe they're not too cheap. Maybe the controversy really does exist, and people weren't referencing this stuff like they should have been because they really had no idea about it. I sure have read a lot of stuff on black holes, and this stuff here is not exactly yelled from the rooftops by everyone... so... what's the deal, people? report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 00:23 GMT Ahh, maybe it's because Shannon's dead and no one thought that anyone would notice. Oh, it's fun being a sourball. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT Hey everyone, let's pillage the dead! Yarr... LOL. Ok, I'll quit. :) report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT Jedi, I'm not really surprised by humans, actually. I knew to expect a whole lot of learned behaviour on display here that would go to show how the death drive and the God archetype are critically "important" aspects of theoretical physics. I seriously wonder if this essay contest would have made for a great psychology experiment -- throw all the crackpots into a pile and watch them fight like dogs and treat each other like they've been treated by professionals (no names named, but the lesser pros make lists on how to objectify / falsely classify people for fun and sport). If it's an industry based on love, like some FQXi'ers proclaim, then it's definitely a love that's in the closet, so to speak. Instead, all I'm seeing are cocky mathematicians with no game, making fun of the possibility of alien life because they have absolutely nothing useful to do or say. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 15:00 GMT ... And then there are the "philosophers" who mistake noise for multiverse, while simultaneously spewing out death-filled nonsense about how religion is based on ignorance. Yeah, there's no professionally-generated death drive or God archetype going on there... report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT Haha, maybe I'm being too close-minded. Maybe there's an alternative Universe where I can crack open the first chapter of The Information and read all about how Shannon is the founder of quantum gravity, because HE IS. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT One consolation is that I will no longer have to sit and shake my head at those so-called professionals who sit around asking "who's the next Einstein?". The next Einstein has already lived and died -- it was Shannon. At least one big fish at FQXi knows this, which I suppose is why they're asking the right question: "who's the next Shannon?". I dunno who the next Shannons are, but I wanna read what they have to say. Oh yeah, a big hello to Professional Stalker Ibbitson. Am I being crude enough for you? report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT All we had to do was have one positive, non-prejudicial essay contest, but we couldn't even do that, could we? And people say that I'm crude. LOL. Humans. report post as inappropriate Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT Hi, it is good that you keep on thinking after the march is done. If interested in a GOD relation pls read the attachement, my original essay is number 1370. best regards and hope to receive your comments on my thread Wilhelmus report post as inappropriate Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT The attachement did not work I try again report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 17:21 GMT Hi Wilhelmus, I will take a peek at your essay again for sure. I will leave a question for you on your page. - Shawn report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT P.S. I'm not so much looking for a connection to religion. I'm more interested in showing that the archetypal behaviour behind religion is in full bloom right here in the so-called paradise of science... death drive, control, elimination of the outliers, blah, blah, blah. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT Happy Halloween. Added a couple of references, made it obvious that the noise thing is important. Fun. attachments: 11_shannon.pdf report post as inappropriate Jedi of the SPHERE wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT I didn't know the works of Shannon, it seems very relevant considering the theory of informations. The correlations and convergences are numerous and universal. The informations can be correlated with the bosonic oscillations and the fermionic oscillations also. The taxonomy of informations is essential. They must be classed in fact. If the entropy is correlated, so the universal spherical automata seems relevant. If we take the infinite light, a sphere of pure light without motion, times and dimensions,and inside of this pure light a physical sphere and its intrinsic quantum spheres and cosmological spheres, in spherization evolution optimization of course. So we can understand the importance of codes inside the main central spheres. The informations are numerous and that's why the taxonomy of these informations is essential. The volumes are also essential. The gravitational stability is seen with a rationality if we analyze the spherical volumes of the serie of uniqueness. The bosonic informations seem having smaller volumes. The rotations spinal and orbital also are relavant.the informations in all case are spheres, quanta of pure energy, of pure information. The codes are so complex ands so simple in fact. Thanking you spherically yours report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 20:43 GMT It could very well be that we are talking about the same thing. I'm sure that you're at least a little familiar with the work of Shannon? He solidified the foundations of information theory in the 1940s, so yes, his work is generally very important when it comes to the study of data and information. In any case, did you study in an academic environment, like a university? I didn't, and the only reason I "lucked" on to Shannon was that I was a Wide Area Network analyst for many years and so he was a bit of a role model. Of course, he was friends with von Neumann, and Shannon's mathematical theory of communication is really Shannon's physical theory of communication, so his work is also very much related to the foundations of physics, and it's no gigantic shock that all it takes it a crackpot with a toy version of his work to show that the black hole radiates signals once you add in an iota of noise. There are a lot of people who studied in a university environment (NO PAYWALL) who had absolutely no excuse to ignore Shannon's importance for decades. And to think that all of this nonsense was going on largely via the Internet and other forms of telecommunication. How... ironic. Do you have your work online anywhere that I can read it? report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 20:56 GMT Oh yeah, did you hear that Disney bought Lucasfilm, and that they're projecting a 2015 release for Episode 7? Exhilarating and scary all at once. I hope that it pans out as well as it did for Tron Legacy. Wicked. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 23:28 GMT Dude, I see now that you speak French. If you ever feel the need to speak that language instead of English here, be my guest -- whichever language you are able to best express yourself in is fine by me (il n'y a pas de probleme). I also see that you've run into "shrink" on the web. Him and his buddies are quite the sane professionals, aren't they? report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka wrote on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 19:21 GMT I think maybe FQXi has some database commit issues, because some of my comments vanished. FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 20:43 GMT Actually your comments were flagged as inappropriate and found to contain unacceptable content, specifically personal insults. Please keep in mind that the FQXi forums are for educational and scientific purposes. this post has been edited by the forum administrator report post as inappropriate Author Shawn Halayka replied on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 23:43 GMT Sounds reasonable. S Halayka wrote on Nov. 4, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT An essay (from Saskatoon!!!) that says that the integer samples are just without phase: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/912 But, noise is important too. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT Of course, there are two reasons to perform a "categorifaction" of something: - To to turn the model of such a thing from a giant bundle of procedural spaghetti code, scattered all over the place into a model with clearly defined boundaries (and relationships that transcend those boundaries) -- to create a relational, object-oriented version of the model. - To actually get around to... view entire post report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT P.S. So yeah, when I say that physicists have a huge ignorance of Shannon and Jung's work, it's largely because they're too afraid to face the demise of their current state -- they are too afraid to properly acknowledge the supremacy of the electronic component of the collective unconscious over the biological component. No, checking your email and reading I Can Haz Cheezburger doesn't count as facing up to it, sorry. - Shawn report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 17:02 GMT P.P.S. So when I see physicists saying on one hand "I love Shannon, because he rules, and Jung was sooooo cool" and on the other hand saying "you don't do physics very well because you don't know the system", I just have to shake my head in total digust -- my tax dollars pay for this ridiculous self-flagellation/self-congratulation, which amounts to something that's as close-minded as say, ultra-conservative religion. I see your system for exactly what it is, and you don't have a clue. report post as inappropriate Jedi of the SPHERE wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT could you develop the work of Shannon please in begining with the 0 and the 1 please the turn on and the turn off .... Regards report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT Hi Steve, I appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to pass on it. Sorry. I can tell you though that it's not just about zeroes and ones -- it's about the classification of all kinds of symbols and signs, in an optimal way that attempts to suffer minimally from error. My main concern is that the conversion of "physics" from a set of symbols (mysterious) to a set of signs currently relies on direct human (read: inherently prejudicial) interpretation of the portion of the collective unconscious pertaining to "physics" -- namely, professors/writers are human, and that's not optimal. Would you, personally, love to have an artificially intelligent machine to teach you physics -- and to monitor / advance the current progress in physics -- so that you don't have to dig around for this knowledge via books and google and, well, human professors? It sounds far-fetched at first, but all of the technology basically already exists -- and how bad could it really be to turn this portion of the collective unconscious from a semi-incoherent babble of a million voices into a single coherent voice? The current physics suffers hardcore from multiple personality disorder. - Shawn report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT (I guess you could say that prejudice is personality) report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT It really, really is like they're saying "I'm building the tower of Babel", but they're only really building the shed of Babel because they're afraid that God will strike them dumb if they really stop toeing the line. You can tell just by looking at the sorry, shabby state of their portion of the collective unconscious -- it's still in the exact same relational format as it was when the printing press had been just invented, with a snazzy search feature that is effectively strapped on with duct tape and sweet but hopeless intentions. - Shawn report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 22:08 GMT I shouldn't have to rely on other humans to ensure I am upholding type safety and the known-good results from unit tests when I start monkeying around with the physics. It should be automagic, it should be standardized. Until the physics gets ISO standards certification -- so that its outline can be pinned down enough to be automated -- it is just a higgly-piggly 15th century-esque hack job. - Shawn report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 22:24 GMT I'll end by quoting directly from the ISO website: "What are the benefits of ISO International Standards? ISO International Standards ensure that products and services are safe, reliable and of good quality. For business, they are strategic tools that reduce costs by minimizing waste and errors and increasing productivity. They help companies to access new markets, level the playing field for developing countries and facilitate free and fair global trade." This is not just nonsense corporate PR yuppie babble. This is pretty much exactly what physics could be -- and pretends to be -- but most certainly is not. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT And meanwhile, Anonymous poses with its finger up its nose, doing and saying nothing particularly useful about how the progression of humanity might take place... oh, you're so epic. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT Not to sound like a fascist pig or anything, but perhaps it's not obvious that the collective unconscious is like a shared mind. Once you eliminate the problems' of 1) plagiarism 2) hunting for references 3) errors due to type safety infractions, and general design bugs which do not pass standardized testing all in one fell swoop due to automated, electronic methods, then you'll be doing the collective unconscious in the way that Shannon, Jung, and I suppose Russell, meant for it to actually be. Basically, the entire Chaos, Solitons & Fractals episode would not have occurred if there was any kind of beyond-minimal standardization and global participation in place in modern physics. And no wonder why it's such a pain to learn decent physics in school -- it's all practically medieval. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 18:43 GMT P.S. Negroponte is always an inspiration too! report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 19:22 GMT Given the discordance between the actual solution and the attempted pseudo-implementation (the all-but-total annihilation of CS&F and a few papers talking about nothing particularly important), only a slime mold would be dumb enough to be tricked into thinking that you had a clue about what the actual state of things are. So yep, you just keep writing copious amounts of blog posts about "crackpots" and pretend like you were all about being part of the solution -- I'm absolutely not sorry that I "stole" your idea (well, Shannon and Jung and Russell's idea, actually) and made it into something that is actually useful and coherent. Is that not the definition of professional ruin? report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 22:22 GMT +1 crackpot point for not seeing the forest for the trees because you're too busy chasing after phantom squirrels! report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 22:23 GMT -1 crackpot point for setting the whole thing on fire because it's not worth saving! report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT +1 crackpot point for pretending that your critique of CS&F wasn't a self-indictment. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT 10^10+ crackpot points for pretending that dishonest, sassy facetiousness is civility. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT What a bunch of posers. report post as inappropriate S Halayka wrote on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT Come to think of it, I doubt that Mathematica is really on the right path to the future. Functionality-wise, it's pretty impressive, but altogether it's really just about collecting money from academia, and so it would not be in Mathematica's best interest for the future to arrive. It's like Microsoft, but without the actual philanthropy and progression of humanity. What a bunch of posers. I like Sage (sagemath.org), because you can tell that they're not total corporate pigs. Not posers. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT Wow, that actually makes sense... because the biggest Mathematica fan that I know just loves to call people crackpots and pretend that the current academic trend in sadomasochism is a sign of genius (and not a sign that you need a psychiatrist). LOL. Yep, you're a rock star buddy. Keep dreamin. report post as inappropriate S Halayka replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT Extra corporate viper points if you pose for pictures with your Mac because you believe that the image of a$1600 hunk of metal will convince the masses that you think differently. Bwahahahaahahahahaahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

SAMO.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Oh yeah, running some DNA sequences through a Perl regular expression parser is NOT an example of biology-centric type safety, sorry.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 15:44 GMT
Apparently no one's impressed with my corporate/academic viper impersonation. :(

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
I even did it without making my lips move, and everything. :(

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT
Simply discarding wrong or incomplete theories is not the goal. It is more subtle than that -- more like steering, or guiding, or assisting. It's certainly not about yelling "You're a stupid crackpot" at the AI user; it's more about the love of learning than that.

Plus, one's work using the AI need not always, or ever, be in a public state (in the collective unconscious); it could be protected or private, insomuch that some theories may never be seen by anyone but a group of, or, a single author, and so the judgement of the value of one's use of the AI -- as judged by the AI -- need never be known to the world.

And there can be filters, of course. You wouldn't want just anyone climbing all over that brand new standardized network and leaving a trail of permanent graffiti, right arxiv?

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
Hey, the professional stalkers could always use something like this too, seeing how they just hate to skewer their own kind with plagiarism charges.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT
News vipers!

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT
Wow, Springer has:

"Service Oriented Computing and Applications"

"Journal of Cloud Computing"

"Distributed and Parallel Databases"

"New Generation Computing"

"Distributed Computing"

LOL. Why the systemic disarray and general presence of pig patootie? Because corporate pigs just love it when their sty is ultra messy.

And here you clowns are fighting to open the flood gates and let all the patootie run all over the farmyard -- oh, but you're very specific about what kind of patootie you'll accept, because you're very astute connoisseurs of patootie -- instead of JUST CLEANING UP YOUR DISGUSTING MESS and start living like humans.

This would not be a problem if you were doing the collective unconscious right, but you just can't see past your snouts for long enough to get your patootie together. Yep, keep pretending that CS&F wasn't a self-indictment.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 00:14 GMT
Prestige is a mental illness, and it's clearly a problem, in case you're just not homing in on the message.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 01:06 GMT

Lipstick on a pig.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 03:25 GMT
Non-professional, same as me, Shawn Halayka,

"Prestige is a mental illness..." Or, prestige is earned, deserved, and reacted to graciously by the earner who may exhibit one or more positive traits that produce results that empower others. What is clear is that it is bestowed upon one by others. Those others must ultimately include professionals.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 09:54 GMT

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 20:22 GMT
The answers you need are all pretty much outlined somewhere in the 1994/1995 volumes of Dr. Dobbs. Look for cubes. I assume you're not too proud to read something low-brow like a comp sci magazine.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 21:03 GMT
LOL. The Wikipedia page on trans-humanity makes it sound like a physicist and an anthropologist cracked the concept of trans-humanity wide open in 2007.

Maybe if they were low-brow enough to read the newspaper, they would have read about it in The National Post's Saturday arts section in the late, late 1990s... Like I did, when I was making a living at dishing out the best ice cream cones north of the border, evar.

What a bunch of posers.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 18:07 GMT
The mathematical notation is to save paper and ink, to reduce redundancy.

We don't need actual paper for this kind of work, for one. Plus, you can keep the redundancy (or lack thereof) as is. When you read a "paper", you should be able to rip apart the equations and tinker with them, right on the spot. Right now when you click on a formula in a paper, you don't get this kind of exploratory power.

Object-oriented, relational, standardized data isn't just about slapping your code into some classes and writing your text in Unicode. It's about utterly destroying all of the book-centric thinking that doesn't provide any actual benefit in a connected, electronic age. The current topology is not appropriate. Increasing the complexity of the topology doesn't need to amount to utter chaos if proper standardization is applied.

We can work on eliminating "natural" languages later. Baby steps.

There are people who are perfectly intelligent and capable, but they are being thwarted by the state of things. It's pretty much like trying to pick your nose while wearing boxing gloves. No wonder why most people give up, and take pleasure in announcing their mathematical illiteracy -- they're not masochists. You can label them all you like as "crackpots", or "lazy", or just "downright intellectually inferior", but you're not really fooling anyone over the age of 30. The prestige that you afford yourself, while pretending to be an innovator in public outreach, is simply insulting. It's just the same old blah blah blah.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Maybe if the federal government tossed \$100 million into my lap I'd feel responsible enough to do it myself (after I hire an army). And here you're making excuses. It's utterly insulting. WE paid you orders of magnitude more than what was required to improve the world, so do it.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 21:35 GMT
Shawn,

At home there are a couple of music programmes that allow input of samples of music and the modification and combining of them in various ways. Sounds can be customised to personal preference but it is too easy. It does not give the pleasure and immersion of playing a musical instrument, though that takes dedication. We also recognise that kind of 'cut and paste' or generic 'cloned' music when we hear it, it is superficial, malnourishing.

Sometimes things are written in a particular way for a particular purpose and to tinker with it is to make it into something entirely different, not necessarily better, that it is not. The trouble with the written word or equation is that it does not change but that is also its strength. Papers have margins for a purpose, (that are missing in the electronic form).I like playing with ideas but I can't actually change someone else's work into my misunderstanding of what it should be. It has its own integrity, to be valued and respected, even if personally disliked as it is.

I think that there is a danger in a free for all where there is no respect for the integrity and value of the original, unique innovation or creative excellence, and instead endless pop rehashing of the old or 'formulaic' repetition by anyone talented or not. All of the paintings in the kindergarten are beautiful.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 22:04 GMT
Oops, programs : )

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 18:38 GMT
This is the part where you say "we're already aware" and dismiss this as a triviality, thus yet again exposing the fact that the only thing you care about is buffing up your pension.

Hey, maybe some genius new wave wanna be band can write a song about that.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
Hey ZOMG, you could even use something like this to point out self-plagiarism in physics AND music, because we all know that's utterly despicable, don't we?

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 13, 2012 @ 01:30 GMT
Why do anonymous cowards think that they're clever, fishing for comments? I'm not going anonymous because I'm expecting privacy -- I'm doing it to mock you. Of course, if you we're paying attention, you'd already know that -- kind of like how you'd already know that I've been working on this project for years. Sorry that I've got other stuff to do too, but at least I've recognized the problem.

Perhaps you can prove your cleverness by formatting your comments in LaTeX; pretend that you're Don Knuth.

Apparently you're missing all the other comments from the actual kids?

Try not to misinterpret me too much, k?

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 13, 2012 @ 03:28 GMT
A teacher is one who makes himself progressively unnecessary. - Carruthers

The multitude of books is making us ignorant. - Voltaire

I'm not making this stuff up on the fly.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 07:41 GMT
Hi Shawn,

Why you need to fail This short video makes me feel better about my 'practice'so far. The result of the study was very interesting to me too. I thought you and others might like it too.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 13, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
Oh noes, there's movement in the tall grass. Yawn.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 13, 2012 @ 04:58 GMT
Hi James,

Thank you for the link. I did a google search for your name and found some more writings on physics. If you're ever interested in discussing things, my email is darkessay@gmail.com. It's probably best that I refrain from visiting FQXi again, and I've disabled email notifications on this thread, so no offence meant to anyone who doesn't receive a reply to comments made here.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate