FQXi Community

This talk is concerned with tensor networks as a data structure in probabilistic modelling and for learning dynamical laws from data.

Keywords: #Informationasfuel

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.

Hi Mr Eisert, I love it because I consider two fuels in my model, and it is the informations of photons and cold dark matter, I consider them like fuels permitting in merging with the main codes of the space vacuum to create the physicality and its topologies, geometries,fields, matters. If we take the tensors neural networks, it can be relevant to consider the senses correlated with this space...

view entire post

Hi Mr Eisert, I love it because I consider two fuels in my model, and it is the informations of photons and cold dark matter, I consider them like fuels permitting in merging with the main codes of the space vacuum to create the physicality and its topologies, geometries,fields, matters. If we take the tensors neural networks, it can be relevant to consider the senses correlated with this space time.

It seems for me that the AI can be better understood with our relativistic space time due to our senses and observations, but for the consciousness we must consider the two others , the cold dark matter and the space vacuum of this DE , all seems a question of geometrization and we have two main roads philosophically speaking, my model consider the 3D spheres like foundamental objects and so the origin of our reality come from coded particles, but there is like a conjecture with the strings, points and the fields like origin, the aim maybe if to find this conjecture and rank so the particles, the 3 main finite series.

I told me that the E8 exceptional group of lie can be relevant but in replacing the points or strings with the 3 series of 3D spheres and we consider E8XE8XE8 , and we preserve the volumes, the number finite and we consider the properties of encodings of spheres , the symplectomorphisms can be utilised instead of a ricci flow for the deformations. The subgroups can be ranked with the non commutativity and non associativity also.

All sems a question of geonetrization and topologies but we must find this conjecture philosophical and ontological between the strings and the 3D spheres. I consider a pure 3D at all scale and not extradimensions beginning in 1D at this planck scale connected with a 1D main field of this cosmic space time of this GR, it is due to fact that I dont consider the GR like the only one piece of puzzle simply, the 2 other spacetimes seem essential and the philosophy also to reach this consciousness wich is different than this intelligence.

That can permit to better understand the sensory inputs with the sortings,synchros, superimposings of informations like fuelds in considering their time lifes and the densities for the stabilities of these informations, and so we can rank them and differenciate them in function of their importances.We arrive even at this body mind soul problem but it is an other story.

The brain is fascinating and these microtubules seem essential like the geometrization,all this to tell that the inputs and outputs can be ranked for the machine learning in function of these informations and their importance, the free will being also important. The fact that this consciousness correlated with the machine learning permitting to the neural networks to be aware of these universal truths can permit to rank these informations like fuels and their time life and densities , the fact in my model that the volumes of spheres and the number don t change become essential for these rankings.

The eyes for the observations are important but are not sufficient at my humble opinion like the fact to consider only the GR , we must consider the other senses and the other spacetimes superimposed.

I liked your work , thanks for sharing, regards

view post as summary

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 17, 2021 @ 11:28 GMT

I told me that these senses and these spacetimes more the central nervous system are the keys with the geometrization of brains and the tensors , it is there that the ranking of inputs and outputs become essential and the informations like fuels , these densities of 3D spheres in my model and the fact that the volumes are preserved and that the number of primordial series don t change when they merge become important at my humble opinion. We must mimate the biology and this universe simply , simple generally but so complex in the details and the chosen mechanisms lol.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 17, 2021 @ 12:21 GMT

Returning about the conjecture strings, spheres. We can utilise the ricci flow and converge with the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes and consider the perelman proof also for the poincare conjecture. After this , all is a question of geometrizations and classifications in mimating the biological systems . The brains, the neural mechanisms,...but also the DNA. It is there that the conjecture become relevant about the fields, waves, particles for the strings and the 3D spheres , in converging with a pure 3D because they are in motions, oscillations, vibrations rotations these foundamental objects , the 3D spheres. The building blocks can be ranked and the inputs, outputs of these informations like fuels.

That implies a necessary good ranking of biological databases. The real difficulty seems to create the good algorythms and symbols under the foundamental equations in physics. The real universal learning machine is there. The codes, the strings algorythms and the spheres algorythms in resume must be the key if we consider the good general philosophy and the good foundamental objects. I told me that the hopf fibrations on the surfaces of bloch spheres could help for the conjecture.

An other point important considering the two fuels is that all is coded form this space vacuum , so the cold and heat are coded implying relevant distributions to rank thermodynamically speaking.That implies thermodynamic algoryhms also. And if my reasoning is correct about the quantum gravitation, we can consider the lectromagntic known algorythms more the gravitational ones in encoding this cold dark matter. All this if it is harmonised can permit general global algorythms where the machine universal learning is correlated and even the consciousness different from this intelligence.

report post as inappropriate

I fully agree with the concept of gravity based on quantum theory. I offer you your point of view.

The theory of everything is mainly associated with the general theory of relativity and the standard model. On the one hand, the equivalence principle and on the other hand the gauge principle. The two principles are completely opposite to use, one for space-time geometry, the other for...

view entire post

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 11:36 GMT

Hi , good general idea, but If I can, the theory of everything is not possible for several reasons, we have too much limitations and even in 10000 years of sciences on earth it will be still the same, and also I have remarked that the aim is not only to unify the GR and the standtard model and the QFT , the real aim is to unify all the unknown, and the Dark energy , the dark matter, the consciousness, the quantum grvitation must be indeed added and superimposed to our standard model , and the problem I have remarked is mainly philosophical, many forget to think beyond the box and consider only this GR and after points or strings inside these photons to explain these geometries, topologies, I don t know why the majority of thinkers consider that the photons are the only one primoridal essence of the universe, they are just quanta of energy permitting the electromagnetic fields, the fact to observe and the heat, Einstein said also that it doubted that the photons were the only one answer, the fact to focus only on this to unify G c and h , the QM and the GR is the problem, they cannot explain the deep unknowns, it is not renormalisable simply in this line of reasoning, it lacks things.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 11:59 GMT

I try to give a different line of reasoning, and I will publish this year having quantified this QG, I have invented the spherical geometrical topological algebras and 3D spheres and 3 main finite primoridal series generally speaking in taking the main codes in this space vacuum of this DE. The two others are just fuels permitting the electromagnetic and gravitational fields in the standard model when they merge with this space vacuumm.

It seems evident that we must go beyond the general relativity , and the BHs are important also for the bridge .I have even quantum BHs implying a fith force .

We need to think beyond the box and not only with fluctutations of this GR and also the foundamental objects are important, I consider 3D spheres instead of points or strings and the aim is not only to consider I repeat the GR.

The Mtheory or loops or others were good approaches but they have not quantified it. The main error for me is to consider the planck lenght , the quantum gravitation is a classical mechanic respecting the newtonian mechanic. A problem that I have remarked is this GR and the fields like origin of our topologies, geometries, the fields are emergent and not the main cause from this GR and EFE. That implies that these gravitons are not the quanta of gravitational waves so in reseume simply, the gravitation is the main universal cheif orchestra.

That is why it is not renormalisable with the fields due to the free assymptoptically analysis in resume. It is there the problem of energy and scale. It is really the fact that this standard is emergent and that the fields are just due to photons encoded in this space vacuumm. See that we need an other thing encoded in this space vacuumm to explain this QG and the antimatter, and this cold dark matter answers.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 12:38 GMT

I have searched to understand why since the best thinkers focus on this QG , they have not renormlised and quantified it, it is simply due to their foundamental objects, their general philosophy of the universe and the fields of this GR like origin of all. They have all tried in fact with violations of the lorentz invariances or with fluctuations of relativiscti spacetime, or with non commutativities in the strings or geometrical algebras. But no they cannot reach it . Now in taking this DE and cold DL superimposed and spherically symmetrical for the 3 spacetimes, and in considering the 3 main finite series of 3D spheres primoridal, they can reach it, this GR have really created a prison. Even in considering non-perturbative quantization of general relativity. The spinors or tensors of this or that or all the modes and oscillations possible of this MTheory , that does not solve because simply these particles of gravitationa are not from photons and are not the quanta of the gravitational waves or different modes of this GR.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 12:51 GMT

Now the real relevance if my reasoning is correct is to make the good experiments and this cold seems the answer for the two other spacetimes to superimpose , the dark energy for the codes of this spacevacuum and the cold dark matter permitting to balance, but even with a kind of bose einstein condensate , the problems seems the measures and the scales to reach in 3D. I am not a specialist of adapted experiments , but it is possible to see the interactions if the symmetries are well extrapolated for these interactions. I believe that the anti particles are correlated with the fact that this cold dark matter is encoded in nuclei permitting the balace with the heat. And the distances between postirons and quantum BH s are the answer, I have calculated approximatelly , that permit better results fot this QG. The fith force appearing also seems relevant considering the energy of the space vacuumm. This standard model is just emergent , it is because the space vacuumm of this DE possesses the main codes and after encodes the photons to create the 3 known forces and encode the cold dark matter to create the quantum gravitational fields and the balance of this anti matter , and the number of phtons encoded simply explain with the densities of the series of 3D spheres wich does not change the forces. I ask me if the gravitation has not several different gravitational forces also considering the densities and number of cold dark matter encoded but it is an other story, the same for the fith force appearing. The standard model so is like encircled by a deeper logic . The cosmological scale is a little bit in the same reasoning . See that this DE and DM permits also to explain the evolution. We can even predict the future with both and the cosmological constant can be better understood.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 13:44 GMT

The real main cause for me in my model of spherisation and these 3D spheres is the space vacuum of this DE, all seems there, the 3 spacetimes imply a superfluidity , and the secret to reach this quantum gravitation is to consider this vacuum coded and the particles of cold dark matter encoded in resume . Symmetries exist and the relativistic quantum field theory is not sufficient simply. The main importance is to think beyond this relativistic reasoning , the quanta of gravitational waves are from photons, the quanta of this quantum gravitation are not the same even with different modes and oscillations of these photons in 1D at this planck scale. The cold is essential for both , the DE and the DM, the BEC is essential, there is probably a fractal towards this zero absolute and many new relevances technologically and physically speaking there , there is a partition with the spheres .

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 13:56 GMT

That makes sense philosophically speaking when we consider a central main cosmological sphere, the biggest volume sending these series of 3D spheres , the 3 main primordial finite series having the same finite number than our cosmological finite serie. It is a like a super matter energy physical , it is there that this infinite eternal consciousness an energy in 0D , without time, space has created the first physical system , the proportions appear in an evolutive point of vue. It is different than an infinite heat and only the general relativity, like if we were inside god and that it plays with the fields and oscillations of photons to create this universe, I repeat but there is an enormous ontological and phisical problem with this philosophy, if an infinite eternal consciousness is able to create an universe with more than 10000 billions of galaxies and all this diversity of matters evolving, so this thing was able to create a more perfect universe more quickly with oscillations and fields, but no we evolve and this thing that we cannot define has created an evolutive system not perfect and I don t see with oscillations that it stops the sufferings, the pains, the murderers or others, so this evolution is essential and the fact to conside particles in a superfluidity like main cause also instead of frilds or strings and the GR only. It seems evident for all general philosophical analysis. We are inside a physicality in optimisation, even our consicousness evolves and it is this consciousness wich permits to optimise with all the tools that we have around.

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

We believe that the quantum gravity equation is not linear in time. This trip is supported by Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin. At the fundamental level on the scale of the Planck, time is real and has an arrow due to the nonlinearity of the quantum gravity equation. In the recent work we generalized the concept of Cotton Flow is not in the form of a metric, but in the form of a gauge field. This...

view entire post

attachments: 6_WG.pdf, 5_fig1.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Kuyukov V. abakan replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 05:48 GMT

The nature of the time is counterdiced. On the one hand, the disappearance of time in Wheeler's equation. On the other hand, Penrose talks about the reality of time. There is another definition, in the form of a holographic hypothesis

$t= \int \frac{dS}{r}$

Establishes a link between entanglement and time.

attachments: 22.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 15:51 GMT

Mr Kuyukov, do you know the works of Alain connes about the non commutativity, you could consider this for the time in your model I beleive ? Jonathan Dickau could discuss with you about this, he is specialist . Regards

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Some models allow communication between entanglement and time

attachments: 1_22.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 25, 2021 @ 09:20 GMT

Hi, you could consider my model and these 3D spheres and after you insert on the surfaces of Bloch spheres the hopf fibrations for example

report post as inappropriate

Entanglement and time

attachments: Ent_time.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 28, 2021 @ 11:24 GMT

Hi, so in considering this holographic time, you consider that only the present, the now exists , I asked me if you have thought about the consciousness. In fact the general relativity alsone taken into account cannot solve the deep unknowns and the consicousness also. So probably that this relativity imply these confusions. If we take the waves, particles, fields and only this GR, we cannot solve because it seems that these deeper parameters to superimpose are essential.

Interesting approachs have been made with the strings, and the works of hawking about the BHs also. The Ads CFT being taken into account and the paradox of informations also and entropy, That seems to prove that these deeper parameters must be considered to better understand the informations primordial also permitting probably to reach the real hard problem of consciousness. The energy , matters , informations are linked but this GR is not the only one piece of puzzle, so it is there thatthe 3 main primoridal series become relevant and the densities and volumes of these 3D spheres.

In resume there is a bridge between this GR and these deeper parameters, and this time can be correlated . The consciousness also and the body mind soul problem. The timelifes of particles seem the key and their densities correlated with the informations.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 28, 2021 @ 22:22 GMT

Steve,

If one can’t symbolically represent consciousness, then one can’t know whether or not it is relevant to physics. Physics is based on symbolic representations of the world, where people have created the symbols and given the symbols a meaning.

Consciousness and agency are only relevant to physics if they make a genuine difference to the physical world. E.g. if people are conscious of climate change and the species extinction crisis, can people act to make a genuine difference to the physical world?

Clearly, most physicists think that consciousness and agency are nothing more than the superficial appearances of physical outcomes, not things that actually create new outcomes, thereby making a GENUINE difference to the world.

First, one has to symbolically represent consciousness (and agency). How would one know where consciousness (and agency) fit in the scheme of things, if one can’t symbolically represent them in terms of the symbols that physics already uses to represent the world?

How would YOU symbolically represent consciousness?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 30, 2021 @ 15:53 GMT

Hello Lorraine, I must say that this hard problem of consciousness is totally different than the intelligence , I beleive personally that the secrets are farer than our actual standard model , and the symbols indeed like your tell are essential for the computing but how can we reach a thing that we don t know about its origin.

I see this consciousness like a result of evolution evolving correlated with the evolving brains and this consciousness is for me a tool of improvement for the universe, we can solve the major problems on earth but it lacks a global unified consciousness respecting the universal laws . We are probably youngs and we continue to make the same errors than the romans or egyptians, if we were governed in politics and in the leaderships by persons totally universal and altruist and skilling, we d live on a better planet where all lifes can find its place and be happy. It is not the case unfortunally. The origin of this consciousness is not easy to explain, I have my own philosophical intepretations but I am limited like all, we don t know really the origin of this universe. Maybe Lorraine we could utilise this consciousness better instead to try to explain it , because if we don t change globally I fear we are going to add soon in a near future many chaotical exponentials. The most sad is that all this is became like normal , and all we follow a system of normality but it seems not logic generally , we try all to find our places and live correctly . I must say that I am a little bit surprised to see this globality , the states of environements, the inqualities, the pollutions, this and that, are we cobnscious and universal globally, no simply.

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

I’d say that consciousness/ subjective experience is the “view from the inside”, of THE SAME THING that physicists “viewing from the outside” might measure and symbolically represent as categories, relationships and numbers.

The world naturally has: 1) a view from the inside of matter; and 2) a view from the outside of matter, which is actually just a view of the outside matter from the inside of other matter. I.e. the two views are in fact the same sort of thing: there is no mysterious topology to it.

But it is only the “view from the outside of matter” that can be more systematically categorised and represented using symbols and methods that people have mutually agreed upon. The mutually agreed upon ways of categorising and representing the world is the only thing that distinguishes the “objective” view from the “subjective” view.

So subjective experience can in fact be represented using the symbolic variables and numbers that physics uses, with the proviso that “IS TRUE” or “IS FALSE” is used to represent subjective conscious reality. E.g. “variable1=number1 IS TRUE” is a way to use agreed upon symbols to represent subjective experience.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 31, 2021 @ 20:31 GMT

Lorraine, I don't agree that the subjective experience is just a view of the outside from the inside. That assumption implies a faithfulness of representation that we can know from optical illusions is not so. Such as the coloured block on a chess board. What is seen aids comprehension. It does not faithfully represent the pigment hues.

I've been learning about pain. It isn't accurately reporting on severity of injury but perceived danger. A lot of factors can play into that. Such as previous experience, visual cues, state of mind. Pain, the brain and your amazing protectometer - Lorimer Moseley[link]

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 31, 2021 @ 23:19 GMT

Georgina,

I never said that “subjective experience is just a view of the outside from the inside”. I said that the only view is the “view from the inside of matter”. There is no such thing as a view from nowhere (a truly objective view); there is only the view from matter, i.e. the view from somewhere (a subjective view).

Subjective experience is a view, and the VIEW part of it can be represented in terms of variables, equations, and numbers (for low-level experience; it’s more complicated for high-level experience). The EXPERIENCE/ KNOWLEDGE part of subjective experience can be represented by appending “IS TRUE” to the variables and numbers bit.

As for the SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION of the world [1], the symbols are not the thing. Mass is not the symbol for mass; the laws of nature are not the symbolic equations that represent them; and subjective experience/ consciousness/ pain are not the symbols that might be used to represent them.

The symbol for mass does not faithfully represent mass, only mass itself faithfully represents mass. Nevertheless, the symbols (which human beings created, and assigned meanings to) represent important aspects of the world, and can be used to deduce and imply things about the world.

1. Your theory seems to be that the world can’t be faithfully represented, and that this explains everything.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 1, 2021 @ 02:23 GMT

Pain. Is it all just in your mind? Professor Lorimer Moseley The Eastern brown snake/ twig example demonstrates that the source of the stimulus does not equate 1 to 1 with the product available to conscious awareness.

Prof. Eagleman has shown that temporal order and timing of events can be altered by the brain.

" I.e. the two views are in fact the same sort of thing: there is no mysterious topology to it." Lorraine

A visual observation product does not have the mass or volume, or magnitude of the exterior source object.it is a product only formed using info originating from the surfaces that are exposed to the observer. They are not complete objects.

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

You refer to “The consciousness … and the body mind soul problem”, and you say “if we don t change globally I fear we are going to add soon in a near future many chaotical exponentials”, and you say “I am a little bit surprised to see this globality , the states of environements, the inqualities, the pollutions”.

But IF you are serious, and you think that people can in fact genuinely “change the world”, then you’d better explain HOW this could happen. Because physics is all about the SUPERFICIAL APPEARANCE of people changing the world, NOT about people genuinely acting to change the world.

What does it mean to change the world? A large meteorite that crashes into a big city genuinely changes the world. The equations of physics make human beings 100% mathematically equivalent to, and 100% logically identical to, a meteorite. You can extrapolate outcomes to infinity, and you still get human beings and every other outcome of the laws of nature being mathematically equivalent to, and logically identical to the meteorite. To physics, the ONLY “actors” are the laws of nature.

What does it mean for a human being to be a genuine actor, to genuinely “change the world”, instead of just the superficial appearance of changing to world? YOU are talking about a world of superficial appearances. You are not serious.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2021 @ 15:51 GMT

Hi Lorraine, the main problems of this planet are simple, we have evolved and with have created systems of adaptations. What we ahev like global reality is not superficial, it is real and the psychological apameters are essential. A sure thing is that this planet is divided and that all the humans try to find their places , and this vanity and individualism like the lack of universal consciousness...

view entire post

Hi Lorraine, the main problems of this planet are simple, we have evolved and with have created systems of adaptations. What we ahev like global reality is not superficial, it is real and the psychological apameters are essential. A sure thing is that this planet is divided and that all the humans try to find their places , and this vanity and individualism like the lack of universal consciousness imply several global problems. The humans are complex and it is due to many parameters of evolution and environmentals. All they are persuaded the humans and the majority think they are the center of the universe. What I try to explain is that we must change globally and if it is not easy, so the high spheres of power must find concrete solutions of optimisations to decrease these human instincts.

A sure thing is that this vanity destroys all and the individualism also more the normality of this earth. Even a project cocnrete like I have created here on FQXI, the persons have difficulties to follow because they are eaten by this vanity, they prefer to be followed instead to follow in resume, and that proves a lack of universal altruistic consciousness simply. I am not better than the others Lorraine, I just want to change what is possible to change and with a good concrete team of scientists aware of this universal consciousness and with concrete adapted solutions where all wins , it is possible at new york to change the world , the leaders can listen. I have remarked that the vanity of persons imply that they find a problem even for the most simple solution, it is still this vanity because they want to be special these humans simply. And it is there the problem in fact if you understand what I try to tell. The world can change, it is not superficial to harmonise with logic, what I find superficial is the ironical globality not harmonised.

So yes this vanity , the unconsciousness, the individualism and the normality can imply chaotical exponentials in a near future . It is a fact.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2021 @ 16:07 GMT

It is not complicated Lorraine, we have global problems, and so we must find global adapted solutions taken all into account. If the fatalism of the laws of nature that we don t know well furthermore with the consciousness added is to accept , there it is not logic Lorraine. Physics is not all about suprficial appearances , they are just physical systems analysed in surfaces , that is all and when you extrapolate these determinsitic laws of this nature like you tell, we see several universal truths appearing for the general thinkers. What you tell about a meteorite is not a good example, that cannot be correlated with what I tell about the human nature and the interactions on this earth due tyo our psychology. If persons find normal this planet and how we evolve, there is a problem foe me , because the consciousness and the intelliegnce permits to find these solutions.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2021 @ 16:14 GMT

For example Lorraine, let s take the competition like a law of nature with the works of Darwin, do you consider that it is an universal foundamental or that this consciousness can permit to harmonise these competitions towards points of equilibrium where the complemetarity is prefered knowing that it does not lack nor of space nor of energy when the consciousness is well utilised permitting the optimisation of interactions between animals, vegetals and the environments. We arrive so at informations of encoding permitting a better evolution of these animals and vegetals and even mutations. So the real consciousness is to see the long term also and all the parameters also.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 1, 2021 @ 21:57 GMT

So Steve,

HOW do human beings have a genuine input on the world? Tell us how such a thing would be symbolically represented in mathematical terms, and stop avoiding the issue.

YOU are talking about human beings that have the SUPERFICIAL APPEARANCE of having an input on the world.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 1, 2021 @ 23:16 GMT

Lorraine,

for genuine agency the material future must not already exist; it must be open. Which means material reality is not 4D or 3+1D. Observation products do have a time component though.

Secondly, nutrition and respiration are characteristics of living things. They allow energy extraction and storage as bio-available transporter and energy source ATP. Energy for work is obtained by converting ATP to ADP. In this way living things do not just dissipate energy till non is available for work. I.e. they are not bound by thermodynamics, as they extract energy from materials they consume.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 2, 2021 @ 09:42 GMT

Lorraine, I beleive that you confound a little bit the computing with what we are us the humans and their consciousness. The humans are a result of evolution and we live on a planet and we utilise the environments and tools, and we have a general global psychology, we can solve the major global problems in taking our responsabilities, that does not need mathematical symbols and computers , we must simply change our globality and the best is to find adapted global solutions. We have not an appearance, we exist and the optimisation of interactions can be a reality . The fatalism is not the good choice.

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Biodiversity is vanishing for ever at a rate that has never before happened in human history. This is happening right now, simultaneously all over the world. Tens of thousands of pangolins are being boiled alive each year [1]; fish stocks are being decimated; habitat is being destroyed on an industrial scale.

Yet in the face of climate change and the species extinction crisis, all that physics can say is that everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen, is 100% caused by the laws of nature and randomness. Physics says that the laws of nature and randomness are the only, THE ONLY, cause of every outcome.

According to physics, it’s the laws of nature that causes pangolins to be boiled alive. Physics has no model of the world in which living things/ human beings could have any genuine input to the world. OBVIOUSLY, genuine input to the world is symbolically representable as the application of new numbers to the variables. According to the models of physics, living things/ human beings cannot cause new numbers to be applied to the variables. The models of physics mean that human beings can only have the superficial appearance of causing pangolins to be boiled alive: the models of physics say that it’s the laws of nature that are the GENUINE AND ONLY CAUSE of pangolins being boiled alive.

PATHETIC, RIDICULOUS, OLD, HAS-BEEN, OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REAL WORLD, PHYSICS.

1. https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/blog/What-is-a-Pangolin
, What Is A Pangolin and Why Are They Trafficked?

report post as inappropriate

Holographic units membrans and m-theory

attachments: B.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

Re your 1 April 2021 @02:23 GMT reply:

1. There is the real world, and then there are man-made symbols of the real world, where human beings have created the symbols (letters of the alphabet, words, mathematical symbols, equations) and given the symbols a meaning.

2. Re how to symbolically represent the subjective experience of information/ knowledge: Conscious experience ALWAYS has information content. The information content can be represented as variables and numbers (for low-level information only); and the experience/ knowledge of the information content can be represented by appending the Boolean “IS TRUE” to the variables and numbers. As I said, the symbolic representation of anything, e.g. the symbolic representation of the content of consciousness, is not the thing it represents.

3. Re how high-level information is obtained from low-level information: The acquisition of high-level information by living things is necessarily somewhat similar to how an AI computer program can analyse low level light waves, and (ideally) deduce a tiger, a tomato or a tree from it. And somewhat similar to how the software program in your phone can analyse low level sound waves from your speech, and (ideally) convert them to words and maps you can see on your screen. Higher-level information can only ever be obtained by analysing low-level information.

But whereas computers use voltages, transistors and circuits to symbolically represent logical analysis and symbolically represent information, living things analyse (this is NOT a symbolic representation of analysis) the real world (this is NOT a symbolic representation of the real world).

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 3, 2021 @ 05:30 GMT

"living things analyse (this is NOT a symbolic representation of analysis) the real world (this is NOT a symbolic representation of the real world)." Lorraine

Electrical impulses from stimulation of sense organs are processed. Part of the processing involves other nerve impulses being generated which have some association ,such as learned knowledge and relevant memory. The various impulses compete and if strong enough may override other impulses and reach conscious awareness. That competition is not reflecting the outside real world, just as it is but gives a personal 'take' on it. It is not just carrying out an equation or assigning a black/white truth value.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 3, 2021 @ 21:19 GMT

Your post is not about my !st April post, in which I give two 'hows' for agency of living things. An Open future and working counter to thermodynamics. If you didn't break the thread that would be clear.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 3, 2021 @ 22:05 GMT

Georgina,

You get things very mixed up: you CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING by looking at biology. Biology can only ever be seen as a consequence of more fundamental aspects of the world, not a cause. If you want to explain ANYTHING, you look at the models of physics. But seemingly you never studied Mathematics, Physics or Computer Science at university.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Steve,

HOW do human beings have a genuine input on the world? Tell us how such a thing would be symbolically represented in mathematical terms, i.e. in the terms of physics, and stop avoiding the issue. Come on, tell us how you would represent it.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 3, 2021 @ 00:53 GMT

Steve,

Just like the anti-vaxxers can’t face the facts, you (and most physicists) seemingly can’t face the fact that physics’ models of the world represent a world where it’s the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, that are causing tens of thousands of pangolins to be boiled alive each and every year. And according to physics’ models of the world, it’s the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, that are causing the forests to be cut down, and causing the decimation of fish stocks. THIS IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF MODELLING THE WORLD WITH EQUATIONS, any equations at all: your equations, their equations – it doesn’t matter. This is not to say that the aspect of the world that is represented by equations isn’t crucially important.

So HOW do you represent a world where human beings and other living things have a GENUINE input to the world? HOW do you represent the real world, where PEOPLE are cruelly killings pangolins, cutting down the forests and decimating fish stocks, while other people are working to prevent these crimes?

I.e. HOW DO YOU SYMBOLICALLY REPRESENT AN INPUT TO THE WORLD? Actually, it’s not that difficult, unless you are unwilling to face facts, perhaps because of your beliefs.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2021 @ 11:38 GMT

Hi Lorraine, the equations or the algorythms or the symbols are not really important , what I try to explain is that the laws of nature never have created this actual planet sphere earth not harmonised.Of course they have permitted the evolution but this evolution has created this consciousness also , We have evolved since the first cells and the consciousness also has evolved and is a tool of...

view entire post

Hi Lorraine, the equations or the algorythms or the symbols are not really important , what I try to explain is that the laws of nature never have created this actual planet sphere earth not harmonised.Of course they have permitted the evolution but this evolution has created this consciousness also , We have evolved since the first cells and the consciousness also has evolved and is a tool of harmonisation,and we have also created a specific system in interactions with our environments where the adaptation, the survival, the competition and others are parameters.

We have a sad past generally speaking and we have a correlated psychology. The humans are complex to rank but it exists a little bit of all, what I explain is that it exists persons aware of these universal truths, the physics show us that we don t lack of energy and the universe shows us that we don t lack of space , and the evolution shows us that this consciousness evolves also, that is why these persons aware must balance what is possible to balance, if we destroy the ecosystems, or kill animals or if we have criminals, it is just a part of the humanity, not the generality. I Believe strongly Lorraine that we are not governed by the persons really aware of this universal consciousness.

And the conscious and nice persons have been too nice to be frank. The humans can live on a better planet and can be more conscious, the global system is not really universal even if we have evolved. In telling that the laws of nature are like this, it is a kind of non rational universal fatalism for me.Because I repeat they exist the solutions, they are just adapted solutions to our global system to permit to humans to decrease these defaults due to a young age at this universal scale. There is not a duality well, bad Lorraine, there is not a balance between these things in a darwinist way , no we evolve and our consciousness aware of these universal truths without this duality is the key.

Imagine if you speak like this at this UN in telling that this fatality and duality is like this and that we cannot solve ? They exist the persons having the solutions and they exist the persons aware of these universal truths and the others not aware mut be helped to understand this and to understand this they must live in a world better harmonised decreasing their human primitive instincts simply.

view post as summary

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 3, 2021 @ 21:34 GMT

Steve,

What you say is a lot of waffle. Are you serious about modelling the world or not?

According to the models of physics, living things including human beings, and everything else in the world, are nothing more than TEMPORARY OUTCOMES of the laws of nature. According to the models of physics, human beings are just an outcome, NOT a causer of outcomes: the one and only cause of outcomes is the laws of nature.

ANY model of the world that represents the world with equations is going to have the same problems: EVERYTHING is merely an outcome of the laws, which are represented by the equations. In these models, the laws are the one and only cause of the outcomes: human beings can never cause outcomes.

If you think that human beings can genuinely cause outcomes like species extinction, then you are saying that human beings have a genuine input to the world. So if you are serious, and not just waffling, you need a slightly different model of the world. This model would necessarily represent some aspects of the world using Boolean algebra, and algorithmic steps.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2021 @ 10:45 GMT

Lorraine, to be frank , I belive that you don t really understand what I tell aboutthe collective consciousness and your symbols or algorythms them they shall not change the planet for a better. It is not me who waffle in fact, you want to prove what in telling what you tell us with the symbols and the laws of nature, you don t understand better the evolution and the consciousness and the logic of the universe, if you cannot see that we need to improve the global system with conciousness and that we can do it in optimising the systems in the high spheres of power with this consciousness, so there is a problem and like I told it is this vanity and also the philosophy correlated. What you tell is a fatalism totally irrational knowing our potential anf this consciousness evolving. We are not in a gmae of competition Lorraine, a time for all, you have nothing to prove and me the same, the world can change if we take our respeonsabilities and it is the humans who can solve this , not the computers you know. You intepret the laws of nature in a limited way forgetting the evolution of this consciousness in fact. Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2021 @ 10:55 GMT

Well, let s go farer, you speak about the laws of nature , so tell us what they are generall and completelly these laws of nature, personally I have ranked the biology, the animals, the minerals, the vegetals, the maths, the physics, the chemistry, the evolution , I have studied several works about the evolution, so if you want to speak about these laws of nature, develop what they are and be specific and don t tell me that the darwinism and the competition is an universal law of nature please, don t tell me also that the computing invented by the humans is the same than the algorythmic universal symbols and systems , develop these laws of nature. And also tell us more about yoyur general philosophy, why we exist and what is the origin of the universe , what are also for you the foundamental objects, we shall see clearer, be frank in your answers, don t try to evitate the questions in utilising words , develop my questions, tell us more about your general philosophy.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2021 @ 11:23 GMT

In resume and You can understand this I beleive , we don t need a new model globally, we need to improve it in inserting the collective consciousness and in finding tools of harmonisation towards the points of equilibrium. We must also take into account the human psychology and our past errors . It is very simple globally to harmonise the global system, we can take care and improve our ecosystems...

view entire post

In resume and You can understand this I beleive , we don t need a new model globally, we need to improve it in inserting the collective consciousness and in finding tools of harmonisation towards the points of equilibrium. We must also take into account the human psychology and our past errors . It is very simple globally to harmonise the global system, we can take care and improve our ecosystems with the animals and venetals. We can give jobs and hope and a social stability for the majority, we can better cooperate between the countries, we can give the keys of governances in the hands of persons more universally conscious, if you tell me that it is not possible, so there are several explainations about your reasonings and they are mainly your psychology and the encodings of informations in your nmind.

I repeat but the conscious is a result also of evolution and this tool permits to improve, optimise the interactions with our environments , the laws of nature are complex but the generality is simple Lorraine, and I insist on this vanity being an enormpous problem and this lack of universal consciousness. We have evolved but we make many errors and this planet can be better , the extinction of our humanity can be a reality if we don t take our responsabilities but don t tell me that it is a fataölity and that it is like this and that all will rebegin after , that has no sense knowing that these solutions of adaptation exist. Even if in the future we have a meteorit or others, we can prevent and solve because our consciousness and intelligence have the capacity to adapt and find these adapted solutions like the wheels in orbit or others. It lacks really simply a global collective consciousness working for the well of all lifes in trying to optimise the interactions towards these lifes and finding the points of equilibrium, the consciousness it is this also, we must utilise this tool and the intelliegcne to find the solutions and to improve what we can improve. If you don t understand this, so maybe you have forgotten to study several things. Friendly

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Steve,

I can only repeat what I said to Georgina: Stop all the hand-waving, and DEFINE consciousness and agency. Define exactly what it is you are talking about AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE PHYSICS, before you say that human beings can genuinely cause outcomes like species extinction.

HOW DO YOU SYMBOLICALLY REPRESENT people having a genuine input to the world? HOW DO YOU SYMBOLICALLY REPRESENT people being conscious of the situation in the world? You can’t even explain what it is you are talking about except vague hand-waving stuff.

If you think that human beings are consciousness that species extinction is occurring, and that human beings can genuinely cause outcomes like species extinction, then you need to represent consciousness and agency symbolically, IN A WAY THAT RELATES TO THE PHYSICS. Hand-waving is not an option.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 04:17 GMT

(n)ATP (R flying arrow) ADP + P, all over t = delta E, all over t

A proportion of E is available for work, ie. translation of material objects. W over t = POWER

A proportion of E used for function of CNS and peripheral nerves coordinating the Work.

Agency: action or intention producing a particular effect (Oxford languages)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 10:01 GMT

Lorraine, you don t define the consciousness , we don t see developments about it from you. You interpret all with the symbols but in fact you confound the computing and the reality, you must understand that the computing is a human invention and that this invention is not the same than this universal computing where the deep unknowns are a reality. I repeat , the consciousness is a result of evolution and is correlated with our brains and the senses, we cannot confound the consciousness and the intelligence. The consciousness for our actual computers cannot be created because it is different than this intelligence and yes I insist, this consciousness is a tool and we must take our responsabilities, what is the problem with this ? there is no problem in explaining what I explain, we must try to solve the global problems and we must utilise this consciousness respecting the truths that this universe shows us. Maybe your problem is philosophical, don t be persuaded about your general universal philosophy, f you study the generality of sciences, you shall see that several foundamental truths appear and that has nothing to do with the religions. Why do you want to define symboliccally the genui

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 10:09 GMT

I don t understand Lorraine to be frank why you want to represent algorythmically and symbolically the inputs of humans, do you believe that the computing is going to save the planet or to improve the interactions, you know it is beter to utilise our consciousness and the cooperation. I don t discuss about how to compute the consciousness with symbols, I speak about the responsabilities of conscious humans . We don t compete Lorraine, a time for all, you have nothing to prove, you seem to like to contredict , but the problem is not there, we speak about global adapted solutions and you you repeat with the symbols or others, what is the aim?

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 12:30 GMT

Lorraine, if we extrapolate the symbolism and if we correlate with the consciousness and awareness, so we must take into account the complex psychology and the encodings and in fact that becomes complex knowing the differences in psychology due to this diversity and also that implies limitations considering the main universal consciousness where in logic we can converge but with these said limitations. All is a question of perceptions after all and the senses and experiences in our environments. The autistic spectrum can be ranked and how we focus on the informations and so that iplies a necessity to rank the informations, that is why the densities and timelifes are important. What is in resume the objectivity and subjectivity and how we encode these informations and why also.

You cannot describe by human symbols all this awareness and consciousness, we can just rank a part and still we are limited . Now in correlating with my spheres, see that the symbols could converge but how can we create an computer conscious if we don t have the main philosophical origin and the real foundamental objects and how the informations are encoded and how they create the objective and subjective extyrapolations ? do you see the problem ? All this Lorraine implies different states of consciousness and we can rank them and with good partitions, we can even extrapoalte farer but we are not sure about what we must take into account towards the central codes and the most difficult how they are in motions.

Let s take the creativity and the art for example, how can we compute this if already we have difficulties to compute the consciousness, the machine learning is not the same and is a pure objectivity ?

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Anyone that knows anything at all about mathematics knows that the models of physics can NEVER develop into a situation where it could be said that human beings could have caused species extinctions, or where human beings could cause anything at all. The ONLY cause in the models of physics is the laws of nature, and the laws of nature never jump ship so that human beings start causing things. In the models of physics, human beings and everything else, are MERE OUTCOMES of the laws of nature.

So Steve, how would you represent a world where human beings could genuinely have caused species extinctions? In the REAL world, human beings did in fact genuinely cause species extinctions, and are still in fact genuinely causing species extinctions.

Steve, stop dreaming and blathering. HOW do you represent the real world where HUMAN BEINGS DO IN FACT GENUINELY CAUSE SPECIES EXTINCTIONS?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 21:32 GMT

Lorraine,

being disrespectful is not helpful.

You are dissatisfied with mainstream physics.

You want others to tell you how agency can be modelled, rather than doing something about it yourself.

You want to disregard any suggested alterations to physics and want to disregard the energetic difference between living and nonliving things.

What do you really want?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 22:12 GMT

Electron Transport Chain. You tube video

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 6, 2021 @ 10:26 GMT

Lorraine, we don t need to define with symbols and algorythms all this, we need to solve our major global problems and for this we must act in the high spheres of power with concrete adapted solutions. The laws of nature you tell ? if already the people could work their vanity, it will be better , you tell ironical things Lorraine about how to represent the world, we don t need to represent it , we need to understand it and to find solution. Do you understand the difference, maybe you confound the computing with the reality simply and you don t accept the different points of vue. Hve you concrete solutions Lorraine for the group that I have created ?

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Georgina (and Steve),

Your claim that consciousness/ agency can be represented as “(n)ATP (R flying arrow) ADP + P, all over t = delta E, all over t….” is a big claim to make for someone like you who never studied maths, physics or computer science at university.

I have repeated the following many times over, but here I go again:

I would say that the consciousness/ subjective experience of a person is representable as the simultaneous integrated experience that (e.g.) the chair is comfortable, and the table is blue, and the plate is red, and…

In the context of proper definitions, the above simultaneous subjective experience is mathematically representable in the form: “(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE” where:

1. “variable1=number1” can represent higher-level information derived via Boolean logical analysis from lower-level information coming from the senses, or it can represent just the lower-level information;

2. The Boolean “AND” represents simultaneous integrated information; and

3. The Boolean “IS TRUE” represents information that is subjectively true for that person.

Clearly:

1) Subjective experience can only be represented by including the use of Boolean symbols; and

2) These Boolean symbols can’t be derived from the type of mathematical symbols that are used to represent the laws of nature.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 6, 2021 @ 22:50 GMT

(continued)

And I have also repeated the following many times over, but here I go again:

The derivation of higher-level information (e.g. a tiger is approaching) from lower-level light and sound wave information coming from the senses can only be represented via the use of special symbols: variables, numbers, equal signs, and Boolean symbols.

Agency is all about responding to higher-level information (tigers), not about lawful relationships between lower-level information (mass and position). I.e. agency can’t be represented via the laws of nature: agency can only be represented via the use of algorithmic symbols: IF, AND, OR, THEN, ELSE.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 7, 2021 @ 00:11 GMT

Lorraine, you were asking for symbolic representation that shows how people can have genuine input to the world and be conscious. Its a bit like asking how a computer is able to do something/anything. First you have to plug it in or have a charged battery. For work to be done on the external environment force must be applied. To do that muscle cells require energy. For the brain to be conscious requires energy. By breaking the high energy phosphate bond of ATP useable energy is released. Non living objects do not do this.

You want to include some extra symbolic language to describe consciousness and agency as you see them. Nobody here is arguing that you should not.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 7, 2021 @ 07:36 GMT

Lorraine, you seem like I said wanting to rpove something like if you knew better the maths and physics and sciences, it is not the case I was at university in geology , and since the age of 17 I cannot stop to study them, so you are bad fallen, for me you confound the computing and the general sciences and in maths and physics for me you have not really studied the generality seeing how you think, but I am not here to compete , you repeat indeed always the same and you beleive that you are relevant, but it is a common thought what you tell without really going deeper in physics and philosophy. You have no real model of consciousness, you know some maths and so physics about the computing, that is all, nothing of exceptional, sorry but you begin , so I answer and the boolean symbols are not the problem, your general logic yes. If you have no idea bout the foundamental object and that you don t know the philosophical origin of this universe or that these things don t interest you, so accept that you don t really understand these deep questions, it is due to your encodings and education. Well the symbols Boolean are not sufficient to explain the laws ofnature and still less this consciousness dear Lorraine.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Physics represents the world using variables, numbers, and equations (that represent the law of nature relationships). But to represent subjective consciousness of information, you need to use variables, numbers, and the symbols of Boolean algebra.

Boolean algebra can’t be derived from the equations that represent the law of nature relationships. Therefore, subjective consciousness of information is a separate aspect of the world to the aspect of the world that is represented by the law of nature relationships.

But it is clear that, if there is more than one law of nature, the law of nature relationships must exist as: law1 AND law2 AND law3 AND … . Therefore, the aspect of the world that can be represented by Boolean algebra was there from the start.

report post as inappropriate

Steve and Georgina,

If you looked, you would see that some physicists and consciousness researchers are already representing the information aspect of the world with Boolean symbols. And they have been doing this for many years. They need to use Boolean symbols because you can’t derive the information aspect of the world from the law of nature relationships.

report post as inappropriate

A tiger might approach a lamp post, or a tiger might approach a human being. Exactly the same light waves and sound waves hit the lamp post as those that hit our eyes and ears.

But the lamp post doesn’t analyse the light and sound waves, and know that a tiger is approaching. You need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent the analysis of the light and sound waves. “A tiger is approaching” is higher-level information. This higher-level information was NOT acquired via the law of nature relationships, but higher-level information DOES use the same variables and numbers as the law of nature relationships.

But what use is this higher-level information if you can’t act on it? The laws of nature don’t know anything about this higher-level information: the higher-level information was not derived via the laws of nature.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 8, 2021 @ 11:25 GMT

Hi Lorraine, yes I know about the light waves and sound waves and the symbols booleans utilised , and the levels of frequences, and the optimisation of velocities of computers. I have learnt the works of the enteprise D waves and the quantum annealings with the links with the schordinger equation and the adiabatic quantum computation.

But what I try to explain is that it is not a real quantum computing, because they just mimate the surface of particles and their properties but they don t know what are really the particles and the other properties to really reach a quantum conputing and also this consciousness. The waves are like the fields, they are emergent from a deeper logic considering these particles in motions and oscillating in a kind of superfluidity with 3 ethers where all is in contact.

Of course the thermal rankings and the electromagnetic and other waves like the fiels are important but they are just properties emerging , they are not the main cause of this physicality. Without a real discovery of what are the particles, they cannot reach the deep unknowns. We can just so improve the artificial intelligence in potential, encodings of informations and logic , but it lacks things to create the consciousness and a real quantum computing. I beleive that the 3 main ethers are the secret and also the good foundamental objects that I consider like spheres, so the main codes are in this space vacuum of this DE and after we have the photons and the particles of cold dark matter giving the electyromagnetic properties and gravitational ones and the cold and heat distributed in function of codes of this space vacuum, that implies so other thermodynamical parameters to superimpose and other waves .

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 8, 2021 @ 21:05 GMT

Steve,

People who don’t know how computers work can make the mistake of thinking that the world is like a computer, or that computers could be conscious of information. But those sorts of ideas about computers are due to ignorance of how computers work. Simply put, this is how computers work:

Human beings created all the symbols they use (letters, words, numbers, equations, binary digits, the symbols of Boolean algebra) and they gave the symbols a meaning. Physicists use some of these symbols (equations) to represent the laws of nature, but THE SYMBOLS ARE NOT THE ACTUAL LAWS OF NATURE.

Similarly in computers, people have arranged the voltages, transistors, and circuits so that they can:

1) symbolically represent Boolean logic; and

2) symbolically represent information.

But COMPUTERS ARE NOT DOING ANY ACTUAL BOOLEAN LOGIC: its human beings that are responsible for arranging things so that computers can represent Boolean logic. And BINARY DIGITS ARE NOT ACTUAL INFORMATION: its human beings that are responsible for arranging things so that binary digits can represent information.

But there are no actual binary digits (zeroes and ones) in a computer anyway: there are only various ranges of voltages that we use to symbolically represent zeroes and ones, where the higher voltages can represent one, OR sometimes the lower voltages can represent one. The fact that we have arranged computers so that the voltages can be used to represent zero/FALSE and one/TRUE, is rarely made clear.

Its human beings that do logical analysis and experience information, NOT computers.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2021 @ 21:07 GMT

The significant thing about computers is not circuits, transistors and voltages, or the physics of circuits, transistors and voltages. The significant thing about computers is that human beings are using arrangements of circuits, transistors and voltages to REPRESENT binary digits and Boolean algebra.

There are no binary digits inside computers, and there is no Boolean algebra or any other calculations being performed by computers: human ingenuity uses arrangements of circuits, transistors and voltages to REPRESENT binary digits and the performance of Boolean algebra.

The significant thing about computers is the human use of symbolic representation.

report post as inappropriate

Admin Edit: Content has been removed from this post for violating community guidelines. Posts attacking individuals will not be tolerated.

-------------

Georgina’s formula for how human beings have the superficial appearance of having caused species extinctions, the superficial appearance of putting plastic rubbish in the oceans, and the superficial appearance of having caused climate change is:

“(n)ATP (R flying arrow) ADP + P, all over t = delta E, all over t….”.

[Content Removed]

Georgina is not “dissatisfied with mainstream physics”. Georgina totally agrees with “mainstream physics” that the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature (see above formula) caused species extinctions, put plastic rubbish in the oceans, and caused climate change. Steve agrees with her.

Georgina sees no problem with the idea that the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature (see above formula) caused species extinctions, put plastic rubbish in the oceans, and caused climate change. Steve agrees with her.

I’m the odd one out: I think that the world is such that human beings genuinely have caused species extinctions, human beings genuinely did put plastic rubbish in the oceans, and human beings genuinely have caused climate change.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 8, 2021 @ 20:45 GMT

Lorraine, I explained what the formula represents, but you seem oblivious to that. I admit it is simplistic, it does not take into account all of the ways energy change is simultaneously occurring. It just represents the unique way energy is provided to living tissues. It is about how work can be accomplished, not superficial appearance. The link was to a video describing at a molecular level how ATP is produced . I thought it would be useful background knowledge for you, to help understand what I was talking about.

"Georgina is not “dissatisfied with mainstream physics”. Georgina totally agrees with “mainstream physics”"..." Lorraine. This shows you do not know or understand the physics I write about. It is ignorant presumption on your part.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 8, 2021 @ 20:50 GMT

Lorraine, Georgina, you, or me we have our interpretations of the physicality and I consider the laws of nature and equations in physics indeed essential, but we don t know a lot actually, we have just evolved a little bit in sciences .

About the odd human comportments, it is not new and we know all for all persons aware of this universalism and what teaches us this universe that we make...

view entire post

Lorraine, Georgina, you, or me we have our interpretations of the physicality and I consider the laws of nature and equations in physics indeed essential, but we don t know a lot actually, we have just evolved a little bit in sciences .

About the odd human comportments, it is not new and we know all for all persons aware of this universalism and what teaches us this universe that we make many errors globally, the laws in physics are not responsible of all this, we are responsible, if we have created the arms, weapons, borders, the money , we are responsible, it is us the humans who have invented these things, if we have odd psycholgies, if we have animals, humans sufferings, it is us the humans the responsibles, if we pollute the environments, if we destroy the ecosystems, if we create wars , it is not the laws of nature and the physics, it is us the humans and our bad habits and a sad global past the causes. If we have created these things , we can also solve and change. We don t need lessons about the fatalism and the laws of nature, the darwinism and the competition is a choice of humans, it is a law of nature limited for limited spaces where the consciousness is not there.

You speak too much about the laws of nature being normal about the possible extinctions and others, but you forget main parameters Lorraine, the evolution and the consciousness like the complementarity. In telling that the laws of nature are like this, you consider a reductor analysis of them, you must open a little bit your mind and maybe study deeper the philosophies and all the sciences, not only the computing. The universe is a not a java binar boolean system you know, and about the philosophy, don t affirm to know the truth and don t confound the human religions and the mysticisms with a rational interpretation of a thing that we cannot define wich is probably an infinite eternal consciousness transforming the energy to create this universe.

Don t affirm to know the truth, me I don t affirm I just discuss and share an opinion, for you information the best past thinkers thought about a god of spinoza with or without your approvements, here is a short list, schrodinger, einstein, dirac, euler, galilei, feynmann, newton, heisenbergm von neumann, lorentz, fermi, maxwell, planck and many others and they were the best and all they considered this infinite eternal consciousness , a kind of transformer, coder of this infinite energy. And this thing don t play at java or at dices you know.

You can tell all what you want, they thought like this these thinkers, because when you study the generality of sciences and maths, some evidences appear. And the human vanity or the fact that others are persuaded about their philosophies shall not change this reality, they were thinkers considering this infinity like a rational god and they have respected the pure determinism of this universe. So the laws of nature no are not created for the destruction generally speaking because this consciousness evolving is a tool of harmonisation, so yes the solutions exist on this earth, regards

view post as summary

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 8, 2021 @ 21:10 GMT

all this to tell Lorraine that this consciousness and this global collective consciousness aware of these laws of nature in their deepest meanings can solve the major problems caused by our psychological stupidities. The laws of nature are more deep and complex that you can imagine, the computing that you utilise is a so young invention and is so far of how the universe creates the geometries, topologies....the same for our standard model, it is so far of the truth, we just have analysed some fields and waves, we have analysed and utilised tools in the surfaces of what are really the particles. We maybe know 0,00000000001 percent Lorraine of the truth and at all scales and in all sciences and maths furthermore. Our models must evolve simply and be completed with determinism. All logic and deterministic thinkers can recognise this. We are not the center of the universe and the same for us the humans , we have encoded odd informations also due to our young ages and sad past at this universal scale, this explains that.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Steve,

Where do you think Boolean algebra came from? It came from the human mind. It resonates with the human mind BECAUSE it represents a genuine aspect of the world that can’t be derived from any other aspect of the world. Boolean algebra represents a genuine aspect of the world: in that sense, it was NOT a human invention. What human beings HAVE invented are various symbols to represent the world.

Boolean algebra represents a genuine aspect of the world that did not evolve. It didn’t evolve or “emerge” because it can’t be derived from any other aspect of the world. In particular, Boolean algebra can’t be derived from the equations that represent law of nature relationships, and it can’t be derived from situations that are the outcomes of law of nature relationships.

Moreover, it is clear that, if there is more than one law of nature, the law of nature relationships MUST exist as: law1 AND law2 AND law3 AND … . Therefore, the aspect of the world that is represented by Boolean algebra was there from the start.

Boolean algebra represents a “more deep and complex” [1] aspect of the world, an aspect of the world that the equations that represent the law of nature relationships can’t represent.

1. Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 8, 2021 @ 21:10 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Holography and time

attachments: th.pdf

report post as inappropriate