The Universe Is Not Like a Computer by Lorraine Ford

[deleted]

Hello Ms Ford,

You are welcome, with pleasure.

Me also, glad to see someone loving plants and flowers.:)

The soils are indeed essential.It is even very very important. The compost is relevant.I have worked and tested a lot this topic. The thermophile phasis is relevant. I have extrapolated a natural motor, with several foundamental systems added. The vegetal totipotence is relevant with bacterias and fungis. The fact that we can multiplicate the cells is relevant. Several acids can be inserted , AIA AIB ...I have several conclusions , relevant.This motor is ok with water and O2 and organic matter. Some species are betetr than others for the vegetal multiplication, the acids and the proportions also. The bacterias also are optimized under several parameters.It becomes relevant because it is the perpetual motion you know. In fact the real relevance is this totipotence of increasing of mass.The aim is to multiplicate and decompose at an instant short with a production acceptable of E. This principle is relevant because the mass increases due to evolution and catalyzers and in the same time we separate the E at the same time. a lot of works can be made with this natural motor.

ps a big volume of compost, for example L:30 m /l:5m/h:3m , you mix well, you put annelids,lombric, more bacterias and this and that....and you take a simple conductor , a metal,in serpentine ,you put the serpentine inside the core, and so the water cold is warm at the arrival.Sipple but relevant considering the simple thermodynamic.I have also extrapolated a sphere, a membran around a compost. Tranparent. We have also the methan more an increasing of heat due to hv and the phasis of decomposition. I have inserted a second spherical membran more several adds, ...I stop there:) in fact I superimpose the systems for optimizations.In fact the best is to add the solutions, because the complementarity is at all scales(bacterias,particules :) spheres of course.

thanking you

Best Regards

[deleted]

Hello Lawrence and Ms Ford,

In all case, happy to see someone who makes a taxonomy of informations.Indeed it exists a lot of informations. I agree Ms Ford,the computing is a representation .It is important this meaning.

Fermionic codes, bosonic informations, sortings, synchros,representative codes, binar codes....in fact the real relevance is when they are correctly classed these informations.

:) I ask me if my theory, this spherization's Theory is for all the informations :) I beleive that yes ! even the bodymind probelm is explained......so it exists in fact only "pure light codes"!!!

Lawrence, I know that you like the pure computing, but you know, our brains are more than a human computer.The fermionic codes of evolution are more complex than our semiconductors.Even if we insert organic semiconductors. The biology and the amino acids shall be always on the road of evolution spherization. That said, it is intriguing considering that we can simulate the artificial intelligence. I beleive that the codes inside the main singularities, these main central spheres,cannot be reached. So our limits exist considering these artificial intelligences. The synaptic informations can be represented and simulated but cannot be put in autonomy. So it is a kind of universality with its own intrinsic domain of acceptability. The adaptability, it, is relevant that said.

If I extrapolate with our relativistic limits, so the brains for a correct autonomy of a computer, so must be very very important. 100000 towns like New York, with the buildings like semiconductors, are not sufficient for this autonomy :) It is logic, we are young , far our our cosmological limits and far of our quantum limits.

Indeed we can compare a brain with a computer,but with a pure relativity so.

Best Regards

[deleted]

To be fair, Jung did make a distinction between symbols and signs. With symbols the link between the signifier and signified is unclear (coded, and without the code book in hand), whereas with signs the link is clear (coded, but with the code book in hand). For physicists, the experimental verification of the photon turned light from a symbol into a sign. Afterward, string theory turned the photon from a symbol into a sign. Perhaps there be something else to come along that will turn the string from a symbol into a sign (is string theory really fundamental).

Anyway, my question is how does one make a datum (or data) that is not a symbol nor a sign? I gave an earlier example of creating a Universe, but I don't think that was what you had in mind. The following link has another example of the kind of thing that I was thinking of when I made clear the distinction between thinking and talking about something versus doing something:

http://www.teachervision.fen.com/special-education/teaching-methods/3758.html

[deleted]

steve,

What you seem to be arguing is with respect to consciousness. Information is an aspect of consciousness, or what consciousness works on, but we have no idea whether infomration constructs consciousness. In fact we have little hard theory which tells us what consciousness is. So at this time we can only ask questions and make some speculations that are probably little better than shots in the dark.

Cheers LC

Lorraine Ford

Shawn,

I am not a biologist. I worked with computers as an analyst programmer for probably more years than you have been alive: it's all about the representation and logical manipulation of coded information. There is nothing mystical here, it's all about reality.

From my point of view, this discussion is about whether or not subjective experience is the original source of what is called "information": to me, this discussion is an attempt to look at the nature of reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

[deleted]

Hi Lorraine,

I apologize for not being clear, and for the result of that. I was trying not to be too forward in my reference to Dawkins and his work that overrode what Jung had already laid out for us. The fallout from this is professional information theorists who are under the impression that information is some kind of quantized thing that does not emerge from the data. That's not good, because it also effectively overrides what Boltzmann, von Neumann, Shannon, etc laid out for us.

I realize from your author bio that you're a programmer, and so I know that you are likely to agree that the standard definition of information is sensible. We use it every day.

Relational databases (not relational infobases) achieve good disk usage and CPU usage because of normalization, which is a way of structuring things in order to take advantage of the fact that most sets of data are information-poor (repetitive).

I'm not saying that you specifically didn't know this, or that you specifically didn't realize the sensibility of the map analogy; I was only trying to go through my understanding step-by-step to give people a list of things that they could (or might not) disagree with.

Likewise, Jung's differentiation between symbol versus sign is analogous to ciphertext (what's being signified is a mystery) versus plaintext (what's being signified is not a mystery), which I'm sure you are likely to agree is sensible. And of course, even the ciphertext is still coded (say, ASCII).

In any case, you bring up a very good point with your essay when you talk about coded and non-coded, and I have to admit that I'm totally fascinated by it. As far as I can tell, in order for a physical theory to be entirely true, there must not be a discontinuity between signifier and signified, like there is with symbols and signs. As such, I believe that there could be a third class of (re-)presentation that sits apart from symbols and signs. I don't know enough about psychology or philosophy to know if such a third class already exists, but I'm very eager to know. I don't think that I would have picked up on this kind of distinction if I hadn't read your essay, and so I'm thankful for that.

- Shawn

[deleted]

"And of course, even the ciphertext is still coded (say, ASCII)."

was meant to be

"And of course, even the plaintext is still coded (say, ASCII, then English)."

[deleted]

In order to explain my point of view best, I will directly quote from Shannon's paper `A Mathematical Theory of Communication':

pp 1

- We send messages: ``The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point.''

- We will use the logarithmic function to discern the amount of information given by a finite number of messages: ``If the number of messages in the set is finite then this number or any monotonic function of this number can be regarded as a measure of the information produced when one message is chosen from the set, all choices being equally likely. As was pointed out by Hartley the most natural choice is the logarithmic function.''

- A device with two stable *and equally probable (balanced over time) positions* can store one bit of information: ``A device with two stable positions, such as a relay or a flip-flop circuit, can store one bit of information.''

pp 3

- We may break down the message into atomic symbols. We may also consider each atomic symbol to be a message in and of itself when it comes to calculating probabilities: ``We may roughly classify communication systems into three main categories: discrete, continuous and mixed. By a discrete system we will mean one in which both the message and the signal are a sequence of discrete symbols.''

pp 11

- H is a measure of the information, choice, uncertainty, entropy that arises from the probabilities of the symbols: ``Quantities of the form H = -K sum_{i = 1}^{n} p_i log p_i (the constant K merely amounts to a choice of a unit of measure) play a central role in information theory as measures of information, choice and uncertainty. The form of H will be recognized as that of entropy as defined in certain formulations of statistical mechanics where p_i is the probability of a system being in cell i of its phase space. H is then, for example, the H in Boltzmann's famous H theorem.''

It was these paragraphs which lead me to believe that information is an emergent property of a sequence of messages (ie. symbols, signs, data) that occur over time. I draw the distinction between symbols and signs like Jung, and I point to "American Sign Language" as an example -- it is a sign language because the code book is public, though technically the language is a "symbolic" language to this who have not previously studied the code book.

I wasn't trying to say these things to be difficult. I really do believe that it is a valid point of view. I apologize if I came across as argumentative for no reason

Lorraine Ford

Hi Shawn,

That's OK, no need to apologize, and I think I over-reacted anyway.

I see what you mean, and I think you're right when you talk about a "discontinuity":

"As far as I can tell, in order for a physical theory to be entirely true, there must not be a discontinuity between signifier and signified, like there is with symbols and signs"

I think one way to look at this "discontinuity" would be to say that codes are symbols, and then to try to examine the process of how a survey respondent converted subjective experience into a code:

"The original information exists in the survey respondent's subjective experience. When the survey respondent enters details in the online survey, the information becomes coded input information (data)."

There's probably some book or article about this somewhere but I've never found it, so I am currently thinking about how a code might exist in physical reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine Ford

Hi Shawn,

Re your comments about information and data, I'll give you an example of how I interpret these words:

A reporter for a city newspaper wants to find out via an online survey whether people living in the northern suburbs of the city are more likely to believe that the moon is made of green cheese than people living in the south of the city. (With an assumption that everybody who responds to the survey actually lives in the city)

The two questions are "do you live in the northern half of the city? Enter 1 for "yes" and 0 if you live in the southern half of the city", and "do you believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Enter 1 for "yes" and 0 for "no"". (Of course the zeroes are redundant coded information)

The original information exists in the survey respondent's subjective experience. When the survey respondent enters details in the online survey, the information becomes coded input information (data). This coded information from many respondents can be logically manipulated using a computer with an appropriate computer program; and the output of the computer is a coded representation of the answer to the question of whether people living in the northern suburbs of the city are more likely to believe that the moon is made of green cheese than people living in the south of the city.

The results of the survey output in coded form (e.g. perhaps a machine produced graph, or perhaps the computer program translates the results into words), does not become (uncoded, "pure") information until at least one person subjectively experiences the coded output.

You have to look at the whole situation - measurements are not made in a vacuum - data (coded information) already represents something else.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine Ford

Shawn,

Re "...non-zero average information content per datum, and this is given by his formula for the entropy S" and

"this translation is because if you only have one datum, then the information content is precisely S = ln(1) = 0" and

"S = ln(1) = 0 for the first array, S = ln(5) for the second array" :

What you are talking about is a mathematical/logical manipulation of coded information (data). As such, the entropy and the "information content", is still a coded representation of something else. It might symbolizes/represent something about reality, but in actual fact you've never left the realm of coded information.

Re the link (http://www.teachervision.fen.com/special-education/teaching-methods/3758.html):

In my post of 14 September 2012 @ 12:44 GMT, I attempted to identify what I think are the main problem areas with Information Theories' conceptions of information. There is a complication to this, which I haven't as yet had time to post about: we humans (and obviously other animals too) can also experience symbolic information as subjective meaningful information. This online article you referred to is about this meaningful symbolic information - though I would question their assertion that "physical or motor tasks, such as picking up a pencil, shooting a basketball, or running and jumping" involves entirely non-symbolic information.

In my essay, I tried to argue that although fundamental particles might represent coded information from the human point of view, actually physical matter at the particle level is equivalent to pure un-coded information. To translate uncoded information into a code requires another level of complexity.

Regards,

Lorraine

[deleted]

Hi Lorraine,

Other than some slight differences in terminology, I agree with what you are saying. No matter how we represent something, we are using the physical substance in this Universe to encode the meaning -- memories stored in our brain structure made up of "brain molecules", ink on paper made up of "ink and paper" molecules, gestures made up of "body molecules", sound waves made up of "air molecules", etc, it's all made of physical stuff. This is why I went on that tangent about how one possible non-coded (re-)presentation of the Universe could simply be an actual Universe, but I was left with the impression that this isn't what the search is for. It seems to me now that the search is rather for a representation of the Universe that can still be given in terms of ink and soundwaves, but is simply non-coded. Just knowing the name of this class of representation is important to me; it's definitely not a symbol, nor a sign. It's a ... I simply have no idea, but I wish I did. At the very least, I know that this class of representation should exist, and I didn't know that before I read your essay. And of course, coming up with said representation is a whole other task.

- Shawn

[deleted]

P.S. Any conceptual problems here are on my end. Do you have an example from anything else in this world of non-coded information that is analogous to the particle example?

In string theory, a particle is described as a string of energy, and there are presumably tiny hidden closed dimensions in which this energy flows around, which creates charge, etc, etc. This is all describable by variable data -- positions, frequencies, etc -- plus some static data -- a list of operations that govern the evolution of the variable data over time. This is still a whole lot of coded data, and is more complicated (insomuch that the data is more composite) than quantum field theory, which is more complicated than classical physics, etc. So is it fair to say that we are moving at least the right direction, insomuch that we are uncovering more and more of the code book?

[deleted]

Hello ,

It is well said. Furthermore it exists a lot of kind of informations.

I agree totally that the best is to exppermiment and to test the hypothesis.

It is essential for our foundamental roads.

Regards

Vasily Kletushkin

Hello Lorraine. I do not read English, this essay acquainted with your new comments. The universe does not have anything resembling a computer because it has a clean information. For the universe, this information is not encrypted. I understand. This theme is metaphysical. In my essay, the topic is concerned. Pure information I have - thought. The idea - abstract object that contains a mathematical model. Consciousness activates thought in terms of information and energy. Consciousness refers to the transcendental part of man. The idea of the universe is also activated in the information and energy - in the environment. Thus begins the world of substances and bodies. The computer also has a feature activation, but not thoughts, and information that the person writes. Thanks for the interesting comments, good luck in the contest.

Lorraine Ford

Vasily,

Thanks for your comments and good luck wishes, and good luck to you too!

Lorraine

Lorraine Ford

Hi Shawn,

Re your quotes from Shannon's paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication":

e.g. "We will use the logarithmic function to discern the amount of information given by a finite number of messages", "H is a measure of the information, choice, uncertainty, entropy that arises from the probabilities of the symbols" etc.

These calculations relate to maximum number of coded messages you could get with your symbol set, depending on the message length. Ignoring the underlying binary code, a post is a message that uses the symbols a to z, spaces and numbers. But if I receive a post you send, then "the amount of information" determined by a logarithmic function is not much use to me personally. It's just technical stuff useful for making the system work efficiently.

Also nothing actually emerges from the symbols themselves: how could information magically emerge, an "emergent property of a sequence of messages"? It's only when messages are read that information is experienced.

Cheers,

Lorraine

[deleted]

Hi Lorraine,

Thank you for allowing me to explain myself further.

The information emerges from acyclical data. If the data is not acyclical, then there is no information.

Let's consider a 64-bit string of data: "1010010101010110101010101010110101100010100111010001001101011010".

There are many orders L of Shannon information S for such a string.

To obtain the first order L = 1 information, we first break the string down into "unigrams" (packets of length one): '1', '0', '1', '0', '0', ... etc.

Unigram '0' occurred 32/64 = 0.5th of the time.

Unigram '1' occurred 32/64 = 0.5th of the time.

There are 2^L == 2 possible unigrams, and all 2 occurred (the same amount). It is useful to think of the string of unigrams as a kind of path that steps from vertex to vertex in a space that consists of 0 and 1: 1 -> 0 -> 1 -> 0 -> 0 -> ... etc.

To obtain the second order L = 2 information, we first break the string down into "digrams": '10', '01', '10', '00', '01', ... etc.

Digram '00' occurred 7/63 = 0.111111th of the time.

Digram '01' occurred 24/63 = 0.380952th of the time.

Digram '10' occurred 25/63 = 0.396825th of the time.

Digram '11' occurred 7/63 = 0.111111th of the time.

There are 2^L == 4 possible digrams, and all 4 occurred (not the same amount, but they still all occurred at least once). The path is in a space that consists of 00, 01, 10, 11: 10 -> 01 -> 10 -> 00 -> 01 -> ... etc.

To obtain the third order information, we first break the string down into "trigrams": '101', '010', '100', '001', '010', ... etc.

Trigram '000' occurred 2/62 = 0.0322581th of the time.

Trigram '001' occurred 5/62 = 0.0806452th of the time.

Trigram '010' occurred 18/62 = 0.290323th of the time.

Trigram '011' occurred 6/62 = 0.0967742th of the time.

Trigram '100' occurred 5/62 = 0.0806452th of the time.

Trigram '101' occurred 19/62 = 0.306452th of the time.

Trigram '110' occurred 6/62 = 0.0967742th of the time.

Trigram '111' occurred 1/62 = 0.016129th of the time.

There are 2^L == 8 possible trigrams, and all 8 occurred (not the same amount, but they still all occurred at least once). The path is 101 -> 010 -> 100 -> 001 -> 010 -> ... etc.

If at any order L there is a cycle, then the Shannon information for all orders equal to and greater than L are non-maximal (and possibly zero).

Let's consider the string: "00". The Shannon information for order L = 1 and greater is zero because of this first order cycle of period one: 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 ... etc.

Let's consider the string: "010101010101". The Shannon information for orders L = 2 and greater is not maximal because of this second order cycle of period two: 01 -> 10 -> 01 -> 10 -> 01 ... etc (ie. only two digrams '01' and '10' occur). The Shannon information for order L = 1 is maximal because both unigrams occurred the same amount (6 each).

Let's consider the special string "0". The Shannon information for order L = 1 and greater is zero. Why? Because to decide between a cyclical and acyclical path, you first need two vertices, and this path has yet only one vertex.

If for all orders the path is acyclical so that all 2^L-grams occur roughly the same amount, then the Shannon information for all orders will be roughly maximal. Of course, the order is limited by the length of the string -- a string of length N has a maximum order of L = N, and the Shannon information for this highest order L = N is always zero because only one 2^L-gram can have occurred by that time. I'm not entirely certain if maximal entropy at all orders automatically implies randomness, but randomness certainly requires acylical paths at all orders. That is, pseudo-random number generators with cycles of higher period are usually preferred over generators with lower period.

Altogether, the string "0" has one bit of data content, and zero bits of information content because it is not an acyclical string.

Let's consider a Huffman encoding of a string of three symbols "abc", where the Huffman codes are a = `0', b = '10', c = '11', so that the string is rewritten as "01011". The Shannon information content per symbol is S = ln(3)/ln(2) = 1.58. The data content per symbol is 5/3 = 1.66. It's not a matter of rounding the number of bits up to whole units to get the information content per symbol -- that's the data content, and it's not the same as the information content. I take this distinction between the information and the data literally, because of the deep relationship between acyclical paths and the work of Shannon (which is about leveraging choice / uncertainty).

It's not magic, just graph theory and a bit of stuff about (pseudo-)randomness.

- Shawn

[deleted]

Hello to both of you,

ok I am understanding better now :) the piece is fallen down :) it begins to interest me.

The taxonomy can be imrpoved with the spherical encoding.

So each letter and number , so informations and datas are encoded with the binar codes. ok it is relevant. So each thing have a specific binar code.so a specific turn off turn on system of encoding. A string of datas and why no a sphere of datas converging with the 3D. The sorting and synchro can be optimized with a specific universal algorythm of spherization. I beleive that the datas indeed and the informations,so the basic foundamentals and the sortings can be differenciated.That said it becomes complex in the sortings, harmonical of oscillations. I beleive strongly that the system can be optimized considering the specific deterministic encoding. The continuity can be reached like the turing machine in fact, but like an universal spherical turing machine so in a pure 3D. the holography will give us a beautiful simulation of many things considering the spheres and its domains of analyzes.

It is fascinating in fact. The binar codes are relevant, that said the spherical codes can be a reality. The most important is the SPHERICAL UNIVERSAL CONVERGENCES.

Thanking you

Regards

[deleted]

Hello,

If we take the serie of uniqueness and if we multiplicate this serie.if we consider the serie with the central sphere, the most important volume, so it becomes relevant in continuing this serie where the volumes decrease.The number it increases. If this fractal is considered like a 3d spherical cell.So we can utilize a kind of universal spherical algorythm of spherization. Like a pure cellular automata but focus on 3d and with finite groups. If we utilize the volumes and my equations, so the dynamic of evolution can be seen with oscillations and stabilities.more the rotations proportional with mass.

In fact we can see relativistically that the Universal Sphere is an Universal spherical intrinsic turing machine of spherization. If the serie of uniqueness is encoded with stability respecting the planck scale.See the volume of the central main sphere, the number 1.So we appraoch the last number. This serie can be multiplicated giving so the space.See that like the spheres decrease in volume, so the entanglement is without lattice in fact in the perfect contact.The smallest spheres are more near that we can imagine of this central sphere in fact(at the cosmological scale also).So we can insert the 3 motions of spheres, so the linear speed, the orbital speed and the spinal speed. see mcosV=constant for all physical spheres.with m mass, c linear velocity, orbital velocity,spinal velocity,V Volume. This constant is universal. So it permits to differenciate the space, the m and the hv. If and only if the gravitation turns in opposite sense than light.It is there it becomes relevant considering the encoding of evolution, the fermions and their serie of finite group. Because the system can be 1 fusioned or 2 binar. the fusion seems more rational. The thermodynamics are relevant with the volumes of spheres and the proportions, relativistic furthermore. The informations so take all its meaning considering the volumes of bosonic spheres.In logic so the fermionic spheres have more important volumes. It implies a simple logic of polarization and increasing of mass, so a correlated increasing of Entropy. If this light above our walls is infinte, it becomes very relevant considering the future physical universal sphere.Because the eternity is there in fact in our future.The volumes are not a probelm in this line of reasoning.

This serie of uniqueness is purely linked with the singularities, these central spheres, quantic and cosmologic which are them linked with this aether. This aether does not turn, in fact, time, space, motions, dimensions are not part of this infinite light. It is when this light turn that it becomes space, mass or light codes. In fact it is essential to insert finite groups for both of systems, fermionic or bosonic.But with several differences implying the spherization of spheres. If the serie of uniqueness is at all scales, so the groups, finite can be understood in their pure meaning of evolution.

The Universe is in fact an automata of spheres,universal and spherical with a pure spherization optimization of mass.It is fascinating in fact. The 2d is one thing , the 3d and the universal sphere an other at my humble opinion, we are so far still of these walls separating this infinite light and its project of spherization of spheres. But we evolve ....

Best Regards

Lorraine Ford

Hi Steve,

I'm afraid I can't agree with your view of the universe. See my 23 September posts for my view of the nature of reality/the universe.

Cheers,

Lorraine

[deleted]

Hello Ms Ford,

You know Ms Ford,I beleive that you cannot so see the truth.:) What ?My theory of spherization of course.

Don't complicate your mind with an ocean of irrational informations, make the redondance for the sortings. But you know, the ultim informations, fermionic are the keys and the probabilities , there, have nothing to do with the codes of evolution inside the main central spheres.

Each person is free to think about what they want. But I must show you where are your errors :)

Let's return about this Universe and its codes. Let's put on the side, this shannon informations and entropy and its probablilities. Indeed the Universe is not a computer. That said, the universal system is coded inside singularities, the central main spheres. Let's consider that it is the ultim information and entropy, and so the fractal of spheres and the serie of uniqueness permits to see the steps. I am sorry to tell you that in fact all is coded. The Universal sphere needs codes. If not we shall not have the planets or stars or this or that.In fact The Universe is a big universal machine in optimization.The informations need a taxonomy. It is the objectivity which is very important. The informations of complementarity are just bosonic. It is important to make the differences.

About the theory of information. It is just a mathematical method for encodings and the transfer of informations. The shannon entropy is not a thermodynamical entropy or a mecanical entropy !!! and the logarythms and algorythms shall not change this evidence :) in fact, the binar codes are just a human invention.

I wish you all the bests for this contest. If I could, I will offer you a salix integra "Hakuro Nishiki", Splendid small tree , but not in full sun !!! :)

Regards

Spherically yours

[deleted]

The encoding can be very relevant if we begin with this serie of uniqueness.

so the fractal of spheres and its finite number.

we can so encode quantum spheres and their number .....so we have the H C N O ...giving so the A T G C for animals for example .....the building can be universal. I am insisting about the serie of uniqueness and the fractal of spherical volumes. The quantization of evolution correlated with the increasing of entropy correlated with the informations become very very relevant.

If the number is not finite, like a pure finite group, it is not possible to simulate the universal encoding.

Best Regards

[deleted]

Now my equations can be inserted with an universal link between all phyzical spheres. The sysnchronizations can be seen with the volumes and the rotations spinal and orbital. The oscillations and the frequances are unique for each system of unqueness. The quantization appears with proportions with mass and rotatings spherical volumes of this serie of uniqueness.

mcosV=cosnstant is very relevant when we consider that the fermions trun in opposite sense than bosons. The gravitation appears with an universal evidence. E=m(c cubic o cubic s cubic )it means that the 3 motions of spheres of light must be considered. We see the synchronization appearing. The informations can be correlated with the spherical oscillations and frequences and periodicities.If we consider that the space, mass and light are the same if we extrapolate a kind of zero absolute, so it becomes relevant. The rotations and motions make the spherical road of spherization. The fermionic volumes are relevant. An other relevance is the the superimcompressiblility of spheres of light,like an incompressible liquid. The space and the lattices so become interesting for the combinations of evolution.Furthermore the correlation between quantum uniqueness and cosmological uniqueness becomes so evident. In fact the quantum uniqueness is like a relativistic foto of our cosmological sphere and its spheres. The central spheres are essential for a real understanding of codes of distribution, spherical of evolution spherization optimization.

Best Regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve,

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are talking about.

Cheers,

Lorraine

[deleted]

Logic , perhaps 50 or 100 persons are able to understand the gnerality of my works. So don't worry.And if an algorythmic superimposing is inserted, it is logic also.

You do not understand my equations or the fact that the Universe is a sphere and the elementary particules also. You prefer the name ball or sphere. It is not a probelm for the genralists. I knew that this planet was corrupted, but at this point I didn't imagine it. Just for this papper governing our lifes.

Sad reality isn't it ?

Sad universality in fact. In fact the world is sick due to bad systems. Bad governances = chaos. Good governances=harmony

Regards

[deleted]

Correction:

Let's consider the string: "00". The Shannon information for order L = 1 and greater is zero because of this first order cycle of period one: 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 ... etc.

should have been:

Let's consider the string: "00000000". The Shannon information for order L = 1 and greater is zero because of this first order cycle of period one: 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 ... etc.

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

The string "00" obviously can't create the path 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0 -> ... etc because "00" is not long enough. Apologies, yet again, for the bad proof reading on my part.

[deleted]

I didn't mean to start a new thread. Sorry. :(

Also, I found the Shannon paper via this link:

http://www.data-compression.com/theory.shtml

[deleted]

I pulled yet another bonehead maneuver:

should have been:

Let's consider a Huffman encoding of a string of three symbols "abc", where the Huffman codes are a = `0', b = '10', c = '11', so that the string is rewritten as "01011". The AVERAGE Shannon information content per symbol is S = ln(3)/ln(2) = 1.58. The AVERAGE data content per symbol is 5/3 = 1.66.

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

Of course, the actual content per symbol is not necessarily the same as the average content per symbol. The actual info content per 'a' is ln(1/probability)/ln(2) = ln(3)/ln(2) = 1.58, and the actual data content per 'a' is 1. For 'b' and 'c', the actual info content per symbol is 1.58, and the actual data content per symbol is 2.

This is another reason why I take the distinction between info and data literally -- the actual info content per symbol can be higher than the actual data content per symbol in special situations.

(... substitute sign for symbol when there is no mystery, etc... ie. a signal is made up of signs ....)

« Previous Page Next Page »