Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey)

Neil,

I have a rather different take on the Born Rule:

Wave-functions are described mathematically in terms of Fourier Transforms. The transforms are invariably mis-interpreted as physical (rather than purely mathematical) superpositions. However, Fourier Transforms have another, very different, physical interpretation, commonly used in communications theory; they are tuned filter-banks, in which the "power spectrum" measures the power received within each narrow "bin" of the transform. If the input signal consists of a set of identical particles or wavelets, each carrying an identical amount (quantum) of energy, then the power spectrum is it fact, nothing more than a histogram, in which the total energy received in each bin, divided by the energy per particle, equals the number of particles received per bin. That is why the whole process corresponds to a probability measurement - it literally is - a histogram.

Reality combines information on itself, making it perceptually unified and objective. In order for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to work, there must be information that is excluded from reality at one moment in time and then "collapses" the next, transforming the unreal into the real. However, this is speaking colloquially, since reality is more than the sum of its perceptions and the information gained or yielded by them. Each inference device, such as humans, gods, or intelligent observational machines, moving forward each moment in time, must actually be conscious of the information contained in the others' mind in order to predict what that conscious entity will do. So information plays a fundamental role in determining reality or the state of the universe. Wheeler understood this and posited an "observer-participant universe".

Claude Shannon understood it long before Wheeler. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be simply derived from Shannon's Capacity theorem, by considering the minimum possible amount of information (one bit) that can ever be extracted from a measurement; it corresponds to a single, independent, measurement "sample', with a single significant bit. It has nothing to do with any "collapse", nor is consciousness required. But you are correct in that information acquisition, is dependent upon a priori knowledge.

A priori knowledge is knowledge gained by reasoning and reasoning, as Kant noted, yields theoretical knowledge, which, if successful, is reality.

A virus entering your body, has a priori knowledge concerning how to infiltrate your cells. It did not obtain that knowledge by reasoning, or any other process known to Kant.

Rob McEachern

If I may say, down the road it is easy to mistake chance for design. To credit a virus with a priori knowledge when it was only lucky to be one out of a billion to infiltrate a cell.

Starting out, billions are released from a sneeze, some are blown away by the wind, some are inhaled, millions may find their way to the doorstep of a cell but only a small amount enter. And even many of this small amount wander about aimlessly or get arrested by the cell police, then a very tiny few get to multiply and cause illness. It is these few that get credited down the road with a priori knowledge whereas they have no idea whatsoever what they are doing.

In summary, what looks at the end of the chain like something designed to be so, may merely be the outcome of chance.

Regards,

Akinbo

You are confusing causes and effects. A virus contains genetic information - a priori knowledge about how to behave, given an opportunity to behave. How that came to be, by chance, by design, or some other mechanism, is irrelevant. The knowledge exists within the virus before (a priori) its arrival near a cell. Consequently, it does not have to rely upon trial-and-error (chance), in order to infiltrate a cell.

Rob McEachern

One must first ask the right questions?..can a three-dimensional particle, transmute to a two-dimensional space, still exist as an observable? Just as an observable god A,within a Universe, cannot be sure of an un-observable god B external to the observable Universe A?

2-Dimensional Quantum Mechanics, exist, (unobservable), within 3-dimensional Relative space-times. XYZ becomes XY-YZ-XZ..ETC..ETC, QM loses a factor of observation..or information loss?

You cannot expect to make a measuring device, if the devise itself loses an observational contributing factor?

Can you really infer 3-D bits, can exist within 2-D waves?

Information equates to mind, which equates to reality.

EINSTEIN ON SLD

There is a possibility Einstein was using LSD because he "invented" many concept which still today are heavy burden on physics. Let's see most influencing one:

- coordinate time

-proper time

-time dilatation

-space-time (where time is a 4th dimension of space)

-constancy of light speed

-length contraction

-internal observer

-external observer

-empty space

-graviton.Attachment #1: Einstein_on_SLD.pdf

Gary,

You are correct. More then that, the much publicized hype about the psychedelic era is largely a fabrication of sensationalism which is wholly ignorant of the realities, and of drug usage and their effects. The 'hippies' were a diverse mixture of competing conceptual movements which developed in the era of blossoming progressive intellectualism that was truthfully in response to the impact globally of the awareness that nuclear weapons could extinguish all life. Many of those that 'looked the part' were actually spiritually inclined and adverse to any intoxicants, and most others indulged only to a degree of what might be called a communion of safe passage, lest they be attacked by the more paranoid elements associated with trafficking. Experimentation by young adults especially on college campuses made drug use and progressive movements co-incidential in time and location. It was really the bureaucratic reactionism against such 'give peace a chance' movements that labled progressives as 'drug crazed', and there is plenty of archival evidence of that sensationalist propagandizing which actually had the consequence of promoting curiousity and defiance and exacerabating drug usage. COINTELPRO destroyed countless innocent lives and much of the reactionary response to drug use was counter-productive to interdiction and often corrupt. Witch-hunting.

As for the psychotropic effect of LSD, it is just the opposite of what Amrit suggests. The drug causes a constant reiteration of a relatively focused perception, be it a mood, idea or sensation. The much hyped 'expansion of consciousness' by those whom experienced 'good trips' was more a post experience attempt to rationalize the indulgence. It does not induce an evolutionary thought process. THC, on the other hand, which was and is often a drug of choice by artists, musicians and other creative types, does lend itself to an exploratory reverie due to its mild euphoric and relaxant qualities with little in the way of side effects unless indulged compulsively by those whom would do the same with alcohol or gambling. I rather expect Einstein would have been exposed to absinthe, not pot, in Vienna. I think where you would find archival evidence of a real impact of drug use on scientific thinking is in the famous cocaine addiction of Sigmund Freud, whom did eventually come to recognize it himself and that the drug did have the effect of producing a channelized compulsive psychoactive drive. The modern cocaine epidemic also has impacted financial markets in that the very drive that Freud finally admitted, is often sought by many of compulsive ambition. And it might be added, that the financial markets have also become addicted to Quantum Mechanics.

Keep yer glasses an yer cigaretts below the winder soes nobody hassels ya. 'Toronto John McCaul'

Amrit..take a look at Picasso's early work prior to 1909 ?..not a hint of cubism..then he discovers Einsteins work, which alters his perception of 3-D dimensional space, or perspective, probably the only mind altering substance in that era..was probably Einsteins work? :)

Dear David Wolpert ,

As you said:

Inference devices are physical machines that obey the normal rules of mathematics and logic. The only a priori restriction on them is that they exist in the same physical universe as the system they want to know about.

/PS this metarules field or metauniverse is mentioned by Laura Mersini, ask her /

So if:

It is proved that it's impossible for one inference device (device A) to both know its own answer to an arbitrary question and to also know the answer to the same question by a different inference device B

My point:

This show up one practical questions if I need to run universe, i need to have best possible Control and knowledge from inside and outside.

I am creator, I know that can not be perfect for 100 percent but with high probability. High probability means good control or feedback to my management

then my universe is stable, and all my ideas are transformed to real one well

Best possible means avoid interference at all, minimise to total minimum of interference, means interference device probably is not controling, measuring every state just measuring, controling underlying laws.

Questions:

Are we living in universe constructed best possible to be controlled, measured and predicted by interference device ?

Thanks

Jan

It is intresting dear John .Apparently you like the canabis you lol :)

Hello Mr Wolpert,

it seems surprising that a lot of people (even skilling ) does not really understand the ENTROPY AND ITS spherisation ...NO?

It is the same with the relativity, general and special in fact.

What a world dear friends, what a world....

Regards

I find this comment to be quite strange:

But even a monotheistic God may have to accept some limitations when it comes to such information. With his tongue back in his cheek, Wolpert says that God can get the universe rolling, but can't interfere with its functioning afterwards. "Or, after someone else gets the universe going, you can interfere, but you can't do both," says Wolpert. Deism is allowed, he says, but not the traditional Abrahamic God.

The Abrahamic God is self existent, self aware, all knowing and created the universe ex nihilo i.e. He transcends it and is external to it. This does not exclude His interaction with it, His knowledge of it or His ability to determine the course of future events. This research simply validates

Isaiah 55: 8-9 which states:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,"

declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

It is heartening to me that modern physics is starting to recognize the fundamental limitations of humanity. We can never be Devine, but we can partake of the Devine nature through relationship with His dear Son.

Blessings

Mike.

Mike. You have missed something very basic.

An Omniscient God never needs to interact with the Universe after he creates it. An omniscient God sets up all their miracles in advance by building them into the Universe at the instant of its creation.

Only a lesser God would need to keep "messing with it" after he started it.

It exists ind eed one God, and the project of God is to create a beautiful sphere in spherisation so in improvement, we create the paradise dear friends and the death does not exist because all continues the road of the spherisation, we encode the essentials dear friends and we are still Young at the universal scale, 13.6 billions years ,it is still a Young universal sphere, so the errors shall disappear and the eternity is for the future , in the present also in a pure philosophical point of vue.

God , the Creator of Sphere by sphères with sphères, they turn so they are ....

SPHERISATION dear friends and the Big Bang is from the central main sphere ,the central black sphere.

God is everywhere dear friends and the universal love is the only thing which exists for all times

spherically yours

"The work has implications for our ability to come up with the kind of theory of everything that Wolpert longed for as a graduate student"

Does he differentiate between conceptual knowledge, knowledge of laws and factual knowledge? Or does he assume that knowledge of laws boils down to factual regularities (or perhaps some "best system analysis")?

In anycase one must have concepts before being able to apreciate facts. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that the whole view rests on the idea that there are pure, given facts (" information") directly perceived by cognitive systems, independent from conceptual schemes. Careful philosophical thinking has proven this idea wrong some time ago (see for example Sellars' "myth of the given", or Quine, or Davinson...).

For example "knowing the state of the universe" is not the same thing in newtonian physics and in relativity (because the state-space is of a different structure) So either we assume the devices have a built-in conceptual scheme (state-space), or it's unclear what "information" really means.