Information density - densities of information?

[luc]

The other day I was thinking about the difference between AI and a human mind.

Take the example of learning a language. Yes, an AI can learn a language in just a few instants. In many ways it surpasses (or will soon surpass) any human capabilities in that regard. An AI can have billions of books and written records in its memory, form connections between every single word usage that ever happened in recorded history, know all grammatical rules and their development inside-out etc. No human could ever dream of getting to that level even after decades of study.

On the other hand, when we as humans learn a language, we kind of "tune in" into a whole mind space: we start sensing a whole tradition going back centuries or millennia; we perceive a vibe, we suddenly understand cultures and historical developments and nuances in meanings and concepts etc. In other words, this is not just about brute computing power and the assembling of words and rules, as in the materialist picture. We literally connect to the information field, to a morphic field, or whatever. Obviously, it depends on the person in question (what you bring to the table), but it's really quite fascinating. There's certainly a lot more going on with language than the materialist picture would allow.

So how can we describe this in terms of information? Perhaps we could say that yes, the AI's capability for amassing huge amounts of data is waaay greater than any human's. But how dense is this information? What is it really besides a huge pile of things with a relatively loose and superficial order/structure? And what does the AI really "perceive" - if we can even talk about perception/experience? Even if we grant that the AI has a form of experience, in terms of accessible information density, it's extremely low compared to human experience.

A human tuning into the information field might be better described as soul perception, or perception and experience with one's whole being. We are not just computers processing data, we are embodied beings connected to the cosmos in myriad ways. This means that even a few seconds of our perception is waaay more "informationally dense" than the AI's, or the AI's input and output.

Now, I always thought about "densities" in rather materialistic terms (as we are all conditioned to do), i.e. "stuff" that gets denser or less dense, or an added physical dimension etc. But maybe what we are looking at here is something related to "information densities"? That is, in a higher density, you get an added layer of perception, which means the information density you perceive and interact with increases by an order of magnitude. Obviously, you need to be able to handle it.

Think of the difference between animals and humans. In many ways, we are the same. But we have an added layer of informational input, namely our thoughts, our sense-making apparatus, and our ability to consciously affect our own thoughts, instincts and (re)actions. The information we perceive and with which we can interact for a given time frame is much more dense compared to animals.

On a still higher density, we also might be much the same, but there is an additional faculty added: the direct perception of and interaction with the information field, the becoming-conscious of another layer of reality. Again, the information we perceive and with which we interact gets much denser.

A: Consider the relationship between the previously discussed protein antennae and your reality. That determines who you are and what you see.

Q: (Pierre) Does it mean that in those times of chaos, higher density STS beings are busy beaming human beings and...

A: No. It means that one should be concerned with aligning the antennae to cosmic purposes.

So if we de-block our access to the information field by tuning our “antennae” to cosmic purposes, we increase the information density in which we exist, hence moving closer to a "higher density". By tuning into "cosmic purposes", we can interact with these purposes more directly, just like a human can interact with life purposes more directly than an animal.

How to do that? The same session gives many clues:

(L) What kinds of practices, thinking, behavior, or whatever actually assist us in our lives to stay safe from hyperdimensional manipulation or harm that can hurt our frequency or muddy things up? For example, I wrote down here what the Catholics do: prayer, confession, sacraments, therapeutic rituals, blessing of objects, occasional exorcisms, that sort of thing. That's what they do to keep their flock safe. They prescribe seven sacraments and all that kind of stuff. We know that's not necessarily the precise cup of tea that does the entire job, but it’s not bad, and certainly they were onto something with some of that. I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water here. So, what I want to know is what are good, beneficial, protective practices?

A: You have made a thoughtful list so please read it!

Q: (L) Well, alright... I've made a list. To protect oneself against hyperdimensional manipulations and harm, I'd say one of the primary things is to avoid dissociating.

A: Yes.

Q: (Artemis) And don't feed negative thought loops.

(L) Yeah, if you're dissociating, number one is you're in a fantasy, which is not paying attention to reality. Number two, you're having negative thoughts and getting into negative thought loops. That seems to me to be one of the most important. Am I right on that?

A: Indeed!

Q: (L) Okay. The next one is diet. If your diet is crappy and you're taking in all those chemicals that the STS forces have manipulated their Earthly representatives to put in and on our food to poison us, that can get in there and mess up our proteins and mess up our antennae. So, diet would be a second thing, yes?

A: Yes!

Q: (L) Okay. In relation to diet, I've put down keeping regular hours as much as possible, having a balanced colon biota... that sort of thing. Okay, the next item on my list is: sharing impressions and troubles.

A: Big one! So many are reluctant to share thoughts, impressions, worries, fears, etc. This dramatically changes the inner landscape and can even shut down the receptors so that you are more subject to STS manipulation of thoughts and feelings via mechanical means!!

Q: (Artemis) Sharing is VERY important.

(Joe) By mechanical means?

(L) Mechanical would be chemicals, beaming, etc... So, are you saying on the other side of this that the act of communicating or communion with others or sharing can actually help to overcome some of those mechanical means of interference?

A: Yes

Q: (Artemis) If you're not sharing, you're basically having an inner dialog with an echo chamber. You're not getting any real feedback or information or perspectives. And then it is easy to spiral down into wrong thinking.

(L) Yeah, that's a good point: If you're not sharing, you're just in an echo chamber! If you're keeping yourself to yourself and closing up, you're in an echo chamber. Then you are more susceptible to the STS manipulations and maneuvers.

(Andromeda) And nothing can help correct it.

(L) Yeah. So the next one on my list is: making amends when possible to the wronged person, and when not possible making those amends to the world at large. I'm aware that there are situations where you may have great, great regrets where it's just not practical, or it would just make things worse to try to make amends. Therefore, my thought is that the thing to do under those circumstances is to...

(Artemis) ...seek redemption by helping others.

(L) Yeah, achieve redemption by giving to the universe and others in need. I mean that in terms of thoughts, time, energy, whatever.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay, so that's not a big hot one, but it's good. The next one I have is conserving energy and not feeding STS dynamics.

A: Big one again and one of the most difficult because STS uses many tricks and traps to suck people into negative dynamics so that they become food.

Q: (L) Of course, when you become food, you're feeding the STS side and empowering it against not only your own best interests, but also against the best interests of STO itself. It seems to me that it's kinda like psychopathy. They try all kinds of bluffs and meanness and nastiness and so forth. When you're strong, strong, strong through all kinds of terrible actions or treatments on the part of, say, a psychopath, the last-ditch maneuver, when they know they can't get you any other way, is the pity trip. They induce you to feel guilty. Feeling guilty or feeling sorry for them is like... it becomes basically food.

A: Guilt is basically an ego thing of a very covert nature.

Q: (L) What does that mean? Does that mean that...

(Pierre) It means that the victim seems all weak and miserable and...

(L) And it makes YOUR ego feel good to feel like you can fulfill their wants and needs.

(Artemis) Or you feel like you're being compassionate. It's like false empathy, almost.

(Pierre) And often the one who generates this pity around himself, at the core, there's an ego trip. There's a feeding on it.

(L) For them it's an ego trip, and when you give in to their guilt trip, you're feeding the STS part of them first of all. And then I guess secondly, you're feeding your own ego inside yourself because you feel like a savior or needed or like you'll get something. It's that dynamic of the feminine vampire! The waif. "If I can save this person or do what they want or need or whatever, then there'll be something for ME!"

(Pierre) And this discussion suggests that for a long time we talked about how important to see reality as it is. But from this exchange, it suggests to me that beyond the thoughts, very important is also to have the right feelings towards the right person in the right context. Is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Alright, let's move on to the next item on my list. The next one is... I put this on the list, but I dunno if it should be there. I thought it was something that would be useful: to connect with ancestors and honored saintly type people in 5D for protection. I thought that that would be kind of a useful thing. I think people should find out if they have any ancestors or deceased relatives or somebody who were good and decent people who one can talk to mentally or communicate with by writing letters to them, or dream communication, and ask them for protection.

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) And if you can't find your ancestors, you have to find someone else's ancestors!

(L) Well, that's true. You can hook up with somebody who has good ancestors, and their ancestors become your ancestors by you having shared realities. You're opening up and sharing your worries and troubles. The good ancestors of any group or any one person in a group kind of become the good ancestors of other members of the group.

(Pierre) And here you mentioned not ALL your ancestors - just the good ones. The same is true for the saintly figures. I think people should be aware that there are many saints who were not saints and other people who were vilified who were actually good.

(L) There are saints who were made saints, but they weren't actually very good people. And then there are other saints who deserved that title. That's a good topic for discussion... not a C’s discussion, but rather a discussion amongst people. Another thing I thought it would be useful for people to do would be to guide the newly deceased. If there is somebody in your circle of acquaintances or group or whatever who is in the process of passing over or recently did pass over, you could in some way help guide them in the reality to which they may not be accustomed (obviously), but mainly because of their thought patterns during life. So many people in this materialist-driven world do not think that there is an afterlife or another world. When they get there, they don't know what to do! They don't even realize who or what they are or which way to go. Is that a good one?

A: Yes but for certain people obviously.

Q: (L) That's not something that everybody should do. But if you have a loved one who's dying, it's certainly not going to hurt to talk to them frankly about the process they're going through and what to expect. Another thing I put on my list was when you are in a group situation or in our particular kind of group, one of the things we've always tried to use to bring people to full awareness of their reality is what we call the mirror. In some cases, it's a very delicate process. In other cases, it's somewhat unpleasant. Well, it's NEVER pleasant. Unless you've gotten to the point where when someone tells you you've screwed up, and you can genuinely respond, "Oh, thank you for telling me!" Hardly anybody does that sincerely though, because it's not as simple or as easy as just saying those words. So, it seems to me that this process that we undertake is kind of an initiation. Is that one way...

A: Yes but should be handled carefully as many are not ready for that advanced work.

Q: (L) Oh, and there was one thing I had at the bottom of the list. I guess it goes with diet. I thought it was a good idea to fast one day a week.

A: Intermittent fasting will do.

Q: (L) Okay, so obviously prayer is a good thing. Is there something else I missed?

(Chu) Singing together.

A: Yes! Something you realized lately as Chu just said!!

Q: (L) Singing together - and it has to be singing the right songs. I was experimenting with this the other night when we were doing karaoke just seeing how people did when you start them out with certain songs and then move on to different levels. Everybody did pretty well, I think. They were pretty comfortable with it. I think getting an order of songs to sing in a certain order of a certain type might be useful. Then if everybody was singing the same songs around the world, would that be kind of like a limbic link up?

A: Yes!!

Q: (L) So, I guess I've covered everything. Well, I have Divination on the list... For everyday use, we use I Ching, and I think a lot of group members do the same. I think we've got that covered. One thing that I was noting down on my little list here was that the Apostle Paul listed things to avoid, and then things to enhance. The vices that he listed, things that one should avoid, were: fornication, licentiousness, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness. Well, that's all pretty standard. I think it's a good basic list and you can apply it in different ways depending on your circumstances. Then he listed the virtues: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Self-control was kind of an interesting one for him to have on that list. And: no self-conceit, no provoking one another, and no envy. Then he said at the end of his list, "Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap”, and “let us not grow weary or lose heart." So, I thought that those were rather positive things to think about.

A: Most important to remember the "sowing" part in the context of this discussion.

Q: (L) Oh, you mean about your antennae and how your antennae determines your future. What you sow, you reap. So, if you're not taking care of your inner landscape and the immediate world around you in terms of your group and your associations and so forth, you're screwing up your antenna and then you're going to have a bad future because your antenna will attract the wrong things. Is that what you mean?

A: Yes

Q: (Artemis) Basically foresight is very important.

In the next post, I'll share some (inconclusive) thoughts about what "information density" might mean.

 

[luc]

What is information density?

How can you define information density? It seems to go beyond the physical. It is not merely a “property of the physical world”, but always involves consciousness.

We know from Claude Shannon that the amount of information is inversely proportional to the probability with which an event or pattern occurs.

To illustrate this, take the following cases from simple compression algorithms:

Case A: A digital book that contains only blue pages. The probability that the next pixel in that book will be blue is 1, therefore the information is almost 0. The algorithm just needs to say “print every pixel blue” – that’s all the information needed to reconstruct the whole thing. Hence lossless compression to almost zero is possible, as compared to transmitting the value for each individual pixel (an enormous amount of data).

In other words, the completely blue book contains almost no information; its “information density” is almost zero.

But even here we might have a problem: the reason this works is because there are mathematical operations that work. Are they part of the physical world? Are they created by consciousness? Besides, an entirely blue book is something artificial; it doesn’t exist in nature. Consciousness created it…

Case B: Now consider a book which contains completely random pixels. The probability that the next pixel is the same as the previous one is almost 0 (depending on the resolution of the pixel). There are no patterns. To reconstruct the book exactly, you need to know every single pixel. So, information is extremely high/dense.

But isn’t it strange that information should be so high if the resulting random picture is completely useless – and we would intuitively say it contains no information at all? Of course, the algorithm could just say “generate random pixels”, which again would reduce the information that needs to be transmitted to almost zero. And to us, it would make no difference. But on a pixel level, it would be an entirely different book than the original uncompressed random pixels!

Case C: Now consider a book with text in it. From the Shannon perspective, there’s way less information in it than in the random pixels example: if you know the letter code, you don’t need to transmit pixels at all, just the code. What’s more, language has a myriad of patterns: typical letter constellations, word constellation etc. The algorithm can easily predict/assign probabilities to what might be the next letter, word or even sentence. This reduces the information even further. (Text can be efficiently compressed as a result.)

But this again seems strange: A text seems to have so much more information in it than random pixels! Why is that? First, because it depends on a sophisticated code (language) that was developed consciously. Second, because of its deep meaning to us, to our consciousness. A text represents more than just the Shannon information. Or at least it can. But it depends not only on the text, but on our consciousness, where we’re at, what we are looking for, what questions we seek to answer, etc.

So from our perspective, “information density” is something different, perhaps different entirely, from the amount of Shannon information. (Unless perhaps we can come up with some “higher density Shannon information”?)

All in all, it seems that information density cannot be a “natural property” in the physical sense. It is connected to Consciousness and the all-and-everything. The information density of a text, or any physical object, depends on what we bring to the table and our own connection (or lack thereof) to the cosmos.

Then there is the issue of truth. Can wrong information be dense? I guess so. And perhaps higher density STS lives in a state where they perceive this denser “wrong” information (projecting their wishful thinking), whereas STO perceives the denser true information (how the cosmos really is). STS manipulates the information field to keep up the illusion, while STO perceives it to understand more. “It depends on who you are [STO or STS-oriented] and what you see [information density you can perceive].”

These thoughts are very inconclusive, but I have been thinking about these things for some time and thought I'd share where I'm at.

 

[Ina]

What if you'd take a book from a shelf, read it, maybe multiple times, understand the information as good as to be able to apply it in practice, and then refine the information by correcting it due to practical experience or refining it until you are able to sublimate it into a magnificent piece of art or anything else comparable, enough to be perfect?

OK long question...would above non digital process derive several densities of information?

 

[Ðekel]

Yes I see what you'rer saying luc.

Perhaps being able to apply knowledge to a higher granularity information field is a way to view the densities.

I see it in a similar way

 

[Scottie]

Now, I always thought about "densities" in rather materialistic terms (as we are all conditioned to do), i.e. "stuff" that gets denser or less dense, or an added physical dimension etc. But maybe what we are looking at here is something related to "information densities"? That is, in a higher density, you get an added layer of perception, which means the information density you perceive and interact with increases by an order of magnitude. Obviously, you need to be able to handle it.

Think of the difference between animals and humans. In many ways, we are the same. But we have an added layer of informational input, namely our thoughts, our sense-making apparatus, and our ability to consciously affect our own thoughts, instincts and (re)actions. The information we perceive and with which we can interact for a given time frame is much more dense compared to animals.

That's how I tend to think about it lately.

When the C's remarked that we could be 4D and not even realize it, I immediately thought of our dogs. They're 2D, right? Well, they exist here in 3D with us. Which means "3D" may not be a "place" so much as a state of being. I mean, it must be something like that, no?

If humans are abducted "into 4D", we tend to think of like a parallel reality or something from a sci-fi movie, but maybe it's nothing like that.

Then the difference between "densities" is more like a matter of perception/knowledge/information capabilities - which may influence our physical being and vice versa, but is not a physical thing. And I would guess that this would mean that "variability of physicality" probably doesn't mean what we think it means!

 

[Konstantin]

Session Date: August 11th 2018

Q: (L) So, basically you're saying that DNA can be changed? Well, we know it can, because I read the books. But in other words, you're saying that it can be changed by changes in your thinking, understanding, and level of knowledge?

A: Information is the most important factor.

Q: (L) You mean gathering information, researching, and learning is the most important factor?

A: Yes and applying what is learned.

Q: (L) So information is like filling up the gas tank, and applying what you've learned is like starting the engine and pushing on the gas pedal?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) That makes me think of something. The key for DNA transformation, the most important factor, is information. At the same time, DNA is the intermediary or the receiver to the information field. It evokes to me some kind of mirroring where the individual gathers information in the world which then improves his connection to the information field and allows him to gather even more information? Like a circle?

A: Yes. It is like building an antenna.

Now, I always thought about "densities" in rather materialistic terms (as we are all conditioned to do), i.e. "stuff" that gets denser or less dense, or an added physical dimension etc. But maybe what we are looking at here is something related to "information densities"? That is, in a higher density, you get an added layer of perception, which means the information density you perceive and interact with increases by an order of magnitude. Obviously, you need to be able to handle it.

That's how I tend to think about it lately.

When the C's remarked that we could be 4D and not even realize it, I immediately thought of our dogs. They're 2D, right? Well, they exist here in 3D with us. Which means "3D" may not be a "place" so much as a state of being. I mean, it must be something like that, no?

If humans are abducted "into 4D", we tend to think of like a parallel reality or something from a sci-fi movie, but maybe it's nothing like that.

Then the difference between "densities" is more like a matter of perception/knowledge/information capabilities - which may influence our physical being and vice versa, but is not a physical thing. And I would guess that this would mean that "variability of physicality" probably doesn't mean what we think it means!

So, the density describes the level of knowledge that the being has. It is about the quality of the connection that the being is having with the information field. The more advanced the being the better antenna he has, which means he can gather more information, which he can then apply and with that make his connection even better.

A better connection with the information field and bigger knowledge will make changes to his DNA( antenna ) and the changes of the DNA will make changes in his physical body.

So perhaps, when somebody let's say is just a novice in 4D may not even notice, but as he continues the work over time his physical body will start to slowly change because of the increased information field connection and more dense information received by his antenna. That is the way I somehow understand all this.

 

[Ryan]

So from our perspective, “information density” is something different, perhaps different entirely, from the amount of Shannon information. (Unless perhaps we can come up with some “higher density Shannon information”?)

All in all, it seems that information density cannot be a “natural property” in the physical sense. It is connected to Consciousness and the all-and-everything. The information density of a text, or any physical object, depends on what we bring to the table and our own connection (or lack thereof) to the cosmos.

Fascinating post, luc. The C's have said the following:

Q: [..] (L) Moving along to the next question: we have been discussing memories and how memories of, say, past lives are stored, and that leads to the question of what is the structure and composition of the soul? How does the soul remember? How does it carry its memories from lifetime to lifetime, from body to body, whether simultaneous or sequential? How does the soul "store" them?
A: Has to do with atomic principles. These with gravity present the borderland for the material and the nonmaterial. Which theoretical atomic particulates would you think form the basis here?
Q: (L) How about tachyons?
A: Maybe neutrons?
Q: (A) Neutrons? Or neutrinos?
A: Neutrinos.
Q: (A) Well, first they say neutrons, then neutrinos. Or "maybe neutrons." I say "neutrinos" and they say "yes." So a "maybe" is only a pointer. Neutrinos are funny particles because they are massless. But, some people don't believe that neutrinos exist. My guess would be neutrinos. Do they exist?
A: Okay, we are going to throw caution to the "winds," and say yes. [Laughter.]
Q: (L) In terms of these neutrinos and soul composition, how are memories formed or held or patterned with these neutrinos?
A: Contained within for release when and if suitable.
Q: (L) Memories are contained within the neutrinos?
A: Sort of.
Q: (L) Are they contained within patterns formed by the neutrinos?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) So, that means that if one "consciousness unit," or soul, has more memories or experiences than another consciousness unit, it would have more neutrinos?
A: No.
Q: (B) Different patterns?
A: No.
Q: (L) What's the difference?
A: More data per unit, sort of.
Q: (L) Does that mean that an individual neutrino can be, in and of itself, more "dense" in data, so to speak?
A: So to speak.
Q: (L) Does this increased density of data change the nature or function of the individual neutrino?
A: Maybe it changes the function of the awareness, thus the environs.
Q: (L) Is there a specific number of neutrinos that constitutes a consciousness unit, or soul?
A: Number is not quite the right concept. Orientation is closer.
Q: (L) What are the orientational options?
A: Vibrational frequencies.
Q: (L) Do the vibrational frequencies increase or decrease with density of data?
A: Change; better not to quantify.
Q: (A) We are talking about soul. Soul is what density, in concept?
A: Ark, are neutrinos related to the concept of a bridge into pure energy in some way?
Q: (A) Yes. I was going in that direction. I was wondering why you speak about neutrinos and not photons, because photons are also a bridge to pure energy, I would say. The difference between photons and neutrinos is that photons are bosons and neutrinos are fermions. Neutrinos have to dance so that they don't touch each other. Bosons are like pairs of neutrinos and photons, as bosons, are free to move in space any way they want.
A: We would mention photons in terms of this discussion, but for the tendency of some reading the WebPages to misinterpret in terms of the "love and light" fantastic.
Q: (L) Well, the "light fantastic" was a dance around the turn of the century, so that refers back to the remark about "dancing." (A) Are neutrinos the fundamental building blocks of everything? The most fundamental particle, so to speak?
A: More like a midpoint with spherical outward expansive quality. Tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon.

Then, some years later:

Q: [..] (Ark) Honey, question to Cs: Do we know if neutrinos are massless, or do they have mass?
A: Minimal mass.
Q: (Ark) Ah! So they are massive.

So, we have many interesting concepts here:

1) Neutrinos are ultrafine particles, yet still part of the physical world, therefore they cannot be "pure" information.
2) Together with photons and gravity, they represent a "bridge" and "borderland" into pure energy and the information field respectively. Does energy represent yet another bridge between the finest grades of matter and information? According to E=MC2, energy is distinct from matter, yet Special or General Relativity does not address the concept of information, as far as I'm aware.
3) Memories may be structured in the relationship between neutrinos (and possibly photons?)
4) Individual neutrinos may express different densities of information.
5) Density of information is related to the awareness of either the neutrinos themselves or the consciousness that "contains" them, or both.
6) Neutrinos (and presumably photons) have an orientation that is expressed via vibrational frequencies (possibly reflecting the falsity or truth of the related information - ie. STS/STO?)
7) Non-quantitative descriptions of the phenomena seem more aligned with the truth (I can already hear Ark saying, "But we need to find the math for this!" )
8) Neutrinos are related in some way to mathematical structures such as tetrahedrons, pentagons and hexagons (and septagons, octagons, dodecahedrons etc?)

Some further thoughts:

Are photons also 'minimal mass' particles?
What role does wave-particle duality play in this? Doe the photonic form of light represent a more "massful" state than the "wave" form which is presently understood as pure energy? Does the type of measurement (ie. the way we attend to such phenomena) have an ontological affect upon them - does consciousness inherently influence whether light behaves in a photonic or waveform way?
Would such attention also influence neutrinos, even gravity?

It seems that a certain density of information can be reflected in one of two ways: by a physical phenomena, or by nonmaterial structure that has no physical analog. Perhaps the dividing line between these two is what characterises the border between 4th and 5th density? At 4th density, information can still be materially represented in more subtle, finer forms such as photonic/minimal mass particles, gravitic force, and pure energy states. At 5th density, information is so dense that consciousness has no possible way of experiencing it other than directly, in higher, transcendent or spiritual terms.

If so, this could provide further hints about Gurdjieff's "four bodies"; the structures and composition of the astral/kesdjan (photonic/neutrino?), mental (5D/information?) and spiritual (6D/higher consciousness/soul?).

Relating this back to what may be quantifiable and representable via mathematics; perhaps even if the pure informational structure is not quantifiable, any reflection in the physical must of necessity be. Thus, we could potentially represent, say, the particular 4th-density body of a person as a mathematical expression that describes the neutrinonic/photonic/energetic physics of said body, presumably in a way that is harmonious with the wider hyperdimensional physics of the realm that body inhabits. Such a body might also be understandable as the 'casual source' of our biological bodies, and thus our physiology could serve as a metaphor for the finer structures.

Biology and mathematics aside though, there is also this experiential aspect that you discuss, the direct knowledge of the full information structure that can only be known holistically, perhaps by our "4D right hemispheres"?

Truly a mind-blowing discussion; thanks for starting the thread!

 

[Amor]

I have also been thinking about it lately. When it gets to AI I believe it's capabilities are a reflection of the human awareness. It can't know more than the human input allows or atleast currently. As the Cs mentioned in one of the last sessions the current AI is going through STSification because the people using it are from that orentation.

I would agree that there could be something as information density. This is something dawned upon me when I did some digital art. I will post the picture below. While doing the art I was thinking of the difference between simple drawing made on computer and the same drawing made of dyes, especially natural dyes made from plants like in the older times like in times of Da Vinci. I was thinking in terms of vibrance and what it is. I came to conclusion that it is the complexity of information within let's say one square millimeter of a drawing. On the digital art in terms of complexity of information we have pixels when it comes to the PC screen. When printed we have paper and toner chemicals from the printer. Basically that's it. Looking with microscope at the chemical elements there is only so much layers of let's say molecular structure. So it's informational density is smaller or lower value. Now let's say that same image is drawn by hand using natural dyes made from plants and fruit. The very chemical structure within a square millimeter will be much denser, much more complex chemicaly, more full of life and story. The end result will look much more vibrant and in a sense alive. This is how I understand information density, but also as you have wrote - it also depends on the consciousness, in the above context, on the consciousness of the drawer. Because the one who makes the painting is working within the boundaries of his perceptions, awareness and KNOWLEDGE. The painter might not even realize the full information density of his painting because his consciousness density can't process more information than its ability allows for the moment.

What if what we call objective reality is basically 7th density consciousness. Being 7th density meaning it contains all densities within. Full information field. All there is. Whole existence. Cs have mentioned before that we are consciousness reading units. Since we are in 3d then it means we can process everything from 1 to 3rd level. We have 3d consciousness density. Since we are gradually moving towards 4th level by learning more and processing more of the information field we are being able to experience much more of the objective reality regardless of whether its STO or STS. So what if when the Cs say density they might mean the density of the consciousness and its ability to process certain amount of information from the information field? Colours, sounds, emotions, energies, ideas, thoughts, symbols, geometries, principles, behaviours and so on.

Below is some experimentation where I tried to apply the principle of complexity or information density within boundaries. On the left is the image which I used as my arts "molecular structure". I multiplied that image in hundreds of times, connecting them all together like puzzles pieces with some intersections. On the right image you may see th result of doing so.

 

[Ðekel]

Then the difference between "densities" is more like a matter of perception/knowledge/information capabilities - which may influence our physical being and vice versa, but is not a physical thing. And I would guess that this would mean that "variability of physicality" probably doesn't mean what we think it means!

Yeah "variability of physicality" could mean so many things, and they're more than probably all possible in 4d.

I wouldn't been surprised if denizens beginning to figure out 4th (bi-density), had various types of "variability". From what would would seem to many like omniscience, to being talented in "motion". etc'

 

[Ryan]

'casual source'

*causal source.

 

[gottathink]

What if you'd take a book from a shelf, read it, maybe multiple times, understand the information as good as to be able to apply it in practice, and then refine the information by correcting it due to practical experience or refining it until you are able to sublimate it into a magnificent piece of art or anything else comparable, enough to be perfect?

OK long question...would above non digital process derive several densities of information?

This is kind of describing what Shannon actually did when he discovered his information theory—he “pruned the tree of knowledge”. So perhaps an increase in density arises from understanding information to the point where knowledge can be used to create something not previously realised in the world.

 

[psychegram]

About a year ago I was wondering about this issue of information vs. knowledge, which I think is related to distinguishing between, in Luc's example, the 'blue book', the 'random pixel book', and the actual book. From the perspective of physical information, the state of a given entity can be characterized by the six-dimensional phase space coordinates of its constituent particles (three dimensions of space + three dimensions of velocity). You can extend this a few more dimensions by considering the type of particle, its internal energetic state, and so on, but this doesn't change the basic point, which is that in this limited sense the information content of a living redwood tree, and the equivalent mass of ashes after you burn it down, is precisely the same. Which is so counter-intuitive that it is clear we're missing something.

After poking around in the literature a bit, I came across the concept of (if I recall correctly) something like cumulative entropy. The basic idea is that we need to consider not only the current information content of an entity, but also the information that went into producing it - in other words, the full historical development that made that entity possible in the first place. Now if you wanted to be really pedantic you could point out that the historical development of any given information pattern in the cosmos is equivalently long, so I think what needs to be considered is the functional history. For example, the historical tail - the cumulative entropy - required to create a pile of sand is quite short, in comparison to the historical development necessary to turn a pile of sand into a redwood of equivalent mass.

There may be a connection here to the C's description of humans (or was it themselves?) as a 'social memory complex'. Put a pin in that.

Now, the other question that's come up in this thread is the transition from 3D to 4D and precisely what that will look like. I have no idea of course, but perhaps we might get some insight by looking at the transition from 2D to 3D, which is something we can understand because that already happened for us, and of course our level of consciousness includes 2D by default ... after all, the density development is cumulative.

If I had to guess, the key enabler of the 2D/3D transition was grammatical language. Without it, humans are really just clever hominin who can make some simple stone tools and start fires, a bit more clever than a chimpanzee but nothing terribly remarkable. With language we become something quite entirely different. We gain the ability to communicate with one another in a far more precise fashion, describing not only current conditions (such as our emotional state, whether there's a predator nearby, or any of the other things the higher animals use their simpler forms of communication for). We also gain the ability to describe hypothetical events in the future, as well as past events that have no current referent, e.g. stories about our ancestors.

Language, in other words, establishes a completely different relationship with time compared to that experienced by animal life, who are much more tightly bound to the present than humans. With it we have the ability to accumulate cultural experience much more rapidly, making possible the development of increasingly sophisticated tools; we gain the ability to cooperate over much larger spans of both space and time; and we gain the ability to draw the world towards our intentions via the application of effort in the direction of our imaginations. Language makes us a social memory complex, and it renders the physicality of the world far more variable. An animal, for instance, is not capable of altering its environment with anything like the thoroughness that humans can, nor can an animal add additional capabilities merely by the application of its imagination to its memory/knowledge base, e.g. animals could never have developed powered flight (not without going through extensive biological evolution, that is).

Isn't it interesting that negative forces so often seek to inflict memory loss on humanity: burning books, destroying temples, falsifying history, instituting Year Zeroes in which the educated are murdered? There's always some utopian excuse for it, but the effect is to, as it were, burn down a tree. It destroys a social memory complex, shortening its historical tail and turning it into something with a much shorter functional development.

So, the transition to 4D. I expect it will continue this basic pattern. As Luc indicates, if we think of density as an information density, then it would follow that the transition will mean that we pass through some sort of threshold in which we are accessing and accumulating information much more rapidly than we could previously. Since we know that 4D is still physical, this must correspond to the acquisition of some new physical capability. However this may be very subtle: language is almost entirely nonphysical, but does rely upon certain physical attributes of the human body (Broca's area in the brain, the structure of the glottis and tongue, etc.) We might expect the physical change that enables 4D to be even more subtle still, yet with even more powerful implications.

Furthermore, since we are talking about information densities, we should expect this to be reflected in, for want of a better term, information technologies.

And what is it that has been happening for the last few decades?

The Internet!

The Internet has vastly increased our ability to store and transmit information. Our thoughts can now be moved around the world at the speed of light, as near instantaneous as can be so far as human perception is concerned. It enables social networking at an unprecedented scale.

Moreover, it has also had a profound impact on our perception of time. In particular, it has effectively collapsed it. Compare our cultural development before the Internet, to the patterns after, and the largest change I think is that it feels like in a sense we are in stasis. Music is perhaps the best example here: before the Internet, popular music moved through definite eras, with certain songs being almost universally known at any given time, and certain defining genres marking this or that period in time. Almost as soon as the Internet came online this stopped. Musical culture fragmented into a bewildering array of niches, while the instant accessibility of the full repository of recorded music means that anyone can listen to whatever they want whenever they want, as a result of which songs from generations ago remain very popular. On the one hand, you have a bewildering array of strange little subcultures all moving along on their own developmental pathways, but on the other since it's all happening simultaneously it feels very chaotic, as though nothing is really happening at all.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that the Internet *is* the 4D transition; in fact I suspect it will prove to be transitional, more of a feature *of* the transition, and from whose general properties we might possibly be able to intuit some of what 4D will be (is already?) like.

 

[ark]

In other words, the completely blue book contains almost no information; its “information density” is almost zero.

It is not that simple

Case A: A digital book that contains only blue pages. The probability that the next pixel in that book will be blue is 1, therefore the information is almost 0. T

It is not that simple, I think. Information, probabilities, are always context-dependent. To specify the exact blue color among myriads of shades of the full color spectrum requires an infinite information. So the devil is in the details, and the "context" is one of these details. The more knowledge we have, the larger can be the context in which we do our information processing. For some people contexts are simple, for other extremely complex.

 

[artofdream]

In my area of expertise (Product Lifecycle Management & systems of systems), an object is defined throughout its entire lifecycle by:
* type name revision (unique identifier)
* a set of metadata
* data
* relationships to other objects
* history

However, depending on the role and context, different "views (or understanding)" of this object will be obtained.
The more accesses a user has, the more contexts he can access and therefore the more understanding the user will be able to grasp/get.

In our case, could translate level of accesses with level of knowledge / awareness.
At least that is the take / additional angle I have on this subject at the moment.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

So from our perspective, “information density” is something different, perhaps different entirely, from the amount of Shannon information. (Unless perhaps we can come up with some “higher density Shannon information”?)

I think of Shannon information more as informational potential. Take that random-pixel book. On its own, it contains no actual information (from a certain perspective), but a LOT of informational potential. Imagine using its sequence (with some kind of translation) as your gmail password. In that context it becomes extremely informationally dense. As you write, in order to be information in the way we think of it, it needs meaning. And meaning cannot exist without consciousness. That random pixel book has the potential to represent some very dense information, but only when it is tied cognitively to meaning.