msasa79
Jedi Master
Prompted by a passage from Ark's blog post last Sunday, quoted below, and by story of mathematician A. Grothendieck in the article linked in that blog post, embarked on a quest to grok what "consciousness", "information", and "measurements" are, in a sense of finding useful and operable definitions of these concepts, and how they can be represented by mathematical and/or physical entities so to be able to apply standard mathematical and scientific 'operations' with and on them. Neither Grok nor other not-so-smart AI machines have shown to be helpful, at least to satisfactory enough level, in that endeavor.
Initially started the discussion in the Comment section of the blog, but judging by the reception and replies so far, that's not gonna go anywhere, and it would take quite a lot of 'transferring' and more so explaining the specific content and context that's already been done in great deal on the Forum, in the C's sessions, and supportive literature like Pierre's book ECHCC. So decided to open the thread in hope of 'receiving' help from members here. The relevant comments for this kick-off from Ark's blog would be quoted below.
Of course, if all this was already processed and addressed somewhere, and I missed it, apologies for 'noising' and please direct me to relevant and appropriate source, thread, posts or literature. If not, then please join me in this quest and in elucidating and 'codifying' these apparently very important concepts for gaining knowledge and understanding of the being and in a sense very existence in the world we live in.
First and 'opening' comment below relies on the exchange with the C's in the session of May 28th 2013.
If that 'definition' is acceptable, we can proceed with finding suitable representation.
One possibility that crossed the mind that might be handy, in a way, has been to use the point as a representative of (most basic) information. When babbled about the point some time ago, one of the replies got was that point is a non-thing, which seems to perfectly suit the purpose for representing information as an atom or foundation of everything. It is something, but not exactly a thing to get hands on it, just like an information. Usually the "bit" is considered to be an unit of information, at that's fine from the point of view of quantifying it, but it's not particularly useful for representing it, especially from the perspective of geometry and arrangement of information by truth so that it can become consciousness, which is one of the aims of this quest and endeavor.
The point has mathematical dimension 0, which is not a number according to the C's and also represents (perfect) balance, so it would not be burdened with additional meaning or information except of that of its existence. It just is, nothing else. There would be no need for anything else for it to exist and be, no need for space or time, in fact both space and time are made of points, and in a broad sense it can be said that everything is made of points. Seems to perfectly suit the purpose of representing information out of which everything is made.
If these are acceptable definition and representation of an information, we could proceed with an arrangement by truth so to reach the same for consciousness. But before going there, leaving first this part about information open with an invitation for discussion, comments, suggestions, criticism or whatever else crosses the mind that might bring us closer to more objective and truthful assessment of the reality we inhabit.
passage from Ark's blog post (my emphasis) said:Certainly time is not the same as space. Einstein and Minkowski merged space with time, but their reasoning was highly questionable. Maxwell equations were taken as a starting point. 10-parameters Poincare group came out rather easily as an invariance group, and it was set on a pedestal. It was given the absolute power over all other possible interactions, for no good reason. Then it was discovered that Maxwell equations are invariant under the 15-parameters conformal group, containing the Poincare group as a subgroup leaving the "conformal infinity" (Dupin cyclide) as the unmoved "absolute", but it didn't help us with understanding the nature of time. Is time "real" or "imaginary"? Or both? There is a lot that needs to be done in physics before jumping ahead into the future of fancy mathematics with no "yes-no" dichotomy. Some physicists promote the view that the universe is a quantum computer - like it would explain anything. It does not explain anything at all, it just sweeps problems under the carpet, since we do not understand what quantum theory is about. Quantum theory does not explain consciousness. We need to understand what "consciousness", "information", and "measurements" are first. Then, perhaps, we will be able to get some idea about quantum theory, the theory of "measurements".
Initially started the discussion in the Comment section of the blog, but judging by the reception and replies so far, that's not gonna go anywhere, and it would take quite a lot of 'transferring' and more so explaining the specific content and context that's already been done in great deal on the Forum, in the C's sessions, and supportive literature like Pierre's book ECHCC. So decided to open the thread in hope of 'receiving' help from members here. The relevant comments for this kick-off from Ark's blog would be quoted below.
Of course, if all this was already processed and addressed somewhere, and I missed it, apologies for 'noising' and please direct me to relevant and appropriate source, thread, posts or literature. If not, then please join me in this quest and in elucidating and 'codifying' these apparently very important concepts for gaining knowledge and understanding of the being and in a sense very existence in the world we live in.
First and 'opening' comment below relies on the exchange with the C's in the session of May 28th 2013.
Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?
A: Different concentrations of truth.
Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?
A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.
Comment 1 said:Measurement in its broad sense can be viewed as an observation, which presupposes an observer, that in its broad sense includes consciousness of some sort. Our other sources indicated that information arranged by truth becomes consciousness, which puts information as a foundational element of that set of concepts.
Leaving aside the usual approach to information like information theory or physical notion of entropy, went to see the etymology of that word, and arrived at its Latin "components" which in short give the meaning like that which gives shape or form, or in its broad sense that which creates or simply "creator". And the "creator" meaning includes all sorts of things, it creates the existence of something, as in material and ethereal or abstract like an idea, and it also creates the existence of relations and relationships between or among these "created" things.
In a very real sense it can be said that information is a fibre of the whole Creation, the prima materia of the Existence. It does not need space or time to reside in, it creates space and time if needed. It is maybe a bit strange to comprehend because we are used to have something as a sort of a stage where things dwell in or on, and information does not need such a stage as it is the "material" of its own out of which everything is created, including various "stages".
Comment 2 said:Pierre used the term Information Field for describing the texture of the Universe and Creation, which at some point I was nitpicking about. At the end of the day, it basically comes down to the same things, with only maybe tiny differences in details. And as Ark points out repeatedly, the devil often hides in those details.
One of the Pierre's ideas and hypotheses that particularly rubbed me the wrong way was that we and other living beings connect to the Information Field by exchanging biophotons with it. With the view presented in the comment above, there would be no need for that, as we and everything else in the Creation, not just living beings, would be made of information or the Information Field to use Pierre's term.
I personally would not use the term field in relation to information as a fundamental structural fibre of the Creation, as it already presupposes an arrangement of some kind and relationships among the information/fibres making it, if viewed from the mathematical point of view, or a space where it resides if taken from scientific or physical perspective of a field. As explained in the comment, there would be no need for that also, and if the information would be "arranged" in some kind of a mathematical or algebraic structure like a field, which would presumably be the truth, then this "field" would already become consciousness, if we adopt the hypothesis that "information arranged by truth becomes consciousness".
In other words, the term Information Field would be kind of a misnomer for the Universal or Divine Consciousness or simply God, sort of "hiding" the fact that the Creation or Universe is conscious, and made of information which do not necessarily need to be arranged into just a field, but maybe even in some sort of a complex geometric algebra type of an arrangement.
Comment 3 said:For starters, I'm completely fine with what have written in previous comments about the information as a fabric of everything, that is as a creative fibre of Creation, in the broadest sense and all possible meanings.
Any narrowing of the "definition":
'that which gives shape, that which gives form, that which gives existence or simply that which creates',
seems to leave something out or to reduce the scope in the sense that something is "preceding" the information in the overall existence.
But, of course, I might also be completely wrong in this reasoning.
If that 'definition' is acceptable, we can proceed with finding suitable representation.
One possibility that crossed the mind that might be handy, in a way, has been to use the point as a representative of (most basic) information. When babbled about the point some time ago, one of the replies got was that point is a non-thing, which seems to perfectly suit the purpose for representing information as an atom or foundation of everything. It is something, but not exactly a thing to get hands on it, just like an information. Usually the "bit" is considered to be an unit of information, at that's fine from the point of view of quantifying it, but it's not particularly useful for representing it, especially from the perspective of geometry and arrangement of information by truth so that it can become consciousness, which is one of the aims of this quest and endeavor.
The point has mathematical dimension 0, which is not a number according to the C's and also represents (perfect) balance, so it would not be burdened with additional meaning or information except of that of its existence. It just is, nothing else. There would be no need for anything else for it to exist and be, no need for space or time, in fact both space and time are made of points, and in a broad sense it can be said that everything is made of points. Seems to perfectly suit the purpose of representing information out of which everything is made.
If these are acceptable definition and representation of an information, we could proceed with an arrangement by truth so to reach the same for consciousness. But before going there, leaving first this part about information open with an invitation for discussion, comments, suggestions, criticism or whatever else crosses the mind that might bring us closer to more objective and truthful assessment of the reality we inhabit.