# Some comments on information theory

Amount of Sensate from/to Change, in directional terms, but only Mass if no sensate of direction is present, i.e. mass as potential to sensate change.
It sounds a bit circular like other attempts to talk about consciousness, which is only natural just like her, consciousness itself.

Well that's true. Usually we say that in order to solve a given problem, we have to go beyond the space in which the problem was posed. How can we go beyond our own consciousness?

I think that both mathematical formulas (on some level) and developing deep spirituality and improving our consciousness (on another level) can be helpful in this case.

Well that's true. Usually we say that in order to solve a given problem, we have to go beyond the space in which the problem was posed. How can we go beyond our own consciousness?
Possibly, what trancends consiousness is
creativity. For example, let's say we want to solve a problem. So first we start with an intention to solve it. Then after some effort to solve it we may see 'in a flash' it's solution. The intention somehow engages the creative force (which we cannot see since the creative force is in the realm of the unknown) and the creative force when acting allows us to 'see' the solution via the inner light of consciousness putting it in the realm of the known. So in this respect creativity produces conscious light or consciousness via a sincere act of intention. It might be something like that.

Possibly, what trancends consiousness is
creativity. For example, let's say we want to solve a problem. So first we start with an intention to solve it. Then after some effort to solve it we may see 'in a flash' it's solution. The intention somehow engages the creative force (which we cannot see since the creative force is in the realm of the unknown) and the creative force when acting allows us to 'see' the solution via the inner light of consciousness putting it in the realm of the known. So in this respect creativity produces conscious light or consciousness via a sincere act of intention. It might be something like that.
Your statement brought to my mind some aspects of Hegel's philosophy. Especially those related to the so-called absolute spirit.

The absolute spirit is constituted by the identity of self-knowledge and manifests itself in three forms: art, revealed religion, and conceptual form in philosophy.

Artistic creativity, religious creativity, and philosophical creativity are different expressions of one and the same absolute spirit. Beauty is the complete identity of the phenomenon and the absolute (these are the slogans of Romanticism and Neoplatonism). The unity of the phenomenon and idea develops in three forms:

symbolic, representing an idea in a phenomenon,

classical, showing the unity of phenomena and ideas in a naive way,

romantic, which consciously bridges the conscious gulf between the phenomenon and the idea.

Religious creativity comes from natural religion and, through the religion of spiritual individuality, comes to the highest form, the Christian religion (However, the Christian religion ought to be understood here in a very broad sense. You absolutely shouldn't take it literally).

Art is a manifestation of the absolute spirit in sensual form, beauty stands in the middle between sensuality and pure thinking. Philosophy has the task of capturing its own epoch and man and, thanks to this self-knowledge, to discover its identity with the Christian religion, which, according to Hegel, corresponds fully to the content of true philosophy.

The knowledge of God is the ultimate goal of philosophy, because man knows God only to the extent that God in man knows himself.

And that is what I would pay special attention to. Kant introduced a distinction. The human mind and the divine mind were different categories. Hegel, on the other hand, sought a kind of unity between the human mind and the divine mind. This is what his "Phenomenology of Spirit" deals with. It can also be understood as lighting up the inner light or the way to the light.

Although Hegel is viewed by some as an atheistic philosopher, it has to do more with dogmatics than with reality. Indeed, his philosophy can be extremely inspiring spiritually. He himself was, in a sense, a romantic, even a surrealist.

Trying to understand metaphysic using cabal science is quite pointless since it is distorted on purpose as extra challenge to ascension. If you read disclosure like the hidden hand, the illuminati is basically narrating the sheep how science should work for thousands of years. The inquisition is still here. Just like their spiritual unit infiltrate major religions they have units for science too. If you are attracted to metaphysic read it (start with Ra law of one) otherwise don't waste your time. To be harvested you don't need to be member of advance civilizations, probably more souls get harvested in simple tribal living in huts than in rich and technologically advance society. Also your knowledge of science/technology in lower realm is different than in upper realm. They don't use atom anymore as structure of manifestation. Your purpose in 3D is to pick a side, light or dark, that is why you only get 3* 26000 yrs to be harvested then the realm is gone.

Understanding metaphysics/ spiritual law significantly speed up your ascension process rather than doing it unaware/ randomly in each incarnation. It is like a map to how the universe work. Consciousness in spiritual teaching consist of male energy/ wisdom and female energy / love. If you read Ra, love/ light means giving inspiration/ teaching while light/ love means manifesting a creation.

The basic process of creations consist of 4 steps:
1. awareness of problems: this steps usually involves using your mind, analyzing the problem and selecting possible solutions.
2. blueprint: this step is when you formulate the solution to your problem. Access to possible solution from ether depends on your vibrations, more options open up with higher vibrations. That is why creativity is found in house of love/ emotion instead of mind. Most creative people are madly in love with what they do, this remove the blockage from ether (you keep on trying called it creative curiosity). Remember everything is already created it is just a matter of gaining access to it.
3. feeling the vision: To manifest a vision you need a lot of energy for point of attention to manifest. Having positive feelings about your visions speed up the manifestation process/ also faith. It is a law of attraction in progress (if you think negatively, like in fear/victim mode you attract a lot of aggressor/suffering in you life)
4. Faith: you believe that your vision will manifest regardless all the challenges that lies ahead. Yes in lower realm it means you have to have patience for it to work. In full unity things manifest instantly, in duality there is a time delay.

The Latin etymology for 'Information' is 'in the appearance', and for 'Consciousness' it is 'with knowledge'.
The knowledge (or conscious observation) of the appearance of realities is basically dependent from the observer's capacities, therefore subjective. Reaching an objective knowledge seems quite a challenge, we know that.
In our civilization we mostly use technology, rational thinking, yet at the same time we are progressing into materialistic applications we are also destroying ourselves with the tools we are making with this mindset.
Can science grow into something new and better with something like mathematical theology, as Ark suggested ?
While it s true that contemporary science is too primitive to address such questions, why are we afraid to think that science can grow into something new and better? Perhaps something like mathematical theology (that would include some abstract and general information theory) could be a good start?
A fascinating question (and a great thread) !

By the way, a few scientists (Haramein, Guillemant, Penrose...) talk about the Information Field as being related to the Quantic World...

Can science grow into something new and better with something like mathematical theology, as Ark suggested ?
The idea of mathematical theology was born during our discussions with Ark. Theology is an interesting discipline of knowledge because the object of research are metaphysical beings. In addition, few people know that modern mathematics, and thus also other exact sciences, owe a lot to theological considerations.

Theology and mathematics are usually viewed as mutually distant disciplines of knowledge. The first one is classified as a humanistic science, while the second one is classified as an exact science. However, there are some indications that the commonly accepted separateness of the two domains is in fact only apparent.

The object of research in both theology and mathematics are abstract beings, and thus, over the centuries, both sciences have repeatedly interpenetrated and influenced each other.

The common origin of theology and mathematics can already be seen in the philosophy of Ancient Greece. It is well known that for Plato, mathematical objects were examples of entities from another world. Using mathematical tools, the philosopher undertook attempts to describe what is ontologically or epistemologically transcendent.

When analyzing the history of Christianity, it is easy to notice that theology made a significant contribution to the development of mathematics, which is particularly well shown by the historical analysis of the thought of the Middle Ages.

Medieval theologian Nicholas of Cusa pointed out that mathematicians deal with infinitely small and infinitely large numbers in order to at least partially understand God's infinity.

The works of Nicholas of Cusa, which are devoted to mathematics, are primarily a record of looking for a transition from mathematical conclusions to metaphysical ones. The philosopher emphasizes the importance of the analogy between mathematics and metaphysics, inter alia, in "De mathematica perfectione" from 1458 and in "Aurea propositio in mathematicis" from 1459.

For Nicholas of Cusa, mathematics was not an art in itself, nor was it only a method of getting to know the physical world. He saw it primarily as a discipline enabling a deeper understanding of the world in relation to God in accordance with the maxim "fides quaerens intellectum" attributed to Anselm of Canterbury.

Anyway, Anselm also used mathematical tools and developed them to clarify metaphysical questions.

Another example is the nineteenth-century mathematician Georg Cantor. His first work was primarily on number theory. His research on trigonometric series eventually led him to the creation of set theory. One of the greatest discoveries of a mathematician was that infinite sets can be of different cardinality. He also showed that the set of natural numbers is infinite but countable, while the set of real numbers is not only infinite but also uncountable. This meant that these sets, although both are infinite, are not of the same cardinality.

Cantor's ideas were initially not enthusiastically received. In his defense, the scholar referred to theological arguments. He referred, inter alia, to Augustine, who proclaimed centuries ago that "natural numbers exist as ideas in the Divine Mind." Consequently, there is no reason why the cardinal numbers should not also constitute ideas that exist in the Divine Mind, which is intended to be unlimited.

From a historical point of view, considerations of a logical or even mathematical nature can also be seen by analyzing the numerous theological disputes that have taken place in the past. These include, inter alia, differences in views on the generally recognized doctrine noticeable in the Arians, Nestorians or Monophysites. Due to the multitude of interpretations of these views, it was very easy to make an equivocation (ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence) at that time.

For example, the claim attributed to Monophysites that Christ had one divine-human nature and did not exist in two natures (divine and human) is extremely difficult to interpret unequivocally. Due to many similar disputes, theology needed strict definitions and disambiguation.

Another issue is possible arguments concerning the non-empirical nature of theology, manifested, for example, by the fact that revelation is regarded as a kind of axiom. It ought to be noted, however, that also in mathematics there are objects called primitive notions. They are, for example, sets or their features (elements).

Primitive notions play the role of universally accepted, undeniable obviousness, but for the person experiencing the revelation it becomes the undeniable obviousness. Primitive notions in mathematics were built on the basis of our intuition.

The idea of mathematical theology is therefore roughly that we should seek in the exact sciences the possibility of describing metaphysical and extrasensory beings. We should look at the world from a theological perspective, make metaphysical beings the objects of our research and apply appropriate mathematical tools that will allow us to at least attempt to describe these beings.

At the moment, such objects are subjects of philosophical (irrational philosophy, metaphysics, etc.) and theological research. The point is, however, to clarify these considerations. Of course, making the considerations more precise has some drawbacks, as it narrows our point of view to some extent, but on the other hand it may be necessary to make it sufficient for any conclusion.

In philosophy at the moment, no unambiguous conclusions are reached. There are so many different philosophical currents, so many systems, so many discourses that virtually any philosophical thesis can be refuted.

It is different in the exact sciences. We have specific systems of axioms and a well-defined methodology. This makes the proofs of the claims clear. We are able to state that a specific theorem has been proven in a given system.

Of course, our mathematical description of nature is not perfect, but that does not prevent us from advancing in technology and the benefits that come from developing science. Nevertheless, I think it is time for a new era of romanticism.

The natural sciences, and physics in particular, must stop concentrating solely on describing the material world. Time, consciousness, information - all these issues are very interesting. It seems to me that we are only observing their manifestations, but we know nothing about their source. Kant would say that we observe phenomena, but we do not know things in themselves, the causes in themselves.

And I personally believe that it is in theology or in irrational and metaphysical philosophy that inspiration ought to be sought, which can then be to some extent mechanized and refined.

The point is also not to become entangled in the current methodology of natural sciences, but to work on extending it.

History, even though it is an idiographic field, shows that such attempts have often been successful in the past. Nowadays, again, mainstream science is highly materialistic. I think that if we do not deviate from this approach, much progress will not be made.

Last edited by a moderator:
The idea of mathematical theology is therefore roughly that we should seek in the exact sciences the possibility of describing metaphysical and extrasensory beings. We should look at the world from a theological perspective, make metaphysical beings the objects of our research and apply appropriate mathematical tools that will allow us to at least attempt to describe these beings.

To illustrate let me quote one example. Kurt Godel was a friend of Albert Einstein in Princeton. They often walked together discussing physics, mathematics, philosophy, religion. Eintsein was a physicist, Godel a logician. But Godel had very wide interests. He discovered cosmologies (solutions of Einstein's field equations) with time loops. He is also famous for a logical proof of existence of God - based on axiomatic methods of logic. The proof has been formalized. Interested readers may like to look here:

Of course the proof is based on axioms, and these can be replaced by other axioms. And we can also take the very existence of God as an axiom in some other system. The point is that while there are infinitely many different possible systems of axioms, some of them are rich in consequences and "useful", while other may be of no use at all. And what does it mean "useful"? Useful for whom and how?
That is an important but altogether different question.

The point is that while there are infinitely many different possible systems of axioms, some of them are rich in consequences and "useful", while other may be of no use at all. And what does it mean "useful"? Useful for whom and how?
That is an important but altogether different question.
The question of suitability depends on the goal we intend to achieve. If our goal is to describe the immaterial world, then we must try to create such a system of axioms and such methodology to simplify this task as much as possible. There is no doubt, however, that since the mainstream focuses only on materialism, our perspectives are very narrow. We explore the shore and run away from the deep.

Some time ago I studied old medical publications. I was surprised how the holistic approach was presented at the time. Modern medicine seems to treat man as an automaton, a set of chemical parameters. Even psychiatry seeks to analyze the mental state in isolation from the spiritual aspects, in isolation from the whole.

I am not saying that modern medicine has no place. I believe that of course it is necessary and can sometimes work wonders. However, I think that if modern physicians used holistic methods more often, the development of medicine would progress faster and treatment in many cases would be more effective.

Nowadays, again, mainstream science is highly materialistic. I think that if we do not deviate from this approach, much progress will not be made.
The point is that while there are infinitely many different possible systems of axioms, some of them are rich in consequences and "useful", while other may be of no use at all. And what does it mean "useful"? Useful for whom and how?

With a materialistic approach nowadays, progress is useful for some trans-humanistic globalized world, kind of a nightmare...
We definitely need to reach higher realms of Information-Consciousness.
Thank you for the path you are clearing...

Thank you for the path you are clearing...
And I thank you for being here.

4. Faith: you believe that your vision will manifest regardless all the challenges that lies ahead. Yes in lower realm it means you have to have patience for it to work. In full unity things manifest instantly, in duality there is a time delay.
"And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love". (1 Corinthians 13:13, NKJV).

When you show love for the entire Universe, the Universe will eventually respond. Faith is a prerequisite.

It seems like discovery is a fundamental element common to all learning paths. Knowledge is acquired by a series of non-linear discoveries which have a basis in objective reality. In a sense, we are discovering (or re-discovering?) Cosmic principles that are deeply buried for the sake of learning, yet manifest themselves on the surface with surprising shapes (whether material or immaterial). Making sense of these principles requires casting one's net wide and catching all sorts of clues. The difficulty is to choose the appropriate net to retain that which will increase the overall understanding of the principles. How wide should the net be? How strong should the net be? Where should the net be placed? How often should the net be redeployed? The rule of the game is to find the rule of the game by trial and error.

Creation allows anyone to construct a model of reality based on a sample of observations. It is easy to go astray and mistake the part for the whole, especially when the relationship between discoveries is not trivial. It is quite remarkable that we are able to explore the depths of reality without first fully understanding who we are. I guess discovering Self amounts to discovering Creation.

It is quite remarkable that we are able to explore the depths of reality without first fully understanding who we are. I guess discovering Self amounts to discovering Creation.
A very beautiful note. I agree. Our observation is inseparable from the functioning of our consciousness.

A very beautiful note. I agree. Our observation is inseparable from the functioning of our consciousness.

I would expand the above adding into consideration the term "knowledge". Knowledge is probably as hard to define as consciousness, and these two are certainly related. Knowledge often comes from observations and is related to information. But there is also another kind of knowledge that does not rely on any observations. We may, for instance, "know" what our mission in life is, and it comes from a "realization" rather than observation. First we may have a vague feeling, and then one day, we suddenly "know for sure". Of course conscious and subconscious mind are involved, but not observations. Unless we count as observation observing our inner states.

Philosopher Popper wrote about knowledge in "Self and its brain" and later in his essay "Theory of knowledge" in his last book "A world of propensities"

What he has missed is the important fact that "Knowledge protects". That's the main function of knowledge. But this we know from other sources!.

Hello! I've been busy with my remedial education. Not having a background in Math and Physics, or following a syllabus, I let synchronicity and cues from everyday happenings that indicate and connect to topics for study. Sitting for an exam might not be so pleasant but at least the main gist of the subject seems to be obtainable and it is fun and playful. Maybe a waste of time but its preferable to consuming the miserable ugliness out there that is rampant.

If information is the vector(s) and being is the product, what is knowledge ? Is there an equation for this?

zak