Some comments on information theory

Cleopatre VII

Jedi Master
Also, when I caught up with the thread recently and read the bolded parts above they made me concerned for you and sad that you feel or think this way. Maybe you should consider creating a thread in the 'Swamp' section of the forum about them and network about it. But I haven't read the thread you started and contributed to called 'Our paranormal experience', so maybe you have mentioned this there or in another thread I haven't read yet.
Do not worry. I have crises of faith from time to time. I have a deep feeling that I have a lot to do in this life, so sometimes I lack the strength and feel that I still give too little of myself.

However, I really appreciate the discussion, and even the discussion in this thread very much sustains me in these more difficult moments.

At the same time, not so long ago I had serious health problems, and besides, I work a lot, so sometimes I don't have enough energy to rest. Frankly speaking, I would like to work 24 hours a day and not even sleep, but unfortunately it is impossible.
 

PabloAngello

Jedi Master
Is there such a thing as a 'cosmic' computation?

Take for example the game of chess. The squares, the pieces, the players, and the rules of the game are all well-defined. There is no ambiguity. Players are not hiding any pieces from each other—it's a perfect information game. However, the games holds enough complexity so that no player can always find the best move. For this reason, players appreciate the artistic side of chess, filled with spectacular combinations, creative formations, and strategic varieties

1648471710378.png

Apart from the discussion. I would like to notice, that almost all our games (like chess etc) are reflection of STS (Serve to Selve) - chess is pure "divide and conquer" scenerio - makes you use all your mental abilities to destroy the oponent's figures or to put him under so much fire, he can't make any defensive move or hide. Most computer games are the same, kill oponent or conquer as much space possible as you can by stratigical moves. We are sorrounded by this ideology (not nesessarilly by killing because novadays it is unaccepted) all around, not only in games. Whole capitalism is about doing anything you can to maximize the profit - pure serve to selve, but 'civilized'. This situation is slowly changing (at least in gaming industry, like Journey or SimCity) but still very slow..

Bless the one, that will create STO "chess". (and know you have this feeling - "but how its possible to make 'sto chess', it's a quirk, just look on all those pawns on the board - how they can help eachoter instead fighting? what's the poin then?".
You are feeling emptiness thinking about it because you/we are so much programmed with sts games that it feels impossible for us to start constructing games -like chess- other way).
 
Last edited:

Natus Videre

Jedi Master
View attachment 57175

Apart from the discussion. I would like to notice, that almost all our games (like chess etc) are reflection of STS (Serve to Selve) - chess is pure "divide and conquer" scenerio - makes you use all your mental abilities to destroy the oponent's figures or to put him under so much fire, he can't make any defensive move or hide. Most computer games are the same, kill oponent or conquer as much space possible as you can by stratigical moves. We are sorrounded by this ideology (not nesessarilly by killing because novadays it is unaccepted) all around, not only in games. Whole capitalism is about doing anything you can to maximize the profit - pure serve to selve, but 'civilized'. This situation is slowly changing (at least in gaming industry, like Journey or SimCity) but still very slow..

Bless the one, that will create STO "chess". (and know you have this feeling - "but how its possible to make 'sto chess', it's a quirk, just look on all those pawns on the board - how they can help eachoter instead fighting? what's the poin then?".
You are feeling emptiness thinking about it because you/we are so much programmed with sts games that it feels impossible for us to start constructing games -like chess- other way).
I always enjoyed solving chess puzzles more than I enjoyed playing against an opponent. Two years ago, I completely stopped playing competitive chess, because I didn't vibrate anymore to the adversarial environment that stemmed from the constant desire to dominate opponents. Wanting to "win" was mentally draining, and I felt like I went deeper into the rabbit hole whenever I compared myself to others (especially when using an illusory rating system).

Once I realized how much and how easily my energy was drained, I never looked back.

In my view, what determines the orientation (STS or STO) is not the game itself, but what you do with the game, i.e the context. If your aim is to annihilate your opponent and to prove that you are superior, then the choice is directed inward (to Self). On the other hand, if your aim is to explore the game and share your findings with other players, then the choice is directed outward (to Others). Everything can be turned into research, i.e. lessons, because the context (why we do what we do) is indissociable from our actions and is always available for introspection despite the gravity of our actions. We can always question what we do—and that possibility, just by itself, is a sign of the existence of objectivity.

Q: Well, that is a VERY tricky... (A) Is consciousness objective?

A: Consciousness is objective, until it has the capacity to choose to be otherwise.
 

Cleopatre VII

Jedi Master
In my view, what determines the orientation (STS or STO) is not the game itself, but what you do with the game, i.e the context. If your aim is to annihilate your opponent and to prove that you are superior, then the choice is directed inward (to Self). On the other hand, if your aim is to explore the game and share your findings with other players, then the choice is directed outward (to Others). Everything can be turned into research, i.e. lessons, because the context (why we do what we do) is indissociable from our actions and is always available for introspection despite the gravity of our actions. We can always question what we do—and that possibility, just by itself, is a sign of the existence of objectivity.
Once upon a time, I wanted to prove to the whole world that I could do it all. And I defended 3 doctoral diplomas in 6 months. Later I felt bad about doing it. I went to study theology. And then I found that I had to keep working, but most of all I had to fulfill what I had promised myself.

Later I played chess again and went a long way in this game. I felt special. I felt that my life was not what I wanted, so I played and won. I was winning almost always. I learned how to do it. I've never been happy after winning a game.

People never feel won when they win the game. This win is nice for a day or less. The real win is love. There is no greater victory than understanding why it is worth loving people and this world. This is the only happiness in the world. Incomparable with what is the best checkmate in a chess game.

Though there is one more checkmate I want to get - the Time Machine. But only and exclusively on the basis of new rules. And I think it can only be obtained under new rules.
 

Wandering Star

The Living Force
A few months ago a person asked me if I liked to play chess.

I told him no, since I don't do power struggles.

He didn't know what to say about it.

For you to win, the other has to lose, I explained, but he didn't understand.

In the next exchange of this session the C's say something that surely has more than the obvious meaning.

Q: (L) I want you guys to know that I sometimes feel a wee tiny bit like a pawn on a chessboard!

A: You should, you inhabit 3rd density STS environment.

Q: (L) I was at least hoping that if I was a pawn, that some of the players were good guys. Is that asking too much?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) To which statement?

A: Good guys don't play chess.
 

christx11

Jedi Master
The problem is with your presentation of the results. In mathematics we have definitions and theorems and proofs. Can you condense your results in a theorem, clearly stated, and a proof, clearly written? Then perhaps it will be readable.
Thank you. I will try

Here is my attempt to be more clear. I do not have access to a lot of published sources, so I have tried to use a math paper template for organization and logic, but the post/paper is mainly observational. One of the main intentions of this paper is to basically demonstrate how prime numbers are related to many concepts that are covered in the Cassiopaean sessions transcripts.

It is very difficult to present a theorem and proof to show how a session concept like:

A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?

correlates to an observation I have regarding prime numbers.

I hope I have made my observations more understandable in the attached paper/post.

The attachment is a single HTML file in a zip archive.

Attachment:euler_03.zip51,141 bytes
Archived file:euler_03.html204,999 bytes

Unarchive to a temporary directory and open the file with a modern browser like (Edge, Chrome, Firefox, Safari).
Of course scan it, check for malware, whatever you like before opening it.

Older browsers may not work as the HTML file contains the MathJax v3 library.
I would not recommend reading it in a mobile device.

It may take a few seconds to render the first time.

Thanks for your patience.
 

Attachments

  • euler_03.zip
    49.9 KB · Views: 11

Cleopatre VII

Jedi Master
Here is my attempt to be more clear. I do not have access to a lot of published sources, so I have tried to use a math paper template for organization and logic, but the post/paper is mainly observational. One of the main intentions of this paper is to basically demonstrate how prime numbers are related to many concepts that are covered in the Cassiopaean sessions transcripts.

It is very difficult to present a theorem and proof to show how a session concept like:

A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?

correlates to an observation I have regarding prime numbers.

I hope I have made my observations more understandable in the attached paper/post.

The attachment is a single HTML file in a zip archive.

Attachment:euler_03.zip51,141 bytes
Archived file:euler_03.html204,999 bytes

Unarchive to a temporary directory and open the file with a modern browser like (Edge, Chrome, Firefox, Safari).
Of course scan it, check for malware, whatever you like before opening it.

Older browsers may not work as the HTML file contains the MathJax v3 library.
I would not recommend reading it in a mobile device.

It may take a few seconds to render the first time.

Thanks for your patience.
I pre-read what you wrote. You've put a lot of work into it. I want to be more specific on this, but I need a little more time for that. I think it will be possible next week.

However, I sincerely congratulate you on some of your insights. This is something that very few human beings will understand. I understand you, but I need to read it a few more times.

Nevertheless, you see very well what I just said a few days ago (loop logic, linear versus loop time, and maybe even a time-light relationship? It can be seen here!), that nobody sees. It is beautiful. But bear in mind that I am a bit crazy. I am in love with time etc.

I will look at what you wrote and I promise to analyze it in depth before speaking. It may take a while, but I will keep it in mind.
 

Natus Videre

Jedi Master
Magnetic Monopoles

Session-31-January-1998
Q: (A) That's possible. Better late... than not at all. (L) Any other little 'jewels' of wisdom? (A) I want to ask about monopoles. Do monopoles exist?

A: Yes.


Q: My thought was that if monopoles exist, the only way they can exist is that if somewhere, under some conditions, the opposite of the pole exists... I mean they cannot exist in third density without being a duality... (A) Yes...

A: And third density cloaks so many truths.

Q: Do you say cloaks in the sense that it cloaks the monopoles from our observation?

A: Measureability.

Q: Cloaks them from our measureability.

A: Psychomantium.

Q: Okay, is a psychomantium something that utilizes monopoles? When you use the mirror are you seeing the other 'half' of them?

A: Window to many vistas.

Q: Well, I am working on it! I have to get the house put together first! (A) And to get the house put together first we gotta work on these monopoles, get the Nobel Prize for these monopoles...

A: Spreading yourself too thin.

Q: I know I am spreading myself too thin.

A: But, you are happier now.

Q: Except for {my daughter}. I am very unhappy about {her}. I want to cry about it all the time.

A: Always has been the conflicted one; karmic.

Q: What is the nature of the karma?

A: Role reversal.

Q: Back to monopoles. (A) Long ago you advised that I should return to something that I was doing long ago, and that I abandoned, like many other things. Monopoles was one of the things, and recently I discovered another, automata. The universe is like a computer and, in the beginning, there was the 'word.' Should I just do the monopoles temporarily and finish, or is it something that is worthwhile to pursue? Help, please.

A: You need study time.

Q: What is the clue to be derived from 'study time'?

A: Both efforts bring results when pursued simultaneously. Weekends provide this, so do evenings soon to be in new environment, if pursue correctly. Basically on the right track, just have patience and faith. Now, we suggest that future sessions delve more fully into matters of universal importance, then personal problems dissolve, or at least ease! Thank you and Good Night.

Session-26-December-1998
Q: (A) But, still I want to understand what was all this talk about tetrahedrons. So, I thought about tetrahedrons that I have worked with and met in my research. There were several occasions. First, there are tetrahedrons which we need if you build a continuous theory of completely discrete elements. Then we do the triangulation of the surface, or we need tetrahedrons to triangulate space, so let me call it Place One. Place Two: tetrahedrons I understood as symbols because tetrahedrons have three edges from each vertex, so I thought this three should represent third order differential equations. Place Three: I use tetrahedrons for describing magnetic monopoles, but they were not necessary, and I have no other way to put tetrahedrons into the idea to bend geometry. If things are fluffy, what are tetrahedrons doing there? I have no clue at all! So, I want to ask about a possibility of describing different densities. It came to my mind that perhaps Einstein, when you spoke about variable physicality, that Einstein was afraid when he understood that in his work. I thought about this and I think that Einstein determined that the future must be determined from the past and present, and when he found that he had a theory where the future was open, he dismissed it and was afraid. Is this a good guess that variable physicality, mathematically, means a theory where there is a freedom of choosing the future when past and present are given?

A: Yes.


Q: (A) Is it related to the fact that we should use higher order differential equations, not second order?

A: Yes. Einstein found that not only is the future open, but also the present and the past. Talk about scary!!

Session-12-December-2010
Q: (Ark) There are two theories of gravity mainly, one which is based on flat normal, space, time with perfect geometry. And gravity is thought of as a kind of field, which is in the background of this idea of space. This theory is not the mainstream theory. It’s a theory for strange people who are against Einstein. There is Einstein’s theory that there is no such thing as a nice background that gravity should be thought as not disturbing something… We don’t know what it is, really. But, this Einstein theory cannot be explained by such things as inertia. So, now my question is: Which is the better approach? That of one of the opposers of Einstein? Or one of the followers of Einstein?

A: Einstein was wrong… More than once.

Q: (Ark) Long ago, years ago, we were talking here about magnetic monopoles, and there was kind of a confirmation that they exist, but we didn’t go further into the subject. Now, there are three theories about magnetic monopoles concerning their speed. First: they are slower than light. Second: they have the speed of light. Third: they are faster than light. Which is true?

A: 3.

Session-9-April-2011
Q: (Ark) Last question. Uh, there was in the 20’s a German physicist, and he was claiming he could see magnetic monopoles– which nowadays is almost forgotten. He had a lot of experiments and theories. Did he really see magnetic monopoles?

A: Yes.

Session-23-April-2022
Q: (Ark) Should electromagnetic theory be extended to take into account magnetic monopoles?

A: Yes

Magnetic Monopoles: Their Construction and Use

I stumbled across a short paper explaining how to construct macroscopic monopoles. I wonder if this can be reproduced.

Introduction:

All magnets found in nature are dipoles, having both a north and south pole. If a bar magnet is broken into two pieces, each piece become a dipole. It has been speculated, that by a natural extension of Maxwell's equations magnetic monopoles might be possible. A monopole would only be a north or south pole, with no accompanying opposite pole, not unlike a normal electric charge.
1651103816995.png

There have been some interest in the possibility of monopoles, mainly for theoretical purposes. In [2], my erstwhile colleague Daedalus sketched one method of constructing a monopole by assembling it from pyramidal bar magnets. This has some drawbacks (like the impossibility to reverse the polarity if needed), and was subsequently ridiculed by established science in [3] and [4].

Construction:

My own construction is based on electromagnetic effects and does not need any permanent magnets to work. We begin with placing six electrical coils at right angles to each other, along the standard co-ordinate axes. When current is led through them, a magnetic field results which will (if the polarity is right) enter through the coils and escape the core through the interstices between the coils. However, if the coils are made so that their cross sections are square, they can be moved together to form a cubical interior completely surrounded by coils with no place to escape. When current is applied, the magnetic field will only be able to enter the interior, not escape, and we have a magnetic monopole.

1651103396273.png

The main problem with this arrangement is that it is cumbersome and requires a constant supply of current. However, it can be elegantly generalised: imagine that each of the coils is pressed together into a square, so that we have a cube whose edges consist of coils, in which current flows.

Along each edge, the current on one side flows in one direction and on the other side in the opposite direction. This obviously cancels out both currents, which shows that a monopole does not require any external current, just like a magnetic dipole doesn't. The only thing which is needed is a closed conductive surface, so that the virtual vortices of virtual current can produce a real magnetic field.
1651103452458.png
Why isn't normal conductive objects monopoles? The explanation is simple; since their fields are created by virtual electric currents, they can be directed in both the inward and outward directions, and without any outside influence both fields cancel each other. But if the fields are pushed in one direction, the object will become a monopole. This requires that the fields are strong enough to overcome the magnetic momentum of the object, which depends mainly on the material, its size and symmetry. Symmetric objects become monopoles much easier than asymmetric objects.

To push the fields in the right direction, we need a radial magnetic field. This is most easily created by another monopole placed around (or inside) the object. The above mentioned cubical arrangement of coils works fine for this. In my experiments I have used coils with a side of one meter, linked together by an supporting aluminium framework to build a monopolar charging unit. When a sufficiently strong current is applied, the monopolar fields force the virtual vortices of the object placed in the interior chamber to align and the object becomes a permanent monopole.

The most important variable in this process is the strength of the field, which is proportional to the current. One way to improve the efficiency is to use a single strong pulse instead of a constant current. One arrangement I have used is a bank of capacitators, whose energy is released by short-circuiting them. This places great demands on the cooling and structural stability of the system, which limits their use somewhat (superconducting coils would ameliorate the heat problem a great deal). Care must also to be taken so that the fields are exactly radial, since if the alignment of the coils is not correct, a powerful electromagnetic vortex will result which will destroy the object and possibly damage the coils. Current pulses are safer in this respect, but has an unfortunate tendency to cause electric discharges between different parts of the system if not properly insulated.
 

Natus Videre

Jedi Master
Q: Well, I don't think I am going to get any more on it. Now, next question: in playing with my 11 house zodiac, it became apparent that, in order for it to work properly, the circle must be converted from 360 degrees to 330 degrees. Now, this made me think about the degrees in a circle. With a 360 degree circle, the total as well as all the cardinal points are numbers that total 9. Frank and I have examined this idea of numbers having some sort of 'frequency' effect on all things, and it seems to be true in a VERY deep sense. So, all our measurements on our globe are based on the number 9, and this is NOT a friendly number! The ancient gods were known as 'they who measure,' and this imposition of a 360 degree circle on our world, and a 12 sign zodiac, is part of a system that imposes a frequency or vibration on our reality that is quite destructive. It perpetuates the negative existence. Am I getting close to the proper understanding here?

A: The proper understanding is more important than how it was reached.
"Why does a circle have 360 degrees," asked the student.
"Because 360 has a lot of divisors," responded the teacher.

It's incredible how many things we take for granted. It takes so much energy to "unwind" our assumptions in order to analyze things as objectively as possible. It's very easy to claim success when we begin walking a seemingly logical trail, which, upon further inspection, leads back to where we started.

In this case, I have come full circle. 😁

I never really understood why 360 was chosen to be mapped to 2*Pi. It appeared quite arbitrary to me and I wondered how mathematics could still work with such a subjective definition!

So I drew regular polygons and calculated the sum of their interior angles using radians (not degrees!). The first shape I outlined was a triangle. To my surprise, the sum of the interior angles of a triangle was Pi! But that was never apparent when using the 360-degree scale! All I would get would be 60 + 60 + 60 = 180 degrees.

180 degrees, so what? Where's the link between this number and a circle? It's not obvious until you realize it's Pi!

So I repeated the same exercise for a square (2*Pi), a pentagon (3*Pi), a hexagon (4*Pi) and I noticed a nice mathematical progression.

In the following table, in the column <Sum of Interior Angle Measures>, you can see that the numbers that represent the sums don't quite tell you the whole picture. The origin of the sum becomes much clearer when you replace 180 by Pi.

1651180667062.png
Q: (Ark) Everything we use in physics is a human concept, yes?

A: Which is why you are having so much confusion.

Maybe the C's are right—our subjective definitions are masking universal truths.

But that we won't know... until we come full circle again!
 

Wandering Star

The Living Force
"Why does a circle have 360 degrees," asked the student.
"Because 360 has a lot of divisors," responded the teacher.

It's incredible how many things we take for granted. It takes so much energy to "unwind" our assumptions in order to analyze things as objectively as possible. It's very easy to claim success when we begin walking a seemingly logical trail, which, upon further inspection, leads back to where we started.

In this case, I have come full circle. 😁

I never really understood why 360 was chosen to be mapped to 2*Pi. It appeared quite arbitrary to me and I wondered how mathematics could still work with such a subjective definition!

So I drew regular polygons and calculated the sum of their interior angles using radians (not degrees!). The first shape I outlined was a triangle. To my surprise, the sum of the interior angles of a triangle was Pi! But that was never apparent when using the 360-degree scale! All I would get would be 60 + 60 + 60 = 180 degrees.

180 degrees, so what? Where's the link between this number and a circle? It's not obvious until you realize it's Pi!

So I repeated the same exercise for a square (2*Pi), a pentagon (3*Pi), a hexagon (4*Pi) and I noticed a nice mathematical progression.

In the following table, in the column <Sum of Interior Angle Measures>, you can see that the numbers that represent the sums don't quite tell you the whole picture. The origin of the sum becomes much clearer when you replace 180 by Pi.

View attachment 58187


Maybe the C's are right—our subjective definitions are masking universal truths.

But that we won't know... until we come full circle again!
Curiously, I have been thinking about a concept for several days.

Laura especially and many other people in this forum, did not accept what is "stipulated" in many branches of science that are considered "authentic" all over the world. They followed the thread to the beginning and it turned out that there was a different "truth".

In mathematics there can be no errors, it is an exact science, right?

But... What if there are?

The example that you have raised makes me wonder if it is possible that there are concepts and mathematical operations that do not lead anywhere or that "lead" to the "destination" that someone is interested in.

Reformulate mathematics.

The task would be so enormous..., like getting to the truth in the book of the Christian Bible.:-)
 

dennis

Jedi Master
Wasn't sound considered an ancient technology? It seems 3D is the string but the plectrum is elsewhere.

The word cloak comes from Old North French cloque (Old French cloche, cloke) meaning "travelling cloak", from Medieval Latin clocca "travelers' cape," literally "a bell," so called from the garment's bell-like shape. Thus the word is related to the word clock.[3]


1651224046157.png

Frequency Resonance Vibration-

Resonance describes the phenomenon of increased amplitude that occurs when the frequency of an applied periodic force (or a Fourier component of it) is equal or close to a natural frequency of the system on which it acts. When an oscillating force is applied at a resonant frequency of a dynamic system, the system will oscillate at a higher amplitude than when the same force is applied at other, non-resonant frequencies.[3]

Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are also known as resonant frequencies or resonance frequencies of the system.[3] Small periodic forces that are near a resonant frequency of the system have the ability to produce large amplitude oscillations in the system due to the storage of vibrational energy.

Resonance phenomena occur with all types of vibrations or waves: there is mechanical resonance, acoustic resonance, electromagnetic resonance, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), electron spin resonance (ESR) and resonance of quantum wave functions. Resonant systems can be used to generate vibrations of a specific frequency (e.g., musical instruments), or pick out specific frequencies from a complex vibration containing many frequencies (e.g., filters).

The term resonance (from Latin resonantia, 'echo', from resonare, 'resound') originated from the field of acoustics, particularly the sympathetic resonance observed in musical instruments, e.g., when one string starts to vibrate and produce sound after a different one is struck.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom