Some comments on information theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cleopatre VII
  • Start date Start date
It all depend on the frequency of the people receiving the information. If you notice all of us read the C channeling and we all get different understanding depending on our level of development. That is just C and you. If you pass on the information between awakened people you won't get any distortion (most likely telepathic anyway). The problem of decay occur when you pass the info between strings of distorted people (most of us are STS aka wrong conclusions soul). You need to understand spiritual and metaphysic otherwise you won't be able to be selective and discerning with library of info approved cabal ideas in science and culture. Our planet is like a gigantic Disney illusion show. Cabal have a lot of freemason scientist to disperse info that they want the sheep to have. Example Einstein got the nobel prize because quite a number of other scientist (Niels bohr, etc) at that time began to understand how energy work thus relativity theory was born. So they just paint their freemason member as genius to become the accepted understanding. Cabal have been around a long time they control us without our awareness. The problem is a lot of us are beginning to resist/understand their lies thus the covid culling. They also got a lot of advance ET tech just to torture/ break our spirit like HAARP, chemtrail, genetic manipulation, etc. This is going to be 1000yrs war just to get back to sto reality.
 
In a certain sense, it seems like entropy is almost like some impetus for consciousness to do work. Sorta like the “there is no free lunch in the universe” concept. I can’t say I know what it is, but if it’s in any way related to “if consciousness doesn’t act, stuff gets stale, boring, disorganized, and meaningless” which would then suggest that all the harmony and beauty (and conflict, when consciousnesses are in opposition) comes from minds that exert their will on some aspect of reality.

It always bothered me that we don’t know what we are - what is consciousness/thought/mind? It’s not a computer, although processing and memory is part of it. It seems like there’s more than just matter, unless organizing a pile of atoms a certain way could make it conscious, which seems doubtful to me, and also just generally improbable to happen given what we know of the complexity of life. And of course, why do we care.. about anything at all? It’s possible that at least part of the reason is maybe some intuitive knowledge that if we don’t do something, entropy takes over. But why would that matter to us? Well again, without getting into specifics of motivations like STO or STS, which are refinements of this “primal” motivation, it seems like entropy or tendency towards nothing is just not fun. Even STS which may be aligned with entropy due to wishful thinking and attempting to subjugate the universe to their will, are busy doing something. Evolutionists would say the primal motivation is just some survival program, but we do far more than optimize for survival; in fact we often risk it because of other priorities, and do completely unrelated activities because they’re beautiful or fun or meaningful, and have nothing to do with survival. Often human dignity and freedom is worth dying for, which contradicts the notion that survival at any cost is what we are programmed to do.

The C’s have often said things stem from “above” - they don’t evolve from probabilistic interactions of particles and such. So if there is some divine cosmic mind always reaching “down” and pulling us up, there does seem to be a counter-magnet pulling us down, maybe this entropy thing. Perhaps if we can understand entropy better, it will help us understand its opposite better, so I’m excited to learn more!
 
mkrnhr said:
Mach conjecture or paradox
Click to expand...
Thank you for this. I didn't know it has a name. I just had this weird experiment in my mind for some time now. I even thought about creating a thread about it. My version was something like this:
- You have a planet and an orbiting object (moon/ship).
- If they rotate/orbit in the same direction with the same speed and the object has the right distance then they would not rotate relative to each other (geosynchronous orbit) and not change distance either.
- If you then 'remove' all the surrounding universe then you are left with only this weird observation that there is no gravity between the two in this static system, and gravity grows when the moon/ship would move closer to the planet, and gravity reverses into repulsion when it moves away from it. With all kinds of variations depending on orbit speed change, number of objects etc.

Now that wrote this.. 'and gravity reverses into repulsion when it moves away from it' ..that's interesting in the way that it reminds me of what was discussed in a session about the anomaly with the Oumuamua object and the Pioneer anomaly.
 
Last edited:
nicklebleu said:
Would that mean that radioactive decay only happens if there is an observer?
Click to expand...
This is a difficult question. In the entry on "Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment" in Wikipedia we can read:

"The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon", which is a very radical position. Wheeler famously said that the "past has no existence except as recorded in the present", and that the Universe does not "exist, out there independent of all acts of observation".

Yet the question remains: what is "observation"? In my own model of quantum measurements I have stated that "Nature observes herself". We do not need human observers, a detector is enough. Which solves the problem, but only to a certain extent. Because we then can enquire: What is this "detector"? It is a devise that has been identified and used as a "detector". Some intelligence is needed to notice that something "happened", that some information about something else has been provided. And some intelligence was needed to "construct" a detector and to use it in a meaningful way, not as a hammer. We need to know what "meaning" is, first of all. Back to "information".
 
mkrnhr said:
On the one hand, we have quantum phenomena, from which we have the uncertainty principle. A particle (or a thing), doesn't disclose its whole story. For instance it gives you either its position or its momentum, or a fuzzy mix of the two, but never both at the same time.
Click to expand...
This is a popular rendering of the uncertainty principle. But it is incorrect. See my paper

Simultaneous Measurement of Non-commuting Observables and Quantum Fractals on Complex Projective Spaces
Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Abstract:
Simultaneous measurement of several noncommuting observables is modeled by using semigroups of completely positive maps on an algebra with a non-trivial center. The resulting piecewise-deterministic dynamics leads to chaos and to nonlinear iterated function systems (quantum fractals) on complex projective spaces.

Nothing in quantum theory prevents us from simultaneous measuring and knowing momentum and position. What we get this way are chaotic results. Sometimes there are patterns (fractals) in this chaos. My book "Quantum fractals" is all about the results of such measurements. Not long ago such measurements have been experimentally simulated on quantum computers.
 
Perhaps with what I have said it may seem that no, but I agree with you.

These things don't matter much, however, to paraphrase the C's, "they're fun.":-)
 
PabloAngello said:
@Wandering Star You could have this in you subconscious, and it's triggered when your eyes/brain sees such things. I know you would preffer some unknown soul-like process to be involved in this (me too) - but Im just trying to be objective.
Click to expand...
Perhaps with what I have said it may seem that no, but I agree with you.

These things don't matter much, however, to paraphrase the C's, "they're fun."

My post was like this. I tried to edit it but I didn't know how to do it. My apologies.
 
ark said:
And some intelligence was needed to "construct" a detector
Click to expand...
@ark We have written so many words floating around the thread and basically still are in the same place.
We may of course say that decetor has been created in random way. But now again there is a question, what decided about certain values that appeared from those random generators-particles or what decides of certain probability distribution of their properties. Kind of an 'atom' of TRNG (true random generator) is probably needed here. Moreover apperance of detector wheter created by someone, or randomly, may in both cases involve a cosciousness that led it to happen. Eventually we are in between two notions: 'random' and 'consciousness' - in need of thought experiment we can place here an equal sign. Implication might be single TRNG = atom of consciousness.
 
nicklebleu said:
I don’t understand the above - for me this is a contradiction: If the probability of an event (hitting the point with zero extension) is zero, how would it NOT be impossible to hit the point? Can you please clarify?


Would that mean that radioactive decay only happens if there is an observer? But then, how ‘close’ does the observer need to be? And how clever? Is an animal enough? Because as far as we know, radioactive decay has existed since the creation of the Universe, or I am just assuming something here?

I am not very mathematically trained (high-school maths) so I don’t have the bases needed to understand all that is discussed. And I also lack SOA‘s philosophically perspicacious mind.

But even though, I find this discussion fascinating! Thanks for starting this thread.
Click to expand...
Weird things can be done with math like this (from Wikipedia's path integral formulation article):
It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique classical trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of quantum-mechanically possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude... The probability for an event is given by the squared modulus of a complex number called the "probability amplitude".
Click to expand...
I probably should know how this works better than I do. As for observers/receivers, maybe a single particle has a really small amount of consciousness; it's very dumb and sleepwalking, thus its "choice" looks quite random. Course your view of its choice can be affected by your choice.
 
nicklebleu said:
I don’t understand the above - for me this is a contradiction: If the probability of an event (hitting the point with zero extension) is zero, how would it NOT be impossible to hit the point? Can you please clarify?
Click to expand...
The probability of hitting ANY point is 1. The probability of hitting a GIVEN (selected in advance) point is 0. (Unless you are a lucky sniper, but even then you are hitting an area, not a point :-))

Does it answer your question?
 
ark said:
Yet the question remains: what is "observation"? In my own model of quantum measurements I have stated that "Nature observes herself". We do not need human observers, a detector is enough. Which solves the problem, but only to a certain extent. Because we then can enquire: What is this "detector"? It is a devise that has been identified and used as a "detector". Some intelligence is needed to notice that something "happened", that some information about something else has been provided. And some intelligence was needed to "construct" a detector and to use it in a meaningful way, not as a hammer. We need to know what "meaning" is, first of all. Back to "information".
Click to expand...
A few thoughts, for what they're worth. I like "nature observes herself." If a human observer is not necessary - only a detector - then perhaps all detectors are also observers? Whatever consciousness is, every 'thing' has some. An atom has a very limited but real degree of consciousness. A human has a less limited degree of it. What is consciousness? It has something to do with the ability to receive, process, store, and transmit information. This information is somehow incorporated into the thing itself - it registers the information transfer, like data about position and heat, responds accordingly (or not), and is changed in the process. Perhaps consciousness has something to do with the degree and complexity of an 'observer's' ability to process, receive, or contain information?

And what is information? It seems to be the word we use to describe possibilities and how they are actualized. For example, this particle (and not those other ones) is here (and not all those other possible places). When it changes position, nature observes, i.e. all other particles register its new position, and are thus informed by it. They are not simply "all those other particles", but "all those other particles in relation to this specific particle, and each other." Or, I am this shape, not all those other possible shapes. I have these experiences, these things I've learned, this history, and not all other possible ones. Or, this statement about things is true, not all those other possible but false statements. That is still very fuzzy, though.

Some relevant Cs quotes:

12/29/2018:
A: ... This occurs because even inanimate matter has a minimal level of matching consciousness.
Click to expand...

8/15/2020:
(Pierre) Would you say then that the information field contains already ALL possible information?
A: Yes
Click to expand...

5/29/2021:
Q: (Ark) ... Where consciousness is located?
A: Where is it not?
...
Q: (Ark) Consciousness is related to information. What really happens when things happen is that information is recorded. Where is information recorded?
A: By consciousness. [laughter] Information recorded equals time.
...
(L) So consciousness is the medium in which information resides.
Click to expand...
So consciousness - whether that of a particle, a human, or God (unified, universal mind, which contains all information - all possibilities) - is the 'information receiver/processor/storage/transmitter' of all the information it is able to handle. Each observer is a source of information for others, and a receiver, and each observer is informed by the information they receive, and the possibilities they actualize.
 
ark said:
The probability of hitting ANY point is 1. The probability of hitting a GIVEN (selected in advance) point is 0. (Unless you are a lucky sniper, but even then you are hitting an area, not a point :-))

Does it answer your question?
Click to expand...
One other example came to mind that might help to find answer. I associate the sets with points on the roll that can be turned in our hands. When we look at the roller, we see points drawn on it, positioned in relation to each other in a vertical line.

If the individual points in these sets go to infinity. This can be visualized as a rotation of this roller, with some points hiding and others starting to appear. For example, if I turn the roller up, the points at the top begin to wander to the back of the roller, and new points appear from the bottom part of the roller from the back of the roller.

If I accelerate the spin of the roller to a speed that will accelerate it infinitely, then what will appear to my eyes. It will be one coherent straight vertical line composed of these points, the difference between the points will be completely blurred. And since the speed of the rotating roller will be infinite, I will not be able to tell where a given point is.

The infinitely fast speed makes the points fuzzy. As the speed goes infinitely, the point is able to take any position towards which I turn my attention. Also whatever point I take, it has time to take any position and even return to the same point an infinite number of times.

In such a case, I am always able to hit any point by aiming anywhere on that horizontal line and I can never hit a specific single point because it is always "absorbed" bye vertical line. The point/points get blurry, fuzzy. As Ark said, in such situation when you hit ANY point you ALWAYS success, if you try to hit selected (and not any other point) point you always miss, because you necessarily hit the whole set.
 
I am going to follow this thread. I have a BS with an emphasis on computer engineering technology and finished a master's in data science a little over a year ago. I have worked for over 15 years as an industrial controls tech. I would like to learn a little about quantum and information theory as well as get a little insight into clifford algebra here.

There is a limit to what a human in third density can know, Nevertheless, the C's have said that it's fun to see how much one can access, and "learning is fun", as they have often said. We are not able to have a perfect understanding of many things from our current perspective, but we can increase our understanding of certain aspects of things. I think the hermetic maxim of "as above, so below" could apply here. I do not have a perfect understanding of entropy but I can observe plenty of examples of what is called entropy in the first density world of matter and energy - and ask myself how entropy could behave in other densities. lower densities are 'nested' in higher densities it seems.

According to some ancients, the universe exists in 7 densities, it's a very old concept, yet it could perhaps still serve as a fundamental guide when building ontological models. From what I have learned on this forum as well as from reading Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, and others, the three 'highest' densities contain no physical matter, the fourth-density has matter but it has a more 'variable physicality' than the matter in third through first density. Our scientists (and everybody else) are subsumed and enclosed in the material world of 1st - 3rd density. Do our scientists ever even entertain the idea that there is something else outside or beyond the physical world? Current mainstream thinking maintains that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of matter. For many, god or cosmic mind does not exist. Life exists only by evolution through random chance.

I am fairly certain that many here would suggest that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not the other way around! Perhaps even matter is conscious on some basic level. So could we hypothesize about 'basic units of consciousness'? Can we order consciousness: self-aware -> conscious -> perceiving/perception -> information.

I currently tend to think that information is non-physical, no matter required for its existence, it exists in some sort of (energetic?) relationship with consciousness and intelligence perhaps. So how do we go about learning about information? Where is it? Right here, lol. Maybe some 'thought experiments' would help. I remember the C's saying that there is no paranormal or supernatural - if anything exists, its existence is normal and natural.

So that is just some basic stuff I am thinking about in regard to this thread, pretty sure everybody knows most of this already. Just thinking what basic assumptions to start with if one is going to study information theory. It seems like it would help me if I knew more about quantum physics and topology, but perhaps I will dig into some of that on my own.

One other question to anybody - any modeling of the universe involving the concept of 'ether' has long since dropped out of favor in the scientific community, is that unequivocally a good thing, or might such a concept still be useful in learning about things like information theory.

Oh, and check out my signature quote - one of my favs from Laura.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom