Some comments on information theory

But there are also some fans of quaternions, for sure. They will advocate quaternions instead of geometric algebra, and claim that the "true Maxwell equations" must be written using quaternions!
I don't know if I'm one of the fans of quaternions. Perhaps I am. However, I do not mean "true Maxwell equations", but rather alternative Maxwell equations.

I am attracted to magnetic monopoles and gravitoelectromagnetism. In the literature, Maxwell equations for magnetic monopoles and for gravity are known. Sometimes quaternionic spaces are used in formulating such equations. I am interested in synthesis. So far, I have not found a paper combining quaternions, gravitoelectromagnetism and magnetic monopoles. So I have to write it myself...

With quaternions, the main point is: is noncommutativity a curse or a blessing? And if so, keep going. Octonions and nonassociativity? A curse or a blessing? I don't know what the reality is. I do not want to look for mathematically simpler solutions, but the true ones.

My guess is that it may be very close to the concept of consciousness - the hard question that, I hope, Clepatre VII will address in the near future, after being done with the subject of information.
I look at consciousness from several perspectives. From the perspective of physics, philosophy, mysticism (including art) and neurobiology.

I was on sick leave for some time. Hence, I was very active in the forum, because I was home all the time. Today I went back to work. At the same time, yesterday I made my music public for the first time, which was an extremely stressful experience for me (I also deal with music composition).

I work, among others, as a neurobiologist and take part in a grant on the influence of GABA receptors on ion channels. Ion channels are believed to be related to consciousness. Until I have finished researching this view of consciousness, I am afraid I will not be able to answer the question of what consciousness is.

Neurobiology is obviously not the only view, but this work is important to me. Important, but very difficult, because I am a theorist by nature, but I also have to work experimentally. I have no choice.

This weekend I will try to write another post expanding the concept of entropy, I would also like to write about the Maxwell’s demon, as I mentioned.

Thank you for such a lively discussion, dear readers. I would like to be present all the time, unfortunately I work a lot and it is not possible.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
On the topic of consciousness, another thought I had - what makes us different from each other? You can have 2 computers, and as long as they have the same software, given the same input, they will produce the same output. But people don’t do that. Hell, even the same person won’t do that given that because of this unique quality of people, which we call “free will”. Ok.. what about particles? Can the same particle always be made to do the same thing reliably? I don’t know enough to say one way or another, but I thought the quantum superposition means that multiple measurements of quantum objects will not always give the same result, which suggests to me that there’s always this “fuzziness” when it comes to measuring or controlling the behavior of such things. Are quantum phenomenon examples of free will at the tiny scale? Do atoms “choose” their behavior?

I have a feeling that somehow we all tap into infinity, which enables free will. If the universe was finite, I don’t see how free will can exist or be “meaningful”. And generating “new” information seems to be a function of accessing infinity as well. And that might suggest that we are not separate consciousnesses as such, but some kind of limited localization of infinity. When we “think” and “choose” is it truly localized in our physical body/brain, which is made up of a limited amount of particles and therefore options, or are we tapping into infinity much like your google or iPhone assistant utilizes the cloud?

I guess my point is, I don’t see how we could possibly be different or even think or choose at all without being able to generate NEW information, new ideas, which is more than just restructuring/processing the information we received with software preloaded into our heads. The thing that differentiates us from a computer is that on top of receiving information and having software, processing, and memory, we are able to ask infinity for additional information/ideas, which, because of the nature of infinity, will always have the possibility of being new, inspired, and not simply a “logical conclusion from given data” like a computer would do.

So this enables us to be truly unique and different, but at the same time “the same” in the sense of being part of and accessing truly unique parts of an infinity, which never runs out of ideas and variety and perspectives.

Also a quick note on Ark’s comment regarding the C’s not giving us answers to the biggest questions - wouldn’t that create some weird closed loop or paradox? If the only reason the C’s know these answers is because they gave it to themselves in the past, then the answer was never figured out by anyone ever, it was always just us telling it to ourselves in the past, forever, in a loop, and no one ever has to figure it out, so where did the answer even truly come from, and how do we know it’s right? I hope that makes sense! And it connects right back to my point in this post - we cannot be stuck in a self-referential closed system - Ark needs to reach into infinity, outside of this “us talking to ourselves” loop, or else neither us nor the C’s would ever truly know anything!
 

John G

The Living Force
In my recent paper on Clifford algebras, that I have mentioned before, in footnote 4, I wrote:

"While it is possible to consider all Clifford algebras as deformations of one algebra, the exterior algebra, invoking the tensor algebra allows us to have a ’bird view’ of the whole structure: all Clifford algebras, including the exterior algebra, have one ‘mother’, and this
mother is the tensor algebra
."

The referee of this paper, in his elaborated report, was evidently not very happy with my statement, but yet he wrote:

"... I am not at all ready to consider the tensor algebra as "the mother" of the other algebras. But as a reviewer, I observe that the Author supports his thesis with interesting arguments (in other words, it is not just propaganda), and I wish his paper to become a useful contribution to debate."
You even divide the "mother" into odd and even grades. I'm glad you wrote that before moving on to photons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ark

Wandering Star

Dagobah Resident
On the topic of consciousness, another thought I had - what makes us different from each other? You can have 2 computers, and as long as they have the same software, given the same input, they will produce the same output. But people don’t do that. Hell, even the same person won’t do that given that because of this unique quality of people, which we call “free will”. Ok.. what about particles?
Consensus.

We were born here and 7 billion people already have a "consensus" when we arrive.

"People cannot fly", for example.

The "subconscious" of 7 billion states that this is so.

If the subconscious of those 7 billion said that people can fly, maybe at birth we could fly.

Science and what we know say that is not possible. Gravity, our weight, the density of the atmosphere, makes us unable to fly.

However, despite the consensus, it seems that certain "teachers" in a state of meditation manage to "levitate" their bodies a few inches.

AND...

Our "consensus" makes us enormously reluctant to believe that this is possible.

There must be a trick!

That is not possible!
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
However, despite the consensus, it seems that certain "teachers" in a state of meditation manage to "levitate" their bodies a few inches.

However the evidence is missing. Believing such stories is much like believing all that is in the Bible. Read the thread about Laura's recent book, and you will understand the tremendous difference between beliefs and evidence based on hard scientific research. Stories may act as an inspiration for research, but should never act as a replacement.
 
However, despite the consensus, it seems that certain "teachers" in a state of meditation manage to "levitate" their bodies a few inches.
However the evidence is missing. Believing such stories is much like believing all that is in the Bible. Read the thread about Laura's recent book, and you will understand the tremendous difference between beliefs and evidence based on hard scientific research. Stories may act as an inspiration for research, but should never act as a replacement.
There is a serious problem with paranormal phenomena (to which levitation belongs). Well, scientific evidence requires the reproducibility of the results of a given experiment under certain conditions. Paranormal phenomena are characterized by the fact that they are not reproducible under certain conditions, it is not fully known what causes them. Hence, the research method should also be appropriately modified, but how?

On the other hand, as a theorist, I believe that theory never stands a chance against empiricism. If the theory contradicts empiricism, it means that the theory must be modified.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Well, scientific evidence requires the reproducibility of the results of a given experiment under certain conditions.
Reproducibility (or its lack) is indeed a serious problem here. And I fully agree that new reasearch methods are necessary. However in this particular case the problem is not with reproducibility. The problem in this case is with the evidence that levitations (by "teachers" or their students) indeed do occur. Nowadays it is so easy to produce fake photos, while the reasons for doing so are many.
 
Very inspiring thread!

We are exposed to so many new, inter-related concepts that it is difficult to simultaneously keep track of all the relations between them.
I have been thinking about building a knowledge graph to find hidden links between concepts.


Step 1: Build a concept bank:

Consciousness,DNA,Crystal,Transducer,Mathematics,Gravity,Antigravity,Sound,Unstable gravity waves,Antimatter,
Light,Information field,Information,Objectivity,Subjectivity,STO,STS,Atom,Photon,Neutron,Electron,Earth,Sun,Moon,
Jupiter,Mars,Venus,Electricity,Electromagnetism,Density,Dimension,Cycle,Truth,Lie,Geometric Algebra,Calculus,
Probability,Uncertainty,Love,Anticipation,Virus,Thoughts,Matter,Ether,Universe,Brane,Fractals,Terrain,Space,Time

Step 2: Establish links between concepts using transcripts, books, articles, forum threads, etc:

Q: Is consciousness stored in the universal information field similar to how information is stored in water? Is the universe an information field as the medium in which consciousness resides?

(L) Information field... The medium in which consciousness resides...

A: Vice versa.

Q: (Chu) The other way around.

(L) So consciousness is the medium in which information resides.
From this excerpt, one could conclude that Information is stored in Consciousness. This statement would be represented by a triple of the form <Subject,Predicate,Object>. The triple in this case would be <Information,is-stored-in,Consciousness>.

Repeating this step with more sources builds relations between concepts:
  1. <Information,is-stored-in,Consciousness>
  2. <Information field, aggregates, Matter>
  3. <Information field, contains-all-possible, Information>
  4. <Consciousness,is,Matter>
  5. <Matter,is,Consciousness>
The following is a graphical representation of the five triples found above:
graph.png

Step 3: Query the knowledge graph to view existing or new relations:

Can you deduce the relationship between Information Field and Consciousness?


As concepts and relations are added, the knowledge graph grows and can be traversed in such a way to uncover surprising links between concepts. The links could be tagged by their source and vetted by forum members.

Has anybody tried to do this before? Is this too ambitious?
 
Has anybody tried to do this before? Is this too ambitious?
I tried many times, but often found myself in a logical loop. I think the starting point is also to realize what we are actually looking for when we write "consciousness". Colloquially, consciousness can be identified with the mind, but it seems to me that these concepts should be treated as separate. Here, I am interested in the brain-mind-consciousness relationship.

It seems to me that some attempt to point out the difference between mind and consciousness was made in the book "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle. This book is not about de facto scientific or philosophical problems, it is more about a way of life, but in my opinion the author makes some interesting observations about the mind and consciousness. Hence, it is worth paying attention to it. Specifically, I mean a kind of timeless nature of consciousness that eludes logical reasoning. The mind, on the other hand, is considered as a logical and temporal structure.
 

Luks

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Exactly. That is what philosophers of consciousness like David Chalmers do. Writing thousands of words and going nowhere.
What we need is a mathematical model. Physics + mathematics +neurobiology+.... information + inspiration.
What is currently known and tested about what is consciousness and how it works in the universe, mathematically?
 
Top Bottom