Member 2664
103 entries
200403 views

 RSS
mad-scientist and computer programmer looking for something more interesting than most people accept as their future
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    From BenRayfield
    Turing Complete Soliton...
    From BenRayfield
    More intelligent species...
    BenRayfield’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    A musical mindstorm on the nature of sound, light, space and subjective experience powered by locally produced energy, heralding the ending of the...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From BenRayfield's personal cargo

    Gravity For Patterns a theory of everything
    Project: Polytopia


    What is the universe? Why is it here? How can we use it? Those questions have been debated for all of recorded history, but I've never heard of anyone who tried to answer all 3 questions with the same answer. I will list some observations, some theories which try to explain them, and a way to use the theory to design a faster than light engine (a warp drive) using cheap technology like lasers and parts of LCD (liquid crystal display) screens.

    The picture above is E8 (described below), what they think physics looks like at the deepest level they know about. It looks a lot like a sphere, or did you think the laws-of-physics were flat? What creates spheres? Gravity.

    DEFINITION: Laws-of-physics is the statistical behavior of a subset of the universe, usually the subset closest to Earth.

    OBSERVATION: The only known laws-of-physics is very accurately approximated by small math equations.

    OBSERVATION: The only known laws-of-physics has arbitrary-appearing (not like pi or e or integers) constants in its equations.

    OBSERVATION: The only known laws-of-physics has never been observed changing (same equations), or only a small amount.

    OBSERVATION: When in superposition, 1 particle/wave can be in thousands of places at once without being between those places, and when 1 of those thousands of places is touched, 1 gets more dense and the others get less dense.

    OBSERVATION: Quantum wavefunctions can be split by a half-mirror and reassembled by the same process in reverse at a different half-mirror. Its branches can cancel each other out or strengthen each other, depending on the angles and number of bounces etc.

    OBSERVATION: More often than would happen randomly or through normal communication or observing the environment etc, there are small statistical dependencies between the brains of people and/or quantum physics devices. See the "main results" list at http://noosphere.princeton.edu  for the results of those experiments. Also you can watch a mind over matter video I did in 2002 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  ("Psi wheel in a clear closed box 2" at youtube), or many similar videos. Lots of people have done strange mental things.

    OBSERVATION: The E8 math structure very accurately approximates the only known laws-of-physics. It is many rotations of a 57-dimensional shape in 248-dimensional space, where each dimension represents a quantum particle/wave type. There are levels of organization built on top of levels between 248 particle types (including some not observed) and the small number of types at the top of the Standard Model.

    THEORY: The Copenhagen theory of quantum physics is an approximation of the most infinite version of Manyworlds theory, similar to how Newton's equations are an approximation of Einstein's equations.

    THEORY (by Max Tegmark): "All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically."

    LOGIC: If Tegmark is right then: For any subset of the universe, there are an infinite number of unique ways to simulate that subset and recursively simulations of simulations to infinite depth, all averaging to nothing because of the symmetry of math. Since the universe is nothing on average, it doesn't really exist and does not need to be created. Parts of it exist alone, but together they do not.

    DEFINITION: Pattern is any subset of math. A wavefunction or any subset of it is a pattern. A statistical similarity between 2 patterns or subsets of them is a pattern.



    THEORY "Gravity For Patterns": The universe is the set of all possible wavefunctions of patterns instead of simply wavefunctions of particles/waves, and patterns attract patterns more when they are more similar.



    LOGIC: If Gravity For Patterns is right then: Collapsing a wavefunction is the superpositioned parts falling toward each other, pulled by the mostly-collapsed parts (the parts of reality they agree on) being similar patterns. The E8 shape is 1 of many possible shapes, and (possibly, but not necessarily practical) new shapes can be rotated in while E8 is gradually rotated out, to locally change the laws-of-physics to any arbitrary pattern you can amplify through chaos-theory.

    THEORY: The "statistical dependencies between the brains of people and/or quantum physics devices" are caused by such a rotation between E8 and whatever pattern fits the combination of brainwaves/devices which become statistically dependent, and that is probable to happen because infinite recursions of "Gravity For Patterns" (patterns about patterns attracting) will pattern-match any 2 patterns in 2 brains and ***exponentially*** increase the chance such patterns will connect through the multiverse. Its exponential because the recursion of patterns always finds an effective path between the 2 patterns. It finds an infinite number of other things, but the gravity part gradually changes that, and a small change goes exponential because of the recursion.

    THEORY: A faster than light engine (a warp drive) can be created using a distributed (not hierarchy) network of programmable crystals (a more advanced kind of LCD screen - Liquid Crystal Display) which are controlled by programmable lasers which are controlled in realtime by artificial intelligence which is given the task of controlling the crystals formed as early as possible (the precognitive effect in Humans, in a machine). The purpose of these cheap grids of programmable crystals is to grow crystals in multiverse directions which eventually grow far enough to touch each other in this distributed network. That system would be the way to access the "patterns" described in the theory above, to (a small amount) rotate out laws-of-physics (probably an E8 shape) and rotate in a warp field. This is all done by resonance of the patterns (Like Tesla's "earthquake machine"), not by brute-force pushing in the same direction until it works (That would take infinite energy, as relativity equations say). The way it works depends on large symmetric patterns, like a global telepathy network or the same built with a network of machines (using LCD crystals the same way as the analog parts of brains access Gravity For Patterns). Either way, it needs continuous use of a lot of intelligence, which can be done through a network Human minds and computers connected through psychology software and the internet, or it could be done using pure artificial intelligence if we knew more about how intelligence works. The intelligence is used to control the growth of the crystals in multiverse directions by controlling the brightness of the lasers. To extend the warp field around large areas like a planet or solar system (theoretically if the curved spacetime isn't vibrating too much from the large mass), put the crystals and computers around it in a sphere shape in space, and connect them with lasers pointing at each other which point at the LCD crystals of each other, so the waves of spacetime intersecting the lasers will be measured in the fractal patterns in the LCD crystals caused by the distorted laser light hitting it. That is how the machines would communicate with each other to know how to adjust their crystals to adjust to the way spacetime is vibrating. If done accurately enough, it should work for a starship, maybe for moving planets and stars, but probably not anything as big as a black-hole because its spacetime vibrations would be too big. First, we should try to build a machine that can push small things around using Gravity For Patterns. Then work up to the starships.

    Gravity For Patterns is Ben F Rayfield's theory of everything, including how the laws-of-physics form and how to locally change them using small amounts of energy and large amounts of intelligence.

    Sun, Dec 19, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: AI, Theory, gravity, pattern, warp drive, multiverse, LCD, tegmark
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
    7 comments
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (2)
     
    Comments:


         Wed, Dec 22, 2010  Permanent link
    No 'Simple Theory of Everything' Inside the Enigmatic E8, Researcher Says

    You throw a lot of mathematical terms out there but give us no discrete mathematical equations. Perhaps when I start seeing something substantial around those lines, instead of a bunch of term dropping, maybe I'll start seriously considering your ideas seriously and stop thinking that your understanding of things is something beyond a front.
    BenRayfield     Wed, Dec 22, 2010  Permanent link
    You offer a news article about E8 being wrong, which is no more reliable than the videos and other places I got my information from. I didn't say E8 is certainly correct, and my Gravity For Patterns theory is strong enough that it continues to be a good theory to explain all the other observations I listed even if E8 is wrong.

    Most importantly, no other theory of physics explains this observation:
    More often than would happen randomly or through normal communication or observing the environment etc, there are small statistical dependencies between the brains of people and/or quantum physics devices. See the "main results" list at http://noosphere.princeton.edu  for the results of those experiments.


    but give us no discrete mathematical equations


    My Gravity For Patterns theory depends on Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically.") being true. I listed some observations that support Tegmark's theory. As we know from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems  there are an infinite number of things in math that are true but can never be proven true. That includes patterns.

    Therefore theres a good chance that the equations you ask for are past the incompleteness border, and it is unreasonable to require such equations be written before considering it based on the approximate words I used to describe it, which I will summarize as:

    Gravity For Patterns at an infinite depth of recursing approximate simulations of simulations of... what we call reality, and all possible ways of combining those. If Tegmark's theory is true then Gravity For Patterns logically has to be a subset of the universe, balanced by part that does not have gravity for patterns and a part where patterns repel each other. Its still a theory-of-everything because it implies its opposite exists in the context of Tegmark's theory.

    E8 is 1 of many examples of what you'd find in the gravity-for-patterns parts of the universe, but that does not mean our laws-of-physics are anything like E8.
         Wed, Dec 22, 2010  Permanent link
    No, you totally just said "The E8 math structure very accurately approximates the only known laws-of-physics." - I never said anything about you claiming certitude on it, although you sure seem to claim knowledge of the subject of physics and how it relates to the E8. I think if you really knew what you're talking about you'd be able to show us exactly how it does that (Which it hasn't been shown to at all quite yet).

    The global consiciousness project is a laughable party for apopheniacs. I have a really hard time taking it seriously when they count shit like this as relevant:

    http://noosphere.princeton.edu/surv.html
    http://noosphere.princeton.edu/oprah.031218.html

    It's not only that, it's very obviously flawed due to a number of other problems with their methodology. I just like the oprah & survivor examples I found a while ago cause it sticks out in my mind - Another example of bias, sure, but if only you hopefully can see my point...

    I got more to say probably tomorrow (Headed out the door now to party it up for the solstice), and I'd like to add I don't think your idea for "gravity for patterns" is totally bullshit or irrelevant or stupid or any of that. I thank you for showing me the way me today to Tegmark's ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis 
    BenRayfield     Wed, Dec 22, 2010  Permanent link
    "No, you totally just said "The E8 math structure very accurately approximates the only known laws-of-physics.""

    That was an observation. In any science experiment, there will be outliars in the observations - data that isn't accurately measured or is the wrong number for some other reason, but usually most of the observations form a pattern and the theory is said to be verified or not based on those.

    "Problems with their methodology"...

    "What type of event qualifies as "significant"? They pick events themselves, without any defined criteria."

    The fact that they choose the time ranges (events) and publish the prediction is enough to make the prediction significant. That is added to the general pattern of their events being significant which is demonstrated when enough people predict the same thing, like I emailed them to put event 351 into their list but found it was already there.

    "What type of effect in the data constitutes a result?"
    and
    "They make claims of specific numbers for how they beat chance. Clearly, it's impossible to have any meaningful metrics, given the lack of standards for scoring or choosing events."

    The type of calculation to determine that is chosen in advance.

    "They do not look for alternate causes of their data anomalies."

    Yes they do, even though I'm only using them as observations and not a source of theories about those observations.

    "To any reasonable person, the whole concept of global consciousness is ridiculous at face value."

    That is not the kind of thing you would find in a scientific statement against them.


    I still expect http://noosphere.princeton.edu  has made enough accurate observations of their quantum devices to be useful as observations for my Gravity For Patterns theory, and in my experience which usually is not recorded as proof for you to see here, I have lots of observations of "random" things becoming a little less random in connection with what people were thinking. But don't take my word for it. Go practice gambling and get really good at it and tell me you never know, for no logical reason, that someone is bluffing or the dice will land a certain way. Lots of gamblers know it happens sometimes, and http://noosphere.princeton.edu  simply formalized it.

    "I have a really hard time taking it seriously when they count shit like this as relevant"

    You expect it to not be relevant. Your expectation is so strong that you can't take it seriously. That means that when they found the data was statistically relevant, its that much more important. Surprising data is often the most important.


    There will always be people who want more accurate observations and more certainty toward proof, regardless of how accurate it is. If you give them what they ask for, they'll ask for more before your theories could reasonably be true. My reasons for creating this theory are not to prove it to everyone... Instead I plan to use it. If it helps me design things that work, then its accurate enough. Of course I'll still look for more accuracy, but Gravity For Patterns is a practical theory that narrows down the research paths necessary to build a warp drive and lots of other stuff, so these disagreements can be settled by who can build the best technology.
    BenRayfield     Thu, Mar 24, 2011  Permanent link
    After all those years of thinking, I find that I re-invented a much simpler idea.

    Gravity For Patterns is what you get when you apply Law Of Attraction to the laws-of-physics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction

    Example: While driving, I asked a question to whoever or whatever may be out there listening, and the answer came on the license plate of the next passing car. It was too specific to be a coincidence, and this kind of thing happens around me often. I think most people just ignore it. How was the answer (on a license plate) driving behind me before I asked the question? How was that car anywhere near me when I asked the question? Its a long sequence of events that lead to me asking the question, and similarly long for the answer to be there, but something pulled the question and answer together. That's Law Of Attraction.

    Law Of Attraction is not just about similar things attracting. Masters and slaves attract each other. Anything that fits together in a consistent way will attract in the possibilities of the infinite multiverse.
    gamma     Fri, Mar 25, 2011  Permanent link
    We use the universe by doing business.
    BenRayfield     Fri, Mar 25, 2011  Permanent link
    Gamma, yes, kind of like a monkey uses a zoo. But it depends what kind of business you're doing.
     
          Cancel