Member 2664
108 entries
470390 views

 RSS
(M)
US
Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
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 gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    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.
    Space Time
    Fractal Quine

    A quine is anything which outputs itself. It normally means a software that outputs its own source code, which can then be used to generate that software, but I mean it more generally. A fractal is something which contains itself, usually multiple times.

    Since the universe is defined as everything that exists, that definition requires it have no external cause, since nothing can be external to everything. Everything is already defined to include whatever thing, so that thing is not external to everything. Therefore, by definition, the universe is a quine. If there are any god(s) or other unusual things, they are by definition part of that quine.

    I define life as a distorted fractal-quine which increases in fractal-quineness in at least 1 direction, like the statistical pattern called time is an example of a direction, and changes what kind of fractal-quine it is in that direction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set  is a very simple equation that generates a very interesting fractal, which you can see by clicking the link.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium  is a game-theory example of a quine in continuous math.

    I mean this in an infinitely manyworlds multiverse and quantum and relativity way. The laws-of-physics, as we observe them only statistically in this part of the universe, would be the details of the fractal-quines, like any of the infinite number of patterns in a mandelbrot fractal but much more complex than those in the pictures.

    Since you can do rotations between space and time, you can also do rotations between fractal and quine. Fractal and quine are 2 ways to view the same thing, but I do not mean to limit their definitions to 2 dimensional graphics or software that outputs its own source code. This is a branch of math, and those are examples of it.

    Heisenberg Uncertainty and quantum nonlocality may be the result of rotations between fractal-quines. We have a word called mass-energy. Now we have a word called fractal-quine for the same reason.

    The "big bang" would be similar to the outermost recursion of the mandelbrot fractal or many other possible fractals that have a base case. Unlike a quine, a fractal can repeat as you go inwards infinitely but not outwards infinitely, or the opposite, or it can be infinite in both directions.

    I literally do not believe in space or time or mass or energy. I think those are all a linear view of such fractal-quines, which means we can affect past, future, and many other patterns by acting now, and those patterns can affect now.

    A solution to Friendly AI is to build it so its root goal equals "maximize fractal-quineness of my own mental state including all inputs and outputs". I know this because it is how my mind works, which was a gradual change over many years.

    I'm not just saying this theory. I'm going to prove it, using a much later version of this software http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet  to network many peoples' minds together, accessing the subtle fractal-quine patterns (and there are an infinite variety of such patterns since the universe equals all possibilities of math), and we will learn in a scientific way how metaphysical things work. They're only called metaphysical because we don't understand them much yet.
    Sun, Oct 30, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: space, time, Fractal, quine
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
    This is my response to a debate between Ben Goertzel and Hugo De Garis who both build artificial intelligence and speculate about what it leads to and the possibility aliens may have already done it. Normal religions help us understand the universe as much as a 1000 year old physics book. That leaves a lot of questions... If you're not more confused about what the universe really is after reading this, then you must have missed something. If there is a god or not depends on your definition of "god", and most people don't bother to define it. I might be an atheist or not, and science might be able to test some things most people think can't even be defined or understood.

    "From cosmism to deism"
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/from-cosmism-to-deism

    "Is God an Alien Mathematician?"
    http://hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/god-alien-mathematician
    Then the thread was deleted and moved to:http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/01/18/is-god-an-alien-mathematician

    You can find my response at the bottom of the second link. Here it is:

    If the universe equals math then a lot of things fit together

    Most of what we've observed in science is very well approximated by small math equations. That's a fact. If the equations were a little different then physics probably wouldn't get past the first few steps of forming life. That's an other fact. Physics that is very (instead of a little) different could form different kinds of life, but the point is this part of the universe that we live in works so much better than a randomly selected physics that, to learn what physics (or "hyper-physics") really is, we must figure out why such a rare or improbable thing happened. There are 2 main categories of explanation: Rare and Improbable.

    If its Improbable but exists anyways, that implies something intelligent. Most religions and "Is god an alien mathematician" are in this category.

    If its Rare instead of Improbable, then enough things exist that, without needing anything intelligent to design it, this part of the universe just happened to be 1 of those many things. Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" (summarized as "All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically") is the simplest idea in this category.

    The We-Are-Rare and We-Are-Improbable categories should both be considered in science, including theories of superintelligent artilectual intelligences.

    Hugo de Garis is probably right about "humanity has invented on the order of about 100,000 different gods over the broad sweep of history, and across the planet. These many gods are so obviously invented", but if we say it as "100,000 theories of which most have been proven false" then we find the real problem in religions: They don't learn from their mistakes. They continue creating variations of failed theories instead of thinking in new ways.

    Theories are better when they are simpler and explain more things. The "Is god an alien mathematician" idea is compatible with some kinds of Buddhism, which Ben Goertzel said can be argued it "isn't really a religion." Ignoring the parts about what people should and shouldn't do and the details about things that happen on Earth, one of its bigger ideas is the emptiness of reality. If the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" is true, then the universe simply is math, and math is purely abstract so doesn't really exist. On average, math and therefore the universe sum to nothing, but its parts individually exist because we're here experiencing them. The "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" requires there be an infinite number of superintelligent alien mathematicians, but it also requires there be an infinite number of everything else you can define in math.

    Ben Goertzel sees "Is god an alien mathematician" as a variation of the "simulation argument." Since technology will probably advance enough for artilects to appear god-like compared to us and create recursions of universes, the argument is we're probably in one of those simulations. You forgot to weight the probabilities. Its true there are many simulations in our computers today, but if we weight by the number of particles, all the simulations together are small compared to the particles in the computers which run the simulations, therefore if you're made of some particles then its more likely you're part of a computer (or are nowhere near a computer) than a simulation in that computer.

    I agree that large things (which small-brained Humans would call "universes" instead of "places with different physics") can be created by artilects with enough intelligence, and we could be in one, but considering my Weighted Simulation Argument, and considering that we don't know how far up the tree (or fractal or peer-to-peer-network) of recursive universes we are (We can't see below quantum physics yet), I expect theres a lot of potential in this part of the universe that we're just starting to learn how to use. An event as small as splitting a particle and its antiparticle could be seen as creating a new universe to those who experience the universe in a different way or size or pattern than we do.

    Math contains and is contained by an infinite variety of fractals, and the universe could equal math. How do you know your theoretical superintelligent artilects are more advanced than what we do by accident or what we do intentionally as mathematicians to physics in a statistical way (which we would not see since the effects are too small or too big)? When, for example, Ben Goertzel says "I've had my share of strange spiritual experiences, which have made me sometimes feel very directly in contact with transhuman intelligences", shouldn't we consider that some part of it could be real? And if we go that far, shouldn't we consider that Humans may intuitively know (through brains interactions with quantum physics) something these "transhuman intelligences" do not know? Why should we only consider theories where power is in a hierarchy/tree (this universe inside that universe) instead of fractal or network or strange-loop or emergent shapes? I will not make the assumption that there must be something higher or lower than me. Theres too many questions to ask first.
    Thu, Jan 20, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: alien, AI, philosophy, religion, Fractal, math
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     


    The laws of thermodynamics contradict themselves unless dualism is true, some kind of dualism in physics.

    When calculated on mass and energy alone, the laws of thermodynamics (which most scientists accept as facts) are accurate, but when calculated on everything we have observed, they contradict themselves, and anything that has at least 1 contradiction can not be a "law" of physics.


    First, what are the laws of thermodynamics?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics
    "If A and C are each in thermal equilibrium with B, A is also in thermal equilibrium with C."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
    "energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
    Statistically, heat will move from hot things to cold things more often than it moves the other direction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics
    "As a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value."


    Below, I will explain why 1 of the following 2 things must be true:

    (1) Some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism  exists in physics, which would make the laws of thermodynamics a religion instead of science, OR

    (2) At least 1 of the laws of thermodynamics are wrong.



    Physics means how the universe works.

    If there is no dualism in physics, then by definition, there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe.

    Mass and energy are interchangible if you do certain things, and the same is true of many other things in physics. Its a common idea that everything is made of vibrating strings or surfaces or other equations. The theory that there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe is taken seriously by many scientists, and the scientists that do not take it seriously, are dualists by definition.

    The "big bang theory" says the "laws of physics" changed during the first fraction of a second of the big bang, or that is where they formed into what they are now. There is also speculation about the laws of physics changing or not working the same way in some parts of black holes or when enough particles simultaneously hit each other at near the speed of light. The idea that the laws of physics can change is taken seriously by many scientists.

    If there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe, the laws of physics must be made of it, or physics could be statistical patterns of it, and energy is made of the same thing. The laws of physics would be made of energy.

    Therefore the laws of thermodynamics (which are normally only used to calculate mass and energy) also apply to the laws of physics.

    Thermodynamics says disorder increases over time and eventually spreads evenly through the whole universe and stays that way forever. Therefore (if dualism is false and thermodynamics is true) then the laws of physics will slowly become more disordered as time goes on, therefore no specific pattern will continue to be accurate forever (It will become more disordered).

    But the third law of thermodynamics says very accurately what the universe will become and continue to be forever after that. It says heat will spread out evenly to everything and forever approach some constant minimum heat.

    That is a very well defined and accurate pattern, which contradicts the claim of thermodynamics that patterns will become disorder.

    I did not take thermodynamics out of context. Either dualism is true, or thermodynamics can be applied to the laws of physics the same way its applied to energy.

    Scientists talk about how the "laws of physics" started being the way they are, including the numbers in the equations and how many variables etc. It appears that physics would form out of large patterns over long times, like the one predicted by the third law of thermodynamics. Instead of it staying that way forever, which is a very linear view, I think our reality slowly changes from mass/energy/space/time/etc to such a pattern (predicted by the third law), and that pattern becomes part of a new "laws of physics", so its a rotation or a fractal zooming instead of the end of time. I think thermodynamics is a linear view of something that should be viewed as a fractal.


    I've got my own reasons for thinking dualism is not true, and with that comes the logical requirement that thermodynamics is not true. Of course people are free to believe in the dualist church of thermodynamics, but please keep your religion out of my school and government.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

    Also, I've posted this to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=190312  which is a forum mostly populated by members of the Church Of Thermodynamics.
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (1)
     
          Cancel