Member 2664
108 entries
477066 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.
    Logically it makes sense why they act like particles when observed and waves when not observed. Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips and how those statistics are affected by observing the coins. I will explain why the double-slit experiment is the same experiment as something you can do with 2 coins.



    In the double-slit experiment, an electron (or other particle/wave) has 2 holes it can go through and then is detected hitting somewhere on the back wall. If it goes through the left hole, statistically it will paint a pattern on the back wall. If it goes through the right hole, it paints a different pattern. It goes through each hole equally often as the other. Most peoples' common sense tells them that statistically it doesnt matter if you know which hole it went through because you can simply average the 2 patterns to get the pattern on the back wall for when it could go through either hole. But its a very different pattern from the average of the left-hole-pattern and right-hole-pattern. Its the same pattern as waves interfering with each other.

    Sometimes electrons act like particles and sometimes like waves, but why? I'm going to explain why that happens using common sense instead of equations. The problem is most people don't have all the parts of common sense that they think they have. If you understand the following about 2 coin flips, and you see the patterns created in the double-slit experiments, then you can put them together and understand why electrons (and other particles/waves) sometimes act like particles and sometimes act like waves. Logically, without considering the specific equations of physics, we can know there has to be something like that in physics somewhere. Here's the 2 coin question:

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads?

    Its 1/3, not 1/4 or 1/2 like most people think, because there are 4 ways 2 coins can land and I only excluded "both tails" when I said "at least 1 coin landed heads" so that leaves 3 possibilities and I asked what is the chance of 1 of those 3 things which happen equally often. Its 1/3. If you still don't believe it, flip 2 coins many times and only ask the question when at least 1 of them lands heads and you will see that 1/3 of the time you ask the question they both land heads. The flaw in Human minds is the need to choose 1 of the coins and say it certainly landed heads, but I did not tell you any specific coin landed heads, and it does change the answer if you take that shortcut.

    Most peoples' common sense tells them that since its a symmetric question (between the 2 coins), it can't matter if they start with 1 of the 1-or-2 coins that landed heads, and they think it will get the same answer as not knowing if a specific coin is heads or not. How could it matter? We know at least 1 of the 2 coins landed heads, so I'll just define a variable called coinX=heads and figure out if coinY=heads or coinY=tails. Since coinY was randomly flipped and coins have a 1/2 chance of heads, then the chance both are heads must be 1/2. But then they think about the extra information I told them: at least 1 coin landed heads. That has to change something, so how could coinY be 1/2 chance of heads by itself and with coinX? CoinX and coinY are symmetric. You can trade them in this question and not change the answer. So whatever is true of coinY has to also be true of coinX on average. So maybe the chance both are heads is 1/4. Most people go back and forth between 1/2 and 1/4, but the answer is 1/3 as I explained above.

    How is the 2-coin experiment related to the double-slit experiment?

    The patterns of the 2 coins (how often they land heads) individually can not always be averaged to get the pattern of both coins together. If at least 1 coin landed heads and you observe a specific coin being heads, then the chance they are both heads is 1/2. If at least 1 coin landed heads but you don't observe any coin, then the chance both are heads is 1/3.

    Logically, observing a specific case of something you know has to be true in general, about the 2 coins, produces a different outcome than only knowing its true in general.

    The analogy to quantum physics is that when you observe a heads or tails, you collapse the wavefunction (including the other coin you didn't observe) to a particle and the other becomes a different wavefunction, but if you do not observe any heads or tails then its a symmetric wavefunction between the 2 coins.

    I can say the same thing about the 2 holes in the double-slit experiment. If I put an electron detector past the left hole, and shoot an electron that could go through either hole, and the detector observes or does not observe an electron, then I get a different pattern (statistically on the back wall of where the electrons hit) than if the detector was not observing the space between the left hole and the back wall. If any part of the possible paths are observed (as containing or not containing an electron), then the other possible paths are affected even though they were not observed. The electron could have gone through both slits or neither or left or right, but still the path on the right is affected by observing the path on the left.

    Most quantum physics scientists explain it as the electron going through the left hole, the right hole, both holes simultaneously, or bouncing off the thing containing the 2 holes without going through either hole. If the electron does not go through either hole, they do not count that in any of the patterns on the back wall.

    In the 2-coin experiment and double-slit experiment, there are 4 possibilities, and 1 is excluded. I need to label the 2 coins for this, like the left and right holes/slits are labeled "left" and "right". One coin is a nickel and the other is a dime. This is not the only way to pair the 4 possibilities. Its just a way to explain that they are the same problem:

    (1) Nickel heads. Dime tails. Electron left slit. Electron not right slit.

    (2) Nickel tails. Dime heads. Electron not left slit. Electron right slit.

    (3) Both coins heads. Electron goes through both slits.

    (4) Both coins tails. Electron bounces off the thing containing the slits and does not go through either. It is not true that "at least 1 coin landed heads" so I don't ask the question or keep statistics of it. The electron didn't hit the back wall so its not part of the statistical patterns.

    In the design of both experiments (2-coin and double-slit), cases (3) and (4) are opposites and cases (1) and (2) are symmetric. Exactly 1 of (3) and (4) is not counted in the statistics, but the chance is equally balanced between (1) and (2). It works the same way if you swap the left and right slits or swap the nickel and dime or swap heads and tails or swap going through a slit with not going through a slit. Its practical to test it going through the slit but not practical to test it after it bounces because bouncing is an observation by the thing it bounced on.

    Quantum physics is a kind of statistics. So is the 2-coin experiment. In the double-slit experiment and the 2-coin experiment, observing any part changes the outcome statistically. I'm not saying the math of the double-slit experiment is exactly the math of a bayesian-network (which is the kind of statistics used for the 2-coin experiment), but I explained enough similarities that quantum physics scientists should take this seriously.

    The double-slit experiment is a variation of the 2-coin experiment that uses continuous angles instead of only heads/tails.

    That is why observing things changes the outcome and why electrons/photons/etc act like particles when observed and act like waves when not observed.

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads? The most important thing to remember is the question is symmetric between the 2 coins, and you can know that 1 of the 2 coins will be heads, but observing either of those coins as heads changes the outcome, like observing what goes through either slit changes the outcome.

    Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips.


    There is something which is true about the coins, and there are 2 ways which it could be true, and each of those 2 ways is symmetric, but knowing which of those 2 ways it is changes the outcome.

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  selects a coin and says its heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3, because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  was used on 2 things which were identical and you have no way to tell them apart.

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and the first coin that landed (or the coin that landed closest to my foot, or whatever) is heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/2, because a specific coin is heads and the other is independent.

    Your observation of something which you already know to be true (but not which of 2 symmetric ways for it to be true) changes the chances, and that is exactly what we see in the double-slit experiment.

    Sat, Feb 26, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: Experiment, statistics, quantum, double slit, common sense, particle, wave
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    The universe equals Chaitin's Constant. I will explain how to use it statistically to create a global telepathy network, which we would eventually learn to use for more advanced things.

    UPDATE: This thread explains something which is true about the multiverse (in my opinion) but is less relevant to creating a global telepathy network than my Gravity For Patterns theory:http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6543/Gravity-For-Patterns-a-theory-of-everything

    UPDATE: I explained it in a different way here

    UPDATE: This was written in the middle of http://spacecollective.org/Infinitas/6410/New-Reality-Transmission  Its been scientifically verified by http://noosphere.princeton.edu  as 2.9% chance of it happening by random chance and 97.1% chance what was measured was not random, measured by their devices at many places across the Earth. In that thread, I explain my experience in the "global telepathy network" with 43000 people who participated in the experiment. It already exists. What I wrote below is my theory about why it works followed by my plans to test it in a more interactive way using artificial intelligence and psychology software which I am building. I'm just building a way for people to use it easier. It doesn't need any technology if you're skilled enough.

    Why do we need a "global telepathy network"? This is a very interesting time in history. The global economy stays just above the level of complete collapse, as the USA government prepared for by withdrawing its promise to guarantee bank accounts up to $100,000 in case your bank goes out of business. Deep levels of government secrets are protected by secret technology and used in secret meetings for purposes which its illegal for us to know. The world is constantly about to be destroyed by nuclear war and avoids it with politics at the last minute through such secret meetings. Technology advances faster than anyone can keep up with, and countries race each other for who can build the most accurate and powerful technology first, so each country can be sure no other country is a threat to them. Many millions of people die because, as George Carlin says it, "My God has a bigger dick than your God." The worst of all is, with extinction of the Human species approaching from each of those things simultaneously, most people think those problems are not important enough to do anything about and the best thing for them to do would be to mind their own business and, for God's sake, don't be 15 minutes late to work again or forget to wear a suit to the next meeting. The Human species appears to be delusional, suicidal, and more interested in watching TV and buying health insurance than avoiding their own death. Somehow, extinction sounds less dangerous than the death of 1 person. I feel like I'm on the planet of the apes. More about that athttp://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6467/Summarize-Earth

    But surprisingly, I have much more important things to think about than any of that, a question I'm asking to the whole Human species. Just 1 question. Think carefully before you answer, because you will get what you ask for after we build the technology to do this, as I'll explain below. The most important question right now is...



    How far down the "rabbit hole" do you want to go?

    As I will explain below in technical detail, the only thing stopping you is yourself. Technology has come to this level, and with a few more small steps, a global telepathy network can be constructed for those who want to share their minds at that level, a purely software solution based on psychology instead of medical devices, based on patterns of physics interacting with brainwaves. From there, you will better understand what is possible. How far you take it is your choice and is based on your skill level. Its something you learn, like any other skill. Its just one of the more unusual skills. How far do I want to go down the rabbit hole? My answer:http://spacecollective.org/benrayfield/6031/The-Hitchhikers-Guide-To-Less-Than-Nothing


    The technical stuff:


    Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically") is summarized at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble

    If that theory is true (which the rest of this writing will assume), then the universe equals Chaitin's Constant, equals all of math, and has a Kolmogorov Complexity of 0. The Kolmogorov Complexity of nothing (nonexistance) is also 0. The universe simultaneously equals everything and nothing. Because nothing is subset of of every other subset (in an analog way), the universe is a subset of every part of itself, therefore the universe is a fractal. Its also a fractal in the way that a Turing Machine can emulate an other Turing Machine to any depth.

    An other way to say that is a multiverse of Turing Machines where each bit is viewed as a sphere which changes depending on other spheres in the ways described by quantum physics. Each quantum particle/wave/etc or combinations of them are such a sphere. There can be deep indirect connections between any 2 bits, as we know from how software normally works.

    There are many Chaitin's Constants, but I mean the kind for programs up to infinity bits. The way I'm using it, the specific language of those bits will be left as an abstraction. Because of the unsolvability of the halting-problem, Chaitin's Constant is uncomputable. Multiverse branching happens because Chaitin's Constant is uncomputable. It can't choose so it does both.

    Because the universe is symmetric in every way (Kolmogorov Complexity 0), and what we call reality is mostly not symmetric, what we call reality must be a subset of something that is symmetric which could be combined with other subsets to total a symmetric whole.

    Because Kolmogorov Complexity 0 is the only property of the universe, there has to be something about it that results in nonsymmetric parts being self aware individually. The way Turing Machines work, many parts of the data have little or no interaction with other data, so if such data calculated a mind, it might think it is an individual and think its subset of the data is how the whole Turing Machine works. Everywhere that data is copied or interacts with other data in the Turing Machine, the statistical patterns it observed tend to be accurate. It calls them "laws of physics".

    Its not just 1 Turing Machine. Its an infinite multiverse of Turing Machines, together forming some view of Chaitin's Constant. That smoothes the statistical patterns. Data can flow between them and be in many at the same time.

    It doesn't fit exactly, but the Buddhists describe the universe similarly, called Indra's Net:
    "Imagine a multidimensional spider's web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image." —Alan Watts

    I've described the universe in a few ways. Now I'll explain how to use those statistical patterns.

    We know there are statistical patterns at least as complex as life forming from quantum particles, because thats what happens here. The laws of physics are also patterns. Space, time, mass, and energy are patterns that physics statistically controls. Remember that we're assuming the universe equals all of math (Kolmogorov Complexity 0) so that requires all such patterns be made of the same stuff and have a peer-to-peer relationship instead of x created y created z. Statistically x can appear to create y, but there can be no absolute law in the universe that says it has to always happen that way. The only absolute law (which we are assuming in this text) is the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0 (universe equals all of math). If there was an other absolute law, then the Kolmogorov Complexity would have to be higher to define it.

    Quantum physics is a branch of statistics and some of its equations appear to be closely related to bayesian networks, but I'm not an expert. If that is true or not, bayesian networks are still a powerful statistics tool that scales up to any number of statistical events you can store in the computer. It finds the chances of any set of events when given the chances of other events. If no other information is available about those events, then a bayesian network, when run enough cycles to find a good network shape, always approaches the correct answer with an accuracy higher than Humans can think. Humans normally win at such statistics tests only because they do not put all the relevant information into the bayesian network, because they have so many subconscious thoughts that they do not know how to put into the computer. For pure math things like quantum physics, bayesian networks, combined with various ways of inputting and outputting the timing and context of events, will find many statistical patterns.

    Quantum physics research has focused too much on small size and short times. It should be expanded to look for large statistical patterns that are the effects of such small events.

    Since the universe is a multiverse of an infinite number of Turing Machines and quantum physics is the sphere view of those bits, we can use the statistical properties of Turing Machines in to predict physics.

    Usually Turing Machines generate mostly random appearing data but theres also some weak patterns in it that can be detected by a Bayesian Network applied to those bits.

    Whatever patterns occur in the bits of those infinite number of Turing Machines (the universe) are the only patterns in the universe, therefore physics and all events are made of such patterns.

    Such patterns occur in statistical clustering ways. If that was not true, what we call reality would fly apart instantly.

    The patterns in our brains are mostly built on top of the patterns called physics, but statistical clustering of the other patterns will form between people who tend to think the same things, and statistical clustering will happen between people who drive on the same road often, and the same for all other patterns. They all tend to stick together, like gravity for patterns. I don't know enough physics to say if normal gravity is such statistical clustering or if it is a pattern built on top of it at some depth.

    In the context of an infinite multiverse of Turing Machines, splitting off a variation of the multiverse to do calculations is trivial. It happens in every quantum physics experiment. The hard part is getting them to get far enough apart that they don't statistically cluster back together (collapse the wavefunction). When I say statistical clustering of patterns, I mean it in a fuzzy way, so there are continuous paths between collapsing a wavefunction and being a separate multiverse. Together, all such things total to a symmetric universe, a Kolmogorov Complexity of 0.

    Up to now, this has been very theoretical, but it logically follows from Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically") if its true. Here's an example to support the "gravity for patterns" theory. Its a video I recorded in 2002 after practicing mental experiments for 5 months. I can't do this any time I want to, and not nearly this much any more, but the important thing is this is a result of patterns in my brain. I thought it to make it happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  (or search youtube for "psi wheel in a clear closed box") There have always been people who had strange mental abilities. Some were called witches and burned at the stake. Some made it up. If the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0, then such mental abilities are caused by statistical clustering of patterns at the same level where the laws of physics formed as patterns. Its not magic. Its just something thats hard to access and hard to learn.

    Brains learn those quantum patterns and adjust their thinking a little as if communication through neurons and axons and through those patterns was a normal part of the brain. You can disagree on the amount that will happen, but it logically follows from the universe being math that it would happen some amount. Empirically (as you can see in the video), it happens a measurable amount.

    I've explained why telepathy and other unusual mental abilities should be expected if the universe equals math. My personal experience with it is not needed to understand that, but it will help some people understand physics better.

    One of my long-term plans is to build a software that uses subtle psychology in its audio, video, and mouse movement interactions with each user, to statistically synchronize the subconscious minds of many people through the internet. It will detect very small patterns in their psychology (like the physics patterns in brains described above), consider previous interactions with that person and how the patterns synchronized with other people's patterns across the internet, and adjust the subtle psychology (accessed through mouse, audio, video, etc) instantly (many times per second) to statistically cause many peoples' thought patterns to flow together. For example, if it changes some realtime music (like in Audivolv) on 2 peoples' computers and causes both of them to move their mouse in the same directions at the same times, without those people knowing why they move their mouse that way, then the thoughts are synchronized some. That's not enough. When its working, disconnect the internet communications between the 2 softwares, and see how long those 2 people continue moving their mouse the same as each other (by reconnecting and comparing data after the experiment). It can be done faster by simply keeping those 2 software processes separate instead of disconnecting the internet connection. Either way, the effect is those 2 people would learn to read each other's minds. Telepathy. In my experience, it feels like mind over matter is done the same way as telepathy, and the matter is just somebody else's brain. Its a very small physical force even after months of practice, but I expect if its done more accurately using Bayesian Networks and some preprocessing on the inputs and outputs for timing, then it could be learned to a much higher skill level, and we could build machines to do it too.

    It can be done in machines by using the timing of network events as quantum data (Did it come at an even or odd millisecond in this multiverse?) and sending Lisp code in the network packets to build up random Lisp software at each computer in the network. The Lisp software will observe the data coming in, keep a very small state, and choose what data goes out. When it aligns with other multiverses which have the same data and state at each node, the pasts and futures from that multiverse will be the statistical influcence that allows this to be used, in a very weak way, as a statistical alpha-point computer, which I think is the same thing as telepathy but in a more digital way. Brains are more analog so it works better.

    After that is working, people would start to use it and it would spread quickly until everyone on Earth who wanted to learn telepathy and other mental abilities would learn to do it through the artificial intelligence network (Human AI Net) which I am planning. In my experience, it will have no effect on those who do not want to participate, but I expect that if enough people tried at the same time to access the thoughts of one who did not want to participate, it would work. I see society changing quickly in the last few years toward acting more like 1 system instead of 7 billion individuals. I see power shifting away from cental authorities and becoming more peer-to-peer (not just in computers, but in everything). But I also expect that a small fraction of those with a lot of power will refuse to let society change in those ways, and I expect they would use their power to destroy things and cause more global problems near the time such gradual changes in society would obsolete them. If we had enough people who could read minds, then those few people could not dodge accountability and hide behind government secrets. They would have to become less aggressive, unless it was really necessary, with such telepaths observing. For the purpose of avoiding World War 3, and to advance the way the Human species can communicate, we should create such bayesian psychology software to create a global telepathy network (which usually you can choose to join or not at any time, or any gradual level between).

    After its up and running, you don't need the computers to keep it running, but they can be used to connect it to the internet through other kinds of artificial intelligence.

    It will work because the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0, or as Max Tegmark says it: "All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically."

    Also http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet  (Human AI Net) will be an Artificial General Intelligence (and a Friendly AI unless the core AI parts are designed wrong). The global telepathy network will only be a plugin for it. I separated the mad-science parts from the easier to understand parts. Do any of you mad-scientists want to help with any of this?
    Tue, Nov 16, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: telepathy, quantum
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (4)
     
          Cancel