A chicken & egg paradox in the claim that the Human Mind predates the Big Bang

[barakman]

Your claim:

The "intelligent impulses" or even "human mind" itself (because a musician can understand these impulses) had existed long before the "Big Bang" happened.

The problem here, is that you are relying on your own "human mind" in order to determine that these pulses are "intelligent".

In other words, based on the fact that your human mind has interpreted these pulses as intelligent, you have concluded that the human mind must be as old as the data with which you have generated them.

So you've essentially used your own claim in order to prove it.

To put this in more precise (and perhaps tedious) details:

• Let M denote the human mind
• Let f(x) denote whether or not x predates the Big Bang
• Let g(x, y) denote whether or not x interprets y as intelligent pulses
• Let h(x) be your hash function

Your claim can subsequently be formulated as:

Which obviously depicts incorrect logical inference.

---

Note that the above (along with your initial claim) doesn't even take into account the fact that there are many human minds - one per person, some would say (although I guess it depends on your personality as well as your local environment).

If we were to rephrase your claim based on the more generalized assumption that different humans have different minds:

Then it wouldn't even adhere to the most basic logical inference.

At best, you could use it in order to claim that some human minds (yours included) have existed before the Big Bang, and of course - that wouldn't actually resolve the logical error; it would only "decay" into the less obvious error described above.

[dfischer]

A quick note on that Seshat paper (on its trinity). If my logic is correct, 1/(2^inf) assumes that there are three entities: Alpha (1), Omega (smallest particle) and a Holy Spirit - something that connects everything together, from Alpha level to Omega level. I was a bit unfortunate to be the Omega, I was born with a genetic anomaly. Unfortunate because various time-lines were possible, but I've relatively quickly (15 years) arrived to this a bit horrific time-line (for many) where existence of Alpha may have been proven. It's the end for many things, and hopefully not a start of a nuclear war, hopefully a new beginning. Physically, Omega may be a hypothesized "electron black hole", but it's not black in color, it's bluish, and it works in reverse - it gives abundant energy to whatever process needs it, it's the true source of electric forces in the Universe. "Electric Universe" hypothesis is not far from reality I think. This is philosophy, of course, and I'm not totally serious about it, but it is far from "new age" you tried to push on me at first.

I don't think there was anything "new age" that I pushed. If something came off that way then it was my mistake on presentation. The only thing I present is patterns. Unfortunately many labels are used to create a sense of gate-keeping around topics by tabooizing certain subjects. I'm sure you're aware of the effective ways of language to condition the mind. So, may we all strive to strike the vaneer that is bias and entertain the root of the concept.

There is a lot I have found in agreement with you regarding "electric universe" and an "omega point."

Have you ever seen "Timewave Zero?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#Novelty_theory_and_Timewave_Zero

You'd be the perfect mind to be able to understand it in terms of signal processing. It seems to match up quite identical to what you're suggesting or proposing here.

I'd like to understand more what you're hinting at, and I've had similar ideas myself so it is at the very least reassuring. But also weird.

[dfischer]

@dfischer Thanks for your message, it's philosophy I can connect with. Since you mentioned moon, my intuition tells me that it may start a revival process now. If you look at all those craters, they are not craters, they are traces of very powerful explosions (they all are too round to believe any random meteorite could cause them). During the revival the moon may start giving off a bluish light. Again, I'm not totally serious, but orange (Sun) without bluish (Moon) just does not add up.

Transient lunar phenomenon agrees with you. There is a lot of interest in this fringe topic. Sadly "scoffed at." Yet the evidence over hunderds of years with even the wikipedia page as recording facts of history is there in plain sight. A few amateur astronomers also have videos and pictures of the 'blue outgassing' on the surface. Many think it is 'electric' but then it gets into the 'fringe theory' side and shut down (unfortunately, we are conditioned by spell[ings]).

I do wonder the implications. Have you any to share? What do you mean by "revival of the moon?"

[avaneev]

Thanks for mentioning the "blue outgassing", some things converge then (and it's electric in nature). I can't tell much in fact - I'm not any particular philosophy follower, so I have no "baggage" to open. I do know that many people are wrong due to the complexity of science ("curse of dimensionality"). I've only mentioned the fundamentals important to me, and maybe not to anyone else. I'm not pushing a cult or something. I'm not using Discord at the moment.

By revival of the Moon I've meant actual and gradual (though probably quick now) recovering of its processes that are actually life-giving. Some philosophies regard moon as something bad, and in its current condition it is bad - the moon moans due to the stress, but is still life-giving. There are forces in the Universe that are technologically advanced, but completely lost their souls, became android-like; to them the true life, however fragile it is, is seen as a threat that must be destroyed. So, this implies "moon destruction" in some very distant past, and nowadays an acceleration of civilization, again towards self-destruction. Both plans didn't work. Novelty is a dangerous idea, because when it goes out of control, everything goes out of control. AI can generate a lot of awkward "novelties" perpetually.

"Alpha is connected to Internet" is a codeword of sorts, it implies that it is possible to hide truth even from the Alpha. Why? Alpha is a complete order while the Omega is the keeper of the gates to the "primary entropy". Life is not possible without "primary entropy" or it would turn into a lifeless all-encompassing order. A balance should be restored between order and entropy. Androids fear true entropy, because it literally destroys their self-built order.

[avaneev]

McKenna "novelty point" sounds like BS since time-serie has a start, and you can't derive time-serie's starting point from just I Ching, the calendar is a construct. It looks more like a conditioning to a pre-planned wide unleashing of the Internet and cellular phones. Pretty "stinky" novelty as many now understand by boycotting Facebook and Twitter, and everything else that's alike to them.

[avaneev]

"Orange and Blue" is "Fire and Ice" and is "Plasma and Electricity".

[avaneev]

I've just intuited to remember the movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawnmower_Man_(film) - notice the actor's name "Terry McKeen". Obviously, pre-planned and demonstrated in plain sight.

[avaneev]

I've "reported" Rebis/Rebus. Predicting existential crisis of royal freemasonry. Moon's revival is in full progress now.

[avaneev]

Again some philosophy as I have nothing to do at the moment, chime in if you want. On "chicken & egg paradox" (the title of the topic). There's no much paradox in that. An egg is an "ejectable womb". Woman having a womb is not paradoxical, isn't it? Evolution is real except it's driven by a "higher" goal - probably, the human - the Omega point of Alpha, in terms of mind. Hence, Jesus is Omega of Alpha, both connected by a Holy Spirit. I'm low-level Christian myself, and things I'm writing about connect with Christianity pretty well, except for its embedded masculinity. In my opinion, on the Universal scale, we are not the best exemplaries, very problematic to deal with, eager to express everything in terms of intrinsic monetary value. Humanity now is a big money changing scheme, alchemy is a greedy philosopher's stone: a philosophy how to become rich having only dirt, basically. Eventually a human became dirt, even education's finishing ends up with a ritual of putting a box with a label on a human: a commodity is ready to enter the market.

[bvssvni]

@avaneev Perhaps you'll be interested in reading about Asherah. Asherah was a goddess worshiped before Judaism alongside El and Yahweh, before the almost extinct cult of Yahweh claimed their god was El and also the only god (this happened in Babylonian captivity). Judaism made it illegal to worship her, but there are still traces in the bible (as Asherah was related to prostitution by the patriarchs as part of the process of getting rid of her worshipers). Some later ideas in Judaism seems to be leftovers, such as using a dove for the symbol of the Holy Spirit, which previously was Asherah's symbol. Christianity has not only embedded masculinity, but also "hidden femininity" or "suppressed femininity". The belief in Christianity in the Roman Empire grew out of Mythraism and Judaism, due to Paul who grew up in the city central to Mythraism (Taursus). The belief system was probably enforced by the rise of Platonism, which was developed in ancient Greece where the social role of women collapsed. It's a turnover period compared to just 2000 years earlier, at the end of the Bronze Age, when goddesses dominated the mythology (the civilizations collapsed, except the Egyptian empire that struggled, but kept going).

The Joker Calculus classifies "oppressing masculinity" as Platonic Joker Platonism, which is inauthentic in sense of Heidegger. The "suppressed femininity" is Seshatic Joker Seshatism. Notice that there are other authentic variants such as Seshatic Platonism (Inside theory of mathematics) and Platonic Seshatism (Outside theory of mathematics). We are now at the peak Platonism of a Seshatic-Platonic cycle, when Seshatism is expected to grow over time and side along Platonism as dominating biases in mathematical languages.

• Period -2000 to 0: Minus Seshatism
• Period 0 to 2000: Plus Platonism
• Period 2000 to X: Plus Platonism, Plus Seshatism

This is my current prediction. Well, we don't have good ways to measure it yet, but it seems that models like GPT-3 is able to reliably use this bias in language consistently. So, perhaps AI language models can be used in the future to measure Seshatic-Platonic cycles?

[avaneev]

Original Hebrews are all long dead. Modern Jews have the same problem as any modern religion or philosophy: they are all masculine, and are losing female followship. The most emancipated women are from the former USSR and nowadays Russia, and they are not that much evil, they could have been integrated into religion historically, but "founding fathers" failed to see that division by 2 may create same-level, but diversified cells (in biology). The western wave of emancipation is losing to feminism, a kind of women self-worship. Religion can't play catch-up since sources were already written and nobody has authority to change them. Philosophy can do that, but feminism is also a philosophy that leaves much to be desired, as it's divisive. USSR was smart enough to play on unification between women and men. Christianity has a loop-hole for femininity which is Saint Mary, but she's no God, of course, and she can only be praised as a mother of God.

[avaneev]

Considering the 1/(2^inf) it would be easier to just assume God is a "hermaphrodite", but this can't be explained to common people easily. Playing "new age", a good alternative is "unity consciousness", but that's not worth it because "consciousness" is something non-physical yet the "oldman on a could" is usually perceived as something physical. prvhash1 may be a good example of a "unity consciousness" creating the whole math, so we already have at least something close to physical - of course, if prvhash1 is any proof at all (I do not doubt myself, but many do).

[bvssvni]

It's interesting that you view prvhash1 in this sense. I myself view the core axiom of path semantics as a way to introduce bias that corresponds to usage of symbols. Once you get to the level of abstraction of symbols, one can reach the rest of mathematics. However, it's not a trivial extension. I tried to get a better formal, but vague, understanding of this by developing Avatar Extensions.

However, it is interesting to me that this bias also is interpreted as abstract dominance in social hierarchies. This could have something to do with "law" and "ritual" which heavily uses symbols to establish legitimization of power. In principle, though, there is no particular reason why this should be biased toward Platonism over Seshatism. They are kind of mirror images of each other. We just interpret them differently and assign arbitrary stuff like gender based on reasoning that has more with abstraction and ideology than with physics. This has probably something in common with poor understanding of physics in general, hence missing the relation to mathematics and language bias.

[avaneev]

Your approach is interesting, but it looks more like codifying "freedom of thought" into some narrower subset via a math-alike notation. It's still a "freedom of thought" if you claim "a" variable is "God" and "b" variable is "Holy Spirit". I do not think you can convince many people this is an adequate "bias" (if I understood you correctly), there is just no easy way exists to connect real-world philosophy and mathematics I think.

Social hierarchies in Western world are quite simple, in fact: always look for monetary value relationships. For example, in this respect, prvhash1 is not much more valuable or believable than my net worth, as stupid as it sounds. At the same time, nobody beside me will probably take prvhash1 as a tool to prove anything if the proof does not increase their net worth. The whole world is a money-changing scheme.

[bvssvni]

Language bias of Seshatism vs Platonism follow rules and patterns. E.g. Joker Calculus has lots of rules for normalization. It is not the "freedom of thought" that I try to encode. I want to understand language bias more precisely by modeling dualities and their relationships, theorems etc. For example, Joker Calculus is used in philosophy for positions, like how we use number systems for measuring and counting.

The world doesn't follow money only, but hundreds of "symbols of power". A symbol of power is undecidable, powerful, potent and immaterial. You can read more about it here. If we invent AGI, then I predict that it can create new symbols of power, which is problematic for safety since symbols of power have no "off button".

Mathematical bias means that there is more than one way to look at something. There can be multiple biases that are kind of like perspectives, since the full mathematical object being studied is inaccessible. The bias of Seshatism vs Platonism are related like meets and joins in lattice structures. These are not the only dualities in philosophy of mathematics, but they are easier to organize by selecting two major biases of language. In a general sense, one can think about it as studying duality and higher duality formed from primitive duality. Seshatism vs Platonism is about major duality in philosophical positions. Other dualities are more specific to systems or views about particular subjects.

Joker Calculus can express the same relations for any duality, for example "capitalism" and "communism" generates "capitalistic communism", "communistic capitalism" or "capitalistic joker capitalism".

[bvssvni]

For example, in Christianity, the most common idea of God is that of a Platonic God. The Platonic God exists abstractly, outside space and time. A less common view, but also frequently referred to, is the Seshatic God. The Seshatic God is concrete physical existence itself and expressed as the belief "God is everywhere". However, you can have a God for any term in Joker Calculus, e.g. Seshatic Platonic God. This is a God which is mostly static and eternal, but can be explored from any perspective as a journey. This is expressed as the belief "nobody can comprehend the entirety of God, but we can learn to know small pieces of him".

I do not advocate Christianity, I am simply using it as an example of bias in beliefs that manifest as terms in the Joker Calculus. This way, it gets easier to notice how bias in language tends to "fill out" a certain number of possible positions. It happens automatically in society, starting with some form of duality. People of different bias tend to claim their perspective is the only valid one and if a bias isn't occupied already, it soon will. This happens, because people seek novelty and ability to generate e.g. income and attention from the general economy.

[avaneev]

This happens, because people seek novelty and ability to generate e.g. income and attention from the general economy.

Well, here you are contradicting your own proposition "The world doesn't follow money only, but hundreds of "symbols of power"." In my opinion, it does follow money in the end of the scheme. I know how USSR worked and there it was not only about money: the monies were industrial money and commoner money (a social score of sorts). Maybe not an ideal system, but at least it wasn't only about money, or means to obtain money.

By "net worth" I also mean an "association" with net worth. People seek symbols and take knowledge that associates them with something "worthy" while "worthiness" is always about concrete money or gold, or a potential to obtain it an easy way - hence the "association" as well. The previously mentioned Rebis is actually a system of perceiving the world, all its matter, ideas and knowledge as "dirt" or "lead", or worse - as just rectangles and triangles - with sextigram on top, and freemasonry at a lower level, with a human at an even lower level. It's an alchemy of perception, not a literal "lead to gold".

Sorry, I can't comment much on the "Seshatism - Platonism" system you are designing, but it looks like you are trying to do a common thing: produce a duality spectrum. Communism is unfortunately not an antithesis of capitalism, it's a much more complex system of relationships within society. Quite funny, but nowadays capitalism partially takes elements of Soviet socialism, even if rarely anybody admits it. When NASA, SpaceX, and science in general is sponsored by the state, it's "socialism" in plain sight.

[bvssvni]

When there are enough people that follow a symbol of power, there will be a certain sense of "it will happen" regardless of who specifically will do it. Not all people start a religion believing in X, but some person will. Money is one of the most visible symbols of power in the world and this can often be used to simplify the model by removing all other symbols of power. However, money is not just what people follow. For example, people can have a meta-belief in money that contradicts with the reality of economics. This is where one can talk about "inauthenticity" in sense of Heidegger.

Yes, I created Joker Calculus to be able to explore the spectrum of duality without buying into my own or my culture's biases. That was a great motivation.

I know communism isn't antithesis of capitalism. Just like Nominalism isn't antithesis to Platonism, but more like an aspect of Platonism by negation. Seshatism isn't antithesis to Platonism, but only relative antithesis when they coexist in the same system. Any time you replace quality (the basis for Platonism) with aquality (the basis for Seshatism) and vice versa, you can prove the same theorems. However, since Seshatism vs Platonism works like a "blank canvas" for biases, we tend to fill them up with all kinds of beliefs which are dual to each other. These two biases are in particular interesting, precisely because they start out like empty slots and proceed to be filled up in predictable ways.

For example, discrimination against women isn't just about justice. It is also the case that, when somebody are credited something unjustified, it is more often a male than a female. For example, Pythagoras didn't invent the Pythagorean theorem, nor wrote down anything, yet was credited a lot. Theano on the other hand, wrote, but we don't know which book/books. She might have written about the golden ratio.

It's not just that women are not credited what is justified to credit them. It is also the case that "injustice" also follows specific, predictable patterns of bias. Who can argue how much unjustified credit one deserves? The argument would be absurd. This is also the reason why unjustified credit is handled in a particular way in society.

Another way that discrimination happens is that females are put in relation to males. For example, some people believed Theano was Pythagoras' wife. She probably was not. What would you think of anyone who believed Plato was Cleopatras' husband?

Discrimination against women is interesting because it happens even in cases where there is no direct battle about physical properties or money. It happens because abstract corruption of ideas is used to fuel and enforce power structures in society. Abstract corruption is very interesting from a mathematical language bias perspective.

For example, Seshat was believed to copy what scribes in ancient Egypt wrote and put the scroll in her divine library. Notice that the divine library did not originate with Seshat, a kind of reversal of the belief in God as a creator who creates the universe. Even Plato wrote about Thoth who was credited with inventing writing, but there were also people who believed Seshat invented writing. Who noticed? We correct these mistakes using archeological findings and putting the pieces of evidence together, thousands of years later.

Bias is often not something intrinsic to the object of study, but created by the perspective that perceives the object.

[avaneev]

I was conscious enough when remnants of USSR were still in effect. Believe me, there was no discrimination of women. There was discrimination of inventors via low wages, but that was the system: whatever ingenious you create you can't bank on it, the invention was shared for good of everyone. It sounds good in theory, but in practice there was discontent. Unfortunately, as any system, it was sabotaged from within (Gorby). "Woman vs man" bias, as now obvious, is quite rampant in Western world, otherwise there would be no feminism that banks on sexuality. Since religion's outlook today is bleak, it's not about masculinity of religion. Maybe it's the other way around: religion is a product of ancient capitalism and power-brokering. As usual in science, correlation does not always mean causation. And since Soviet socialism quickly undone all its humanistic achievements after the fall, it means society does need higher-order systems to become just, it's like it always needs clothes (in simplest form - a monetary system) to not to devolve into cannibalism.

[bvssvni]

The less assumptions you have to start with, the more bias one can build on top of it. The ideal avatar core is an empty shell with nothing inside, that has axioms interacting at the surface (belief structure of that nothingness). For example, in Christianity, the most important notion of God is one that is outside space and time. What does it even mean to say that a such being exists? It's mostly a matter of a language game.

Zero can mean both "false", "empty" but also a "center".

All religions take ideas that comes from older religions and claim eternal authority. It's like, there is an internal contradiction necessary at the very core. It has to start with "false". Without this mechanism, the religion doesn't work.

Money works because money doesn't work, etc. It's a similar kind of paradoxical belief structure.

Abstract corruption is at the center of belief systems that drive human societies. This is an operation that is not accessible in logic: Privacy or private language. All operators in e.g. classical logic are public, they can't hide their content. So, when you add an operator that can, or pretend to be some part of something else, that's an "avatar".

I don't know much about USSR, so I thank you for these insights.

[bvssvni]

Peano axioms of natural numbers is a very neat example of using avatars in mathematical language design. At the core, there is zero and new natural numbers are constructed using succ(_). So, at the core, there is zero and every positive natural number is an avatar. When a natural number is unknown, we can not peak inside, so that way we create the "private language" that natural numbers need to function as a useful number system.

Notice how similar this is to the idea of God that creates the world. The world is some kind of "successor" of the God, who exist outside space and time, yet at the center of everything. However, the world is unknown and this makes it impossible to figure out what is actually going on, behind the stage of space and time. This is why religions work the way they do.

However, Platonism does not only claim that there is a single entity outside space and time. It claims that every idea has a perfect form which exists abstractly. So, when a woman invents something, a man often comes and claims to have found the "perfect design" which the woman merely contributed to finding. The overall idea is that a woman can't "originate" or "create" anything.

The aggression of Platonic Joker Platonism toward Seshatic Joker Seshatism is fueled by the "inauthenticity" of these positions. This "inauthenticity" is balanced by the embracing positions Seshatic Joker Platonism and Platonic Joker Seshatism. These normalizes in the Closed variant of Joker Calculus to Seshatism and Platonism, hence "embracing" the other position.

As you said, "socialism" happens for the rich, which can be thought of as Socialistic Joker Capitalism. For example, in the sugar industry, the US commits to buying the over-production that is not sold. Hence, the sugar industry always over-produces, year after year.

I am just showing that Joker Calculus can express these biases. Seshatism and Platonism have a formal underpinning as quality and aquality operators, while the actual bias comes from choice of core axioms. The core axiom models usage of symbols and mathematics is "encoded" in the very use of symbols themselves. There is no other "deep secret" of mathematics. It's all about symbols, no more or less.

[avaneev]

prvhash1 if you look at it not as merely a strange computer program, proves human-readable information could have been encoded "beyond space and time". Then it's only a matter of consensus whether signals it produces are intelligent or not. Also, as can be shown with "christmas trees", it's a "cellular automata" that goes beyond what human logic can produce, operating with just three 1-bit operands at a time, not having accessible memory whatsoever (even Wolfram rule 153 you've found is a hack as it needs to access group of 3 close bits of previous scanline while prvhash1's Seed and lcg refer to previous state only-which is the end of previous scanline when one starts running on a new scanline).

To my knowledge, religions come from "unauthorative public beliefs" which are rarely too old to have no historic traces. Religions are constructs that resonate with public beliefs, that's why Christianity is so old and still powerful. The science with all its knowledge still lacks "creator" as from my practical knowledge, "entropy" or "randomness" does not carry any information and cannot be creative; it's based on assumptions about something "primordial" nobody knows what exactly it is.

Note that in Christianity the God died and then resurrected, he's always alive since that moment, together with the world. Otherwise the idea of Holy Spirit has no meaning if God left the world.

Money always works if you have a buyer and a seller, there's no paradox.

Zero, or train of zeros, is special in binary or Fourier analysis. In real numbers, zero is only an offset of calculus.

[avaneev]

In Fourier analysis DC or zero frequency is a point where sine/cosine converge into flatline, or sinewave with "infinite" period.

[bvssvni]

Yes, Rule 153 is a higher order version of the same algorithm.

The DSP algorithm doesn't depend on the end of the previous scanline only. It rotates the end of the scanline around the whole scanline, which is significant. This is why you get Sierpinski triangle from right to left.

Before money, society used debt. Neighbors helped each other and favors were done in return for a favor. This was how they helped each other, back and forth. When leaders received high status, they received gifts out of gratefulness. When the gifts stopped coming, the leaders forced people to "give" using violence. This was the early form of taxation. Money evolved as a book keeping procedure to keep track of taxes. It was also used to create markets for supplying military forces, again to force people to "give" their gifts to the leaders.

Very simplified: Money works because a social institution is willing to use force to protect its symbols of currency. Hence, money doesn't actually "work", it's a tool for keeping control over society. All the street crimes in the world pales in comparison to e.g. wage theft. Money has always been instrumental to abuse and violence. The world is controlled by forcing people away from productive soil or waters and keeping them contained inside cities where they provide services to the rich, e.g. attention and entertainment. The rest is story telling.

Perhaps money could be something else in the future? Perhaps nanotech makes it possible to wander the Earth without much need for material wealth?

[bvssvni]

Notice that when you argue that money "works" because you only need a buyer and a seller, you argue using Platonic bias.

When I argue that money "doesn't work" because of how it evolved historically, I argue using Seshatic bias.

Platonism credits knowledge by abstraction, while Seshatism credits knowledge by causality. Both views are correct in their own sense, but people often miss this since they don't notice the bias position, nor other possible perspectives. Joker Calculus fixes this by enabling a way to enumerate all possible perspectives from a single duality.

[avaneev]

I can also say that money "works" because they give an association with "net worth", or being "net worth" itself. Hence, a huge inflation makes money stop working. Or the moment USSR collapsed, Soviet ruble also stopped working since its money stopped being association with "net worth". In the current economical turmoil the same may happen to many currencies, maybe even strongest of them - the US Dollar.

[avaneev]

Also note that prvhash1 can be called a "causal" function while Wolfram Rule 153 is "non-causal" function, that's a huge difference. r153 needs to keep track of the next pixel of the previous scanline while prvhash1 only needs previous Seed/lcg state and a pixel on the same point of previous scanline.

I have no doubt one can find a "cellular automata" that corresponds to 10101010... initial condition, just by using some solver, but the solution will be "non-causal" as well, probably requiring to keep track of TWO or more previous scanlines, making distinction to prvhash1 even stronger.

[avaneev]

Since you've noted masculinity bias in science, I'd like to mention Ada Lovelace: she is regarded as the first "machine programming theorist".

[avaneev]

Funnily enough, my mother's short name is Ada as well (short for Germanic "Adeline").

[avaneev]

On "barter" as pre-money system. I know how it worked first hand - my ancestry is Komi people which is basically a lot of villages spread throughout the Komi Republic. Cities here were USSR-planned and implemented. Komi people is a small community, much smaller than jewry, for example. Unfortunately, as communities grow, a new forces come into effect: thievery and pillaging, and sometimes even literal cannibalism. So, the monetary system is the least a community needs to stop infrequent, but mass injustice.

[bvssvni]

The perspective that new forces come into effect with growth of communities is interesting.

[avaneev]

The perspective that new forces come into effect with growth of communities is interesting.

I think this can even be explained geometrically. A self-sustainance in money-less community requires land, water, and forest plus local barter (which is usually workforce for groceries or some other services). As community grows, land and forest becomes increasingly inaccessible to newborns if there's no cheap transportation exists. So, a community either splits and starts a new village, or grows, but then it requires a monetary system to be sustainable. If monetary system is weak, people organize gangs to pillage surrounding communities. Large cities are extremely unstable if a monetary system collapses (due to inflation or money supply disruptions), because they are not self-sustainable as they exist and grow due to trade mostly. Capitalism's direct antithesis is money-less community, and not communism. Communism as it was described and defined is the next stage of capitalism. Unfortunately, it does not work without a sort of "social scoring" system, now being implemented in China if I'm not mistaken (in this, China is behind USSR by 70 years, it seems). I have my ideas of money-less society based on digital currencies when most products are basically free of charge, but I went too far into the future in my thinking. At least my ideas do not require "social scoring" or dismantling of capitalism.

[dfischer]

Thanks for mentioning the "blue outgassing", some things converge then (and it's electric in nature). I can't tell much in fact - I'm not any particular philosophy follower, so I have no "baggage" to open. I do know that many people are wrong due to the complexity of science ("curse of dimensionality"). I've only mentioned the fundamentals important to me, and maybe not to anyone else. I'm not pushing a cult or something. I'm not using Discord at the moment.

Totally agree with you. It is important to me. I share similar interests and it's rare to find someone open minded.

By revival of the Moon I've meant actual and gradual (though probably quick now) recovering of its processes that are actually life-giving. Some philosophies regard moon as something bad, and in its current condition it is bad - the moon moans due to the stress, but is still life-giving. There are forces in the Universe that are technologically advanced, but completely lost their souls, became android-like; to them the true life, however fragile it is, is seen as a threat that must be destroyed. So, this implies "moon destruction" in some very distant past, and nowadays an acceleration of civilization, again towards self-destruction. Both plans didn't work. Novelty is a dangerous idea, because when it goes out of control, everything goes out of control. AI can generate a lot of awkward "novelties" perpetually.

Intriguing. I have played with similar ideas. How do you find confidence in these things as actually true vs just a hunch? I struggle with this greatly; especially since my hunches are usually strong (high intuition as @bvssvni says). It's like there is this battle between the rational part of my self and the irrational. One is more connected to intuitive events and the other one only axiomatic events and they don't exactly agree on where truth exists, lol.

Can you define android further? Is this hypothetical, analogical, or more specific?

Do you consider all planets and moons sentient? Is there something specific or unique about the moon from your perspective?

What forces in the universe that are technologically advanced and lost their souls? Where do you find confidence in this conclusion besides hunches?

"Alpha is connected to Internet" is a codeword of sorts, it implies that it is possible to hide truth even from the Alpha. Why? Alpha is a complete order while the Omega is the keeper of the gates to the "primary entropy". Life is not possible without "primary entropy" or it would turn into a lifeless all-encompassing order. A balance should be restored between order and entropy. Androids fear true entropy, because it literally destroys their self-built order.

Wouldn't the Alpha or Omega be the same entity? Perhaps just like an ouraborus of sorts, in a balance that is necessary? Your contrast between order and entropy seems aligned with my thoughts. Another way to describe it is that there are trends towards entropy and life is "negentropy" in nature. There is this natural push and pull between the both and it balances around a core ever-moving.

However the way I'm processing your codeword of sorts is on more fringe ideas like "Alpha" being similar to the idea of the Demiurge. Simulacrum of reality being nested within another all-pervasive overseer, perhaps a lot like what a distributed firewall may look like if imagined as firewalling reality.

Thanks for answering my questions despite the fringe nature.

[avaneev]

No problem, I like fringe ideas and I'm not obliged to be "sane" as I'm not tied to any "net worth" scientific institution. I'm not writing here (except arguing about prvhash-1) as something "actually true". But I think I've read and studied enough sources to think in terms of "probably true". For example, see an article here: https://thehill.com/opinion/3610916-congress-implies-ufos-have-non-human-origins/ UFOs are clearly "probably true" now even at the highest places of power. Fringe topics or "conspiracy theories" often oscillate between "that's insane" to "probably true". Only an abstract math equation is "100% true", even physics is full of "probably true" which are politcorrectly called "theories". "Hypothesis" then is "fringe". So, even science is always on the fringe. Except it's not fringe enough to go beyond "net worth" frameworks.

Well, I know it may sound derogatory to human, but android is anything that follows instructions and "the plan" only. This rarely happens in the real life, but e.g. playing computer games all days and nights around is probably quite "androidish". The line is thin. Like neural networks, humans also only carry projections of the totality of existence. So, "android society" is not something that may not happen to humanity. Then what's soul then? It's an intuitive signal from "totality of existence". If the signal is closed, the society is android, likely a police state. The same could have happened to some unknown "UFO dwellers" - they have the technology, but can't exit their androidish "status quo". It's easier to them to destroy a source of "unwanted information", a censorship on a galactic scale.

Alpha and Omega and Holy Spirit are the same entity. Omega is like a "descended" Alpha, a way to evaluate reality where real entropy prevails. I've played with a word "Demiurge", but it's really not important how you call it, maybe YHWH or Krishna. Christianity's Holy Trinity is just a lot closer to the model. Then "prophets" are also Omegas, born at different times in history, maybe even now, maybe not a single one at a time. I'm also Omega, but of course, no relation to religion, I'm an "evaluator" of Alpha, many things in my life converge to that conclusion. Does that make me a special human? No, but for Alpha I may be special.

[avaneev]

A small advancement on prvhash-1. It really is working as the "full" PRVHASH since it is possible to use output of one prvhash-1 system as entropy input of another system, exactly as described for the regular PRVHASH. This finding strengthens the notion we are dealing with entropy-generation system, a PRNG which is not quite a PRNG.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#define PH_HASH_COUNT 342
#define READ_MODE 1 // 0 or 1
#define READ_WIDTH ( PH_HASH_COUNT + 1 )
#define READ_HEIGHT ( READ_WIDTH * 32 )
static inline uint8_t prvhash_core1( uint8_t* const Seed,
    uint8_t* const lcg, uint8_t* const Hash )
{
    *Hash ^= (uint8_t) ( *Seed ^ 0x1 );
    *lcg ^= (uint8_t) ( *Seed ^ READ_MODE );
    const uint8_t out = (uint8_t) ( *lcg ^ *Seed );
    *Seed ^= *Hash;
    return( out & 1 );
}
int main()
{
    uint8_t Seed = 0, lcg = 0;
    uint8_t Hash[ PH_HASH_COUNT ] = { 0 };
    uint8_t Seed2 = 0, lcg2 = 0;
    uint8_t Hash2[ PH_HASH_COUNT ] = { 0 };
    int HashPos = 0;
    printf( "<html><head>"
        "<style>body{font: 1px Courier; line-height: 1px;}</style>\n" );
    printf( "</head><body><pre>\n" );

    for( int l = 0; l < READ_HEIGHT; l++ )
    {
        for( int k = 0; k < READ_WIDTH; k++ )
        {
            Seed2 ^= prvhash_core1( &Seed, &lcg, Hash + HashPos );

            if( prvhash_core1( &Seed2, &lcg2, Hash2 + HashPos ))
                printf( "0" );
            else
                printf( " " );
            if( ++HashPos == PH_HASH_COUNT ) HashPos = 0;
        }
        printf( "\n" );
    }
    printf( "</pre></body>\n</html>\n" );
}

[avaneev]

I'll add that a height of "chunk" of prvhash-1 2-D pixel block is rounded to the nearest power-of-2 value. So, for any value of PH_HASH_COUNT between 257 and 512 the "height" is exactly 512, then it advances to 1024. I've already mentioned that every other "chunk" has "pixel offset" increased by 1 at the left side of image. For even an average programmer, it looks like a completely engineered approach, mind-blowing actually the moment you start studying prvhash-1.

[avaneev]

On "consciousness of planets" I would mention Schumann resonances. They give a picture that Earth has some sort of "higher level" processes going on, which happen on the same EM frequency spectrum as human's brain (1-30 Hz). https://www.heartmath.org/gci/gcms/live-data/gcms-magnetometer/ Same for Moon - the "blue outgassing" is a manifestation of some inner processes. I've checked out a research on this, and I can confirm that delta-imagery does show a faint energy emitting in areas that look dark on Moon's optical images. I'm fluent in noise and dithering, and can visually find patterns in what can be called just a noisy imagery - I see "noise-floor differences". Coincidentally, the dark areas on Moon have a lot less number of craters than the bright areas, which again brings a fringe idea of "prehistoric bombardment". Or, as some researchers say, the Moon has a titanium shell and meteorites just do not leave even a speck on the darker areas of the Moon. If prvhash-1 can be considered as a proof of intelligence beyond space and time, or a proof human was an ultimate project, the idea of "waves of life" seems plausible, including extinction of dinosaurs, or global flooding, or even more bizzare things. The Earth just keeps going fulfilling its function: to support life. Flora and fauna may come and go, humanoids may come and go, but as humanoid is the ultimate goal, after each "extinction" the life on Earth re-starts to produce a similar outcome.

[avaneev]

Here's one more prvhash-1 goodie. Leaving to you to figure it out. :-)

[avaneev]

And another one. There's some "sync" happens on 1/3, 2/3, and N-1, of image height, on any scale.

[avaneev]

There's an interesting thing about 1/3 and 2/3, from "entropy" point of view. 2/3 is 1010101010 in binary relative to 1024 (2^N), while 1/3 is 0101010101 / 1024. "God loves the Trinity" as some say.

[johnusher]

Hi Aleksey I’ve just arrived at your colourful and lively party of ideas, and am enjoying it greatly. Are you familiar with Roger Penrose’s tentative model of Conformal cyclic cosmology? (the font change evidences my difficulty in remembering the correct name.) It looks towards cosmic background radiation to suggest information transfer across eons of the universe(s). Seems related to your interests in random numbers and metaphysics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

cheers

On 2 Oct 2022, at 06:35, Aleksey Vaneev @.***> wrote:

 On "consciousness of planets" I would mention Schumann resonances. They give a picture that Earth has some sort of "higher level" processes going on, which happen on the same EM frequency spectrum as human's brain (1-30 Hz). https://www.heartmath.org/gci/gcms/live-data/gcms-magnetometer/ Same for Moon - the "blue outgassing" is a manifestation of some inner processes. I've checked out a research on this, and I can confirm that delta-imagery does show a faint energy emitting in areas that look dark on Moon's optical images. I'm fluent in noise and dithering, and can visually find patterns in what can be called just a noisy imagery - I see "noise-floor differences". Coincidentally, the dark areas on Moon have a lot less number of craters than the bright areas, which again brings a fringe idea of "prehistoric bombardment". Or, as some researchers say, the Moon has a titanium shell and meteorites just do not leave even a speck on the darker areas of the Moon. If prvhash-1 can be considered as a proof of intelligence beyond space and time, or a proof human was an ultimate project, the idea of "waves of life" seems plausible, including extinction of dinosaurs, or global flooding, or even more bizzare things. The Earth just keeps going fulfilling its function: to support life. Flora and fauna may come and go, humanoids may come and go, but as humanoid is the ultimate goal, after each "extinction" the life on Earth re-starts to produce a similar outcome.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

[avaneev]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

The idea of expanding and shrinking, breathing, Universe is not unique - if I'm not mistaken, it originally comes from the Vedas. Maybe the idea is important to physics as a whole, but I do not see it answers the fundamental question "where it all originates". While prvhash-1 does give a kind of proof such origin may be real, the physical world may have other sources of "initial entropy".

My current views that account for "initial entropy" do not even require Big Bang - the space itself may be a source of energy, and the space itself may probabilistically emit energy, or can even be forced into the loop to gain "free energy", by human means. In this view, expanding Universe is a manifestation of a continuous energy surplus. Certainly there may be periods of sort of "chain reactions" that give a raise to e.g. galaxies, but I do not think this happens in nanoseconds. Anyway, as these are fringe ideas, I have to stick to Big Bang in my public reasoning.

I'll add that the main problem of science is that it revolves around "net worth" of people far from science. So, some (or even many) scientific results like Moon's blue/red outgassing may receive little attention, because it's not worthy enough and may conflict with views that public already banks on. prvhash-1 included, by the way.

[avaneev]

My views do not conflict with the "conservation of energy", because COE is defined for closed systems while "energy in space" stays "outside" such systems. Since the space is most probably boundless, its inherent energy is infinite as well. In my opinion, "Aether" was white-washed from the science because it was redundant for money-making, but for philosophy it may be always important.

[avaneev]

Another philosophical view I have is that modern "particle-based" physics went a completely wrong way. Particles are easy from e.g. programmer's point of view: it's just a list of some entities with known properties in computer memory plus a set of rules of interaction between them, to build progressions. Such approach certainly does not need space as a physical entity. However, reality obviously does not keep some sort of a list of all particles in the Universe: the space itself "keeps" the memory about a particle, and this requires notion of physical space (or aether) as the holder. While particle-based approach does allow economy to keep going up to some degree, some really deep physics requires multi-dimensional particle modeling based on transformations of space.

[bvssvni]

@avaneev "particles" is not a single mathematical concept, but a family of concepts (related by informal and vague notions). For example, in quantum field theory, a particle is indeed an excitation of some field (which can be thought of as part of space). In Wolfram models, the particle is a patch of space that has non-Euclidean geometry locally (as we consider the intuitive notion of space as approximately Euclidean locally).

[avaneev]

@avaneev "particles" is not a single mathematical concept, but a family of concepts (related by informal and vague notions). For example, in quantum field theory, a particle is indeed an excitation of some field (which can be thought of as part of space). In Wolfram models, the particle is a patch of space that has non-Euclidean geometry locally (as we consider the intuitive notion of space as approximately Euclidean locally).

Yes, I understand that. Not that I'm very fluent in QED, but did study it a bit. However, I'm talking about "isolated" particles like neutrons. Or the particle-wave duality which to me is not a duality, but a lack of a better, space-bound, model. The space may be Euclidean, but the particle as an "excitation" of this space, applies a non-linear transformation. There's just no other way to "memorize" existence of a particle other than "stitching" it into the space.

[bvssvni]

Yes, without being part of space, e.g. in a Wolfram model, the particle would continue to evolve in a parallel universe, separated causally from our universe.

[avaneev]

Yes, without being part of space, e.g. in a Wolfram model, the particle would continue to evolve in a parallel universe, separated causally from our universe.

Indeed. What I'm trying to say is that nowadays physics is more "phenomenal" kind of thing, it studies effects and how they can be used for a benefit. For example, it's known that electron's deceleration causes braking radiation. But how does it happen, on subatomic level? It's logical that due to conservation laws that is going to happen, but e.g. why on specific frequencies and spectra? I have many "why" questions about physics, but in some cases do not find answers. Also, the "standard model" is a particle-based model and it basically treats all particles as some property-bearing entities, there's no notion of "space" exists. Quantum fields also only "encompass" particles, dictate their dynamics, without the need for space.

[bvssvni]

The "why" is often lost in history, unless something breaks down and people have to think about stuff, instead of just using stuff.

[avaneev]

You may take a look at an animation I've just created. Again, looks completely engineered yet I'm totally not involved. The imagery is reminiscent of Serpinski triangles yet the forms are rectangular. Demonstration of "division by 2" concept as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYfGjD19VWo

[avaneev]

Also came to my mind: you've previously tried to reproduce the initial Sierpinski-alike pattern with a corresponding Wolfram rule, for odd PH_HASH_COUNT, by introducing a "boundary condition". Obviously, the original prvhash-1 function has no such logic whatsoever yet it does look like the same "boundary condition" has been applied. Even this tiny aspect tells (or proves) that the logic in prvhash-1 "happens" beyond the common math.