The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Protect Life? Options
jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 5:36:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Hey Jim,

First a little background for the readers. Remember back in 2007, just after your book came out, when you were first putting this forum together on your website … we actually spoke on the phone a couple of times – if you remember – you wanted to contact a few of us who had purchased your book and responded to you through email – so that when you launched the forum, there would be a good set of contributors to lend some “spice” to the forum.

It’s been a fun time.

Well, anyway I have just received my second “notice of allowance” from the U.S. patent office on what I previously called computer implemented life form (“CILF”). I haven’t fully decided yet, whether or not to pay the “issue fee” and let this become a real patent. As you can see, it is now called “Machine Skepticism Using Non-Classical Suspension of a Logic Gate.”

Notice of Allowability

In other words, when MIT Press turns down your manuscript – instead of continuing to be peddle your wares to every peer reviewed science journal in the country – a patent is one mode of “self-publishing” that can be considered (at least somewhat) reviewed by an organization with an evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field.

But, anyway … getting back to the point, you asked me on the phone (in 2008 I think) if I thought there was (or could ever be) a well founded scientific equation for the “physics” of a simulated or “programmed” reality. Once I had the patent pending, I have since posted here what I thought was the equation on this website several times.



I told you then, and I tell you now, that IMHO, all we are talking about is “non-locality” -- or in other words, that our reality is not what we think it is, but rather that it must be created somewhere by some “non-local” (outside this reality) phenomenon – like the programmed “matrix” for example.

This equation really only represents what I think is the only solution to a differential decay of the expanding and simultaneously decaying programmed universe. For those like me who are not Princeton mathematicians, the equation is pretty easy to see how it works in the real world. It takes Einstein’s equations and simply adds back in the Lorentz factor for “relativity”

Lorentz Factor

Now even for people who do not understand a lot of math, hopefully you at least get the idea of what is going on here with a “square root” in the denominator and what happens if you place that one minus (1- a/b) something in the denominator inside the square root – and logically see what happens.

If you take any two objects, for example, in this equation the little “i” is the one object and the little “r” is the other. The “i” and “r” stand for inertial and reference objects. This equation says that one of them is always moving, even if ever so slightly, in relation to the other. If there were no difference the Vi minus the Vr goes to zero – and then the square root of (1) is just (1) one something over (1) is just itself and E equals MC squared. And thus in relatively low speeds, matter exists in our universe for us to interact with. Matter exists.

If the Vi minus the Vr goes beyond the speed of light, why then it is easy to see that the quantity inside the square root goes negative – and we all know that you cannot take the square root of a negative number, and moving at the speed of light in relation to another object, takes you out of that objects “light-cone” spectrum.

Well I took this idea of our non-virtual “decaying” reality and applied it to a computer program. If your computer program never calculates any fact, but simply “categorizes” input and then “pauses” your calculation – why then the computer has actually made a choice. Instead of calculating an answer or response to the data input, it just paused – thereby choosing for an undefined period, to just stop and rely only on categorization (parsing).

This kind of computing (“categorization computing”) both preserves and violates Bell’s inequality because it eludes the inequality. There is no fact -- but only choice in this type of computing that I am talking about. In any belief or skepticism, if you think about it, belief and skepticism are really the very same thing -- only to a different degree. If you believe in something that means that you do not accept it as fact, but then insert your choice to treat it as fact. If you are skeptical of something, you also do not accept it as fact, but then insert your choice to treat it as fiction. Exact same process. It is just a pause. You stop calculating.

My question to you now, is what do you think? Should I pay the issue fee and get the patent? Or, just let it abandon?

The only reason I can think of for issuing the patent, is that I would want to “own” the rights to life – just so long as I can protect it.
jim
Posted: Sunday, October 23, 2011 4:58:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
Hey John,

Great post. Your "categorization as calculation" idea is one that I haven't heard before. Seems Tipler-esque. I see how categorization is what our minds do. I don't "believe" anything. Nor do I think there are such things as "facts." Instead, I categorize, and mentally (somewhat intuitively, since my brain can't work like a computer) create probabilities, and leave the solutions in that state. But what does it mean for a computer to do that? I supposed a Reality Simulation does just that, since there is never a reason to calculate a "fact?" But what about computing the next state? Wouldn't that be definitive?

Could you explain more how the patent "protects life?" And what does it have to do with relativity?

It sounds like you, like I, have gotten the juices flowing after the recent neutrino results were posted, right? Interestingly, I wrote a paper on a mini-revelation that I had about FTL. I sent a query to a couple journals, and got one suggestion back, so I haven't yet given up on trying to publish it somewhere. Meanwhile, I posted the first of a two-part blog about it. I hope to have time for the second part soon, but I think once that is posted, it may constitute much of the point of the paper, hence my hesitation. In looking at your equation, I think we are probably thinking about similar things.

Is the patent worth the $1K? Only you can say. I would need to know what you mean about "protecting life," to give an informed opinion. But if we are all part of the Matrix, do patents really protect anything?
jdlaw
Posted: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:43:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Hey Jim,

It's Jamie - not John. But in here, I'm just "JDlaw." The reason I get so deep into nature of reality in the discussion is that "life" is metaphysical. Most of the AI, AGI, Embodied Cognitive Theory people will all say that the primary quality of "life" or sentient intelligence is that it is "indeterministic," i.e. "free will." Wherease, computers can only exhibit deterministic computational intelligence. In order to overcome that hurdle, we must learn to understand big picture and the nature of the programmed universe. When you insert the idea that we live in a simulated environment, then your ideas about programming sentience into a computer change completely. You might even realize that we ourselves are a program that has only limited sentience. We are the Programmers (or "Gods") sentient program experiment. When mankind manages to create sentience in a computer program, then the rabbit hole just gets one level deeper.

That is why I must include the

.. inertial Einstein discussion.

It basically says that no two particles or systems can really directly contact another. They can only be found within the same light cone spectrum. On the macro level, we shake hands and think that we are touching, when in fact there is tons more empty space between us than you could possible imagine. In a physical reality sense, that makes ... well, no sense. Therefore, we must determine that our reality is non-local -- or in other words a creation from some other realm. The best solution is a programmed simulation. Then you can throw the determinism, indeterminism thing out the window, because basically you do not violate Bell's inequality, you just bypass it. It is not "dualism" where there is spiritual indeterminism and physical determinism -- it is actually "duality" where both spiritual and physical simulataneously populate and decay.

It's funny that the ideas you offered in your posted reply, are perfectly congruous and in harmony with what I am talking about with "Machine Sketpticism." The idea is that once you understand that this reality is a simulation, then your frame of reference is totally changed. It does not surprise me that you get this stuff right away, because you have already been talking about the same things for years.

Cyclic error checking algorithms based on personality tendencies and categorization rather than data correction or probabilities, I think can and will make your computer appear more inquisitive and frequently skeptical of its user. When employed in interactive systems like "chat bots" for example, I feel a much better "Turing" test is achieved. The skeptical chat bot, like all chat bots may seem silly and often misunderstood, but the added skepticism and inquisitiveness of the Skeptical Chat Bot makes the user of the chat bot feel a lot more like they are dealing with a child, rather than a chat bot.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v4.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.121 seconds.