Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Deist Objectivist

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The imputing of "information" to mind independent status is rank reification.

This is not correct.  What would be rank reification is imputing "knowledge" to mind independent status.  Information is an objective and quantifiable facet of existence.  Without information theory and the sub-specialty coding theory it would not be possible for us to communicate across the internet like this or even have computers.

 

The important linking concept between physics and information theory is entropy.  Information is physical in the sense of being causal because it can only exist by means of matter or energy, nor can matter and energy exist without having information.as an attribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know no way to transfer meaning from the context "information" was formed in, to the context it is here being used, without denying its contextual roots. Unless one is simply recycling a word with an established connection to a specific set of referents and using it in a context completely unrelated and living with the confusion it creates. However, my read is, the adherents simply fail to apply a valid reduction and contextual analysis of "information" and accept a usage without knowledge of its origin and without guidance from a normative epistemology. The result is an attempt to resolve "paradoxes" ad hoc, caused simply by bad epistemology.

I realize you currently don't agree and I'd be interested in any sources you think would convince me of the inference that information does not involve a mind to be informed.

I know no way to transfer meaning from from the context "information" was formed in, to the context it is here being used, without denying its contextual roots. Unless one is simply recycling a word with an established connection to a specific set of referents and using it in a context completely unrelated and living with the confusion it creates. However, my read is, the adherents simply fail to apply a valid reduction and contextual analysis of "information" and accept a usage without knowledge of its origin and without guidance from a normative epistemology. The result is an attempt to resolve "paradoxes" ad hoc, caused simply by bad epistemology.

I realize you currently don't agree and I'd be interested in any sources you think would convince me of the inference that information does not involve a mind to be informed.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no need to go beyond the first page of Claude Shannon's classic paper that founded information theory "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".

 

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately

a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer

to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic

aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual

message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each

possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design.

If the number of messages in the set is finite then this number or any monotonic function of this number

can be regarded as a measure of the information produced when one message is chosen from the set, all

choices being equally likely.

 

It is a restricted context because semantic meaning is omitted.  Actually, the omission of semantic meaning makes this concept of information broader than one which includes it.

 

Also, consider the Shannon's diagram of the model of communication over a noisy channel:

 

 

i-f7c12d9bf54a732b18760e6fd53e893e-Shann

 

 

 

This is the same as the object-environment-subject relation in perception.  Taking the case of visual perception, things such as rocks and trees do not send messages with semantic content when they appear to us yet their appearance is informative of what rocks and trees are and do.  Even more broadly, one needn't take the subject to be a perceiving consciousness.  When one planet gravitationally attracts another planet there is information about the mass of the planet and its distance embedded in that gravitational force. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a particular interpretation of "information" which may or may not be relevant to others interpretation of the term.

 

 

Information is a potentiality of knowledge,  In a sense it is pre-mind,  But for information to truly be something connected with knowledge, something which can help give rise to it, it must be causally linked. 

 

So a pattern in the sand is information precisely of what caused it or what the sand is because something did create a pattern in the sand.  Knowledge can be gleaned from the pattern, i.e. from the information.  this is to be distinguished from mental contents which may or may not be information for other people (imagination is not information .. and is causally not linked to reality) so when someone tells you something it can be information if causally linked or a lie (if imagination etc.).

 

Is a random pattern information?  only insofar as it reveals its source, which would be a contradiction for random "information" (stolen concept).  This leads to questions of whether any process is truly random... since only a pattern created by a truly random process would be truly random, and hence contain no information.

 

Edge cases I have heard of which seemingly are exceptions to the causal definition of information is the purported random information which is somehow actually information (but acausally so).  

 

E.g.  Imagine if you will a billion monkeys typing on keyboards or a billion monkeys painting, We could categorize all that they produce as simply random, and since it is causally connected to nothing, simply meaningless (except perhaps as a compendium of knowledge of the tapping or paintbrush waving proclivities of primates). 

 

if in a trillion years one of the monkeys reproduces a Mona Lisa or a Shakespeare sonnet, has "information" magically been created?  I would say no.  The patterns are still random tappings or brushings of a monkey.  why? Because in reality that is all they are...  causally speaking they represent physics of paint, or typwriters and biology and psychology of monkeys no other information of reality is contained therein.  When someone looks at the words or the paint and identifies them as being coordinate with something else, the words or paint in combination with the identification by the person, becomes information, i.e. capable of being used as knowledge.

 

How?  A person ignorant of the Mona lisa or the sonnet, now can be supplied with the Monkey text or the painted sheet, and assuming they can trust the person as being honest they can know that there is in reality a correspondence between the text or the paint and respectively the mona lisa or Shakespeare.  this is causal because the original work (mona lisa or shakespear) and or copies thereof are causally linked to the person who saw or read it and that person after seeing the Monkey work has identified the correspondence.

 

 

So information is simply states or arrangements of existents which can be used as evidence or as starting material for an individual's gaining of knowledge of something in reality, and as such (by implication) information must be causally linked to the entities of which knowledge may be gained. 

 

 

Just a few ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a pattern in the sand is information precisely of what caused it or what the sand is because something did create a pattern in the sand.  ....

<snip>

if in a trillion years one of the monkeys reproduces a Mona Lisa or a Shakespeare sonnet, has "information" magically been created?  I would say no.  

 

This is a contradiction.  You were led to this contradiction by taking the idea of "random" seriously, i.e. as if randomness actually existed or in other words as if randomness were metaphysical.  Randomness is really only appearance caused by our lack of knowledge or inability to calculate, i.e. it is epistemological.   Nothing is actually random.

 

Shannon's treatment is short, consistent, rigorous and has been highly fruitful in a multitude of practical and objectively successful applications.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So information is simply states or arrangements of existents which can be used as evidence or as starting material for an individual's gaining of knowledge of something in reality, and as such (by implication) information must be causally linked to the entities of which knowledge may be gained. 

 

err, all I can say is I second the recommendation of Shannon's paper. There's information in everything, but I think Grames elaborated very well already. Basically, knowledge is information actively and cognitively integrated; information is a set of data that is useful for some task whether it be your eyes leading to vision or digital signals converted to analog signals. Data is a "raw" fact like "it rained 10 centimeters last night". Information and data can be blurry, but the distinction that's important is that knowledge needs a knower or a mind, but informaton exists without any knower or mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

err, all I can say is I second the recommendation of Shannon's paper. There's information in everything, but I think Grames elaborated very well already. Basically, knowledge is information actively and cognitively integrated; information is a set of data that is useful for some task whether it be your eyes leading to vision or digital signals converted to analog signals. Data is a "raw" fact like "it rained 10 centimeters last night". Information and data can be blurry, but the distinction that's important is that knowledge needs a knower or a mind, but informaton exists without any knower or mind.

 

I do not disagree with Grames.  I just wanted to highlight the importance of causality.  If information is to be about something, equally if information is to lead to knowledge (hence a knowledge of something.. one cannot have knowledge of nothing... ) that information needs to be somehow linked with reality ... and it seems that a causal link is what does it.

 

 

 

This is a contradiction.  You were led to this contradiction by taking the idea of "random" seriously, i.e. as if randomness actually existed or in other words as if randomness were metaphysical.  Randomness is really only appearance caused by our lack of knowledge or inability to calculate, i.e. it is epistemological.   Nothing is actually random.

 

Shannon's treatment is short, consistent, rigorous and has been highly fruitful in a multitude of practical and objectively successful applications.  

 

I actually don't take the idea of randomness seriously.  I was sloppy with my wording and for that I apologize.  I thought up the ideas of the Monkeys to highlight the difference between coincidence and information.  the Moneys do provide information about their chaotic aimless behaviour (not completely random) but the accidental Mona lisa or Shakespeare do not contain information.

 

just an idea I had I thought someone might find interesting.

 

 

Is there a distinction to be made between the concept of information/content and the method of encoding it or the form or simply the amount of that information?  If we are only talking about encoding or magnitude of any pattern whether informative or not then I have probably brought up a complete irrelevancy and I apologize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 but the accidental Mona lisa or Shakespeare do not contain information.

 

Is there a distinction to be made between the concept of information/content and the method of encoding it or the form or simply the amount of that information?  If we are only talking about encoding or magnitude of any pattern whether informative or not then I have probably brought up a complete irrelevancy and I apologize. 

But the accidental Mona Lisa or Shakespeare work would contain information.  Many written works of the same length with the same statistical frequency of appearance of each of the letters will contain very similar amounts of information even if the 'words' (strings of characters between spaces) formed were gibberish.  The monkeys do not need to create a Shakespeare to produce information.  

 

A selection from a finite set (pick a letter from the alphabet) conveys information.  For example, and disregarding upper/lowercase, picking one of 26 letters encodes about 4.7 bits of information, whichever letter it is.  

 

The semantic content, the issue of meaning and intentionality by a writer or reader, is omitted for this consideration.  This is the only sense in which it makes sense for physicists to be discussing information and whether it is conserved or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "accidental" Mona Lisa or Shakesphere would only be so  because the monkeys were given brushes and paint or typewriters.

In picking one of 26 letters, they are letters because we recognise them as such, thanks to the typewriter, regardless if they form words, sentences or paragraphs as such.

 

I do not find this clarifying in the sense of the "information" issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the accidental Mona Lisa or Shakespeare work would contain information.  Many written works of the same length with the same statistical frequency of appearance of each of the letters will contain very similar amounts of information even if the 'words' (strings of characters between spaces) formed were gibberish.  The monkeys do not need to create a Shakespeare to produce information.  

 

A selection from a finite set (pick a letter from the alphabet) conveys information.  For example, and disregarding upper/lowercase, picking one of 26 letters encodes about 4.7 bits of information, whichever letter it is.  

 

The semantic content, the issue of meaning and intentionality by a writer or reader, is omitted for this consideration.  This is the only sense in which it makes sense for physicists to be discussing information and whether it is conserved or not.

 

From what I gather my use of the word "information", particularly in the context of Shannon and others treatment of information theory, is inaccurate. What I was referring to was what content is represented by, in the case of digital or analog communications, the bits or modulated carriers, symbols (Q and I modulation etc.), and not the stream of symbols themselves.  My error.

 

When we hear a Physicist talk of conservation of "information" as such, rather than physical quantities, I was understandably interested.  What is, in physical systems, information? Surely it has something to do with physical states or arrangements.  

 

But why should one consider information to be a separate quantity that needs to be conserved?  Is this from observation? Is it actually a physical quantity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "accidental" Mona Lisa or Shakesphere would only be so  because the monkeys were given brushes and paint or typewriters.

In picking one of 26 letters, they are letters because we recognise them as such, thanks to the typewriter, regardless if they form words, sentences or paragraphs as such.

 

I do not find this clarifying in the sense of the "information" issue.

 

Every time a monkey punches one of a possible 26 buttons, that act produces 4.7 bits of information. This is because the base 2 logarithm of 26 is equal to 4.7. The buttons could be blank, and they could be wired up to not produce letters but simply distinct marks of arbitrary design. It is the 26 that matters, which includes the 25 characters not selected when a monkey does punch a particular button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we hear a Physicist talk of conservation of "information" as such, rather than physical quantities, I was understandably interested.  What is, in physical systems, information? Surely it has something to do with physical states or arrangements.  

 

But why should one consider information to be a separate quantity that needs to be conserved?  Is this from observation? Is it actually a physical quantity?

 

Precisely, it has to do with physical states or arrangements.

 

Why information needs to be conserved has to do with thermodynamics and the concept of entropy.  I will spare you the derivation here, but by Landauer's principle changing one bit of information in an irreversible way requires a minimum amount of energy equal (to kT ln(2)) so effectively the principle of conservation of energy implies the conservation of information.  Eliminating bits of information from existence such was thought to possibly happen at black holes would be a violation of conservation of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies for being away from this thread for so long.  I have been defending my ideas on no less than 4 fronts while packing to move, doing research, and making edits.  Please allow me to re-post my original work with edits, I have added analogies to add clarification of some ideas and have added some predictions.  The rest is pretty much all the same.

 

1.  Inductive reasoning argues black holes exist. - Right now star S0-16 orbits within 600x the theoretical Schwarzschild Radius of Milky Ways SMBH, the glob of gas accreting into the Milky Ways SMBH will come much closer hopefully further allowing us to indirectly confine the Schwarzchild Radius and argument for the existence of black holes..

2.  Abductive reasoning suggests conserving physical information within the entropy of a black hole horizon is necessary otherwise it could lead to information destruction. - Whether by Hawking radiation or vanishing beyond the horizon forever.

3.  I am making a further inductive argument based on this previous abductive reasoning. Specifically that there are implied consequences to conserving physical information in the entropy of a black hole horizon.

4.  Everything else is my own deductive reasoning based on this previous inductive argument.

 

The number of possible quantifiable states of mass, entropy, and physical information within a black hole construct seem fairly limited from our perspective.

It may very well possible that the worst case turns out being the truth, that being, there is no hawking radiation, horizons do not have entropy nor do they preserve physical information, and that everything beyond the horizon is irretrievably lost. I have not yet resigned myself to that level of pessimism.

 

The path to understanding the rational universe

 

An argument for the objective observation, recording, and quantification of gravitational waves

 

The summation of human knowledge can be represented as a tree which sprouted out of nothing. As the tree has grown it has endured a perpetual cycle of growth, stagnated growth, and isolated death. One of the strongest roots from which this tree has grown is philosophy. The multiple sub philosophies of science represent the sprouting of new branches reaching out for new knowledge. Some older roots and branches die while others just continue to grow. Once in a while some pruning becomes necessary to keep things tidy. But there is one constant, the tree must grow together to live.

 

History has proven that one of the great hubris’s of mankind has been consensus based on assumptions.  There is one consensus based on assumption that I am now going to formally challenge with far reaching implications.  The universe is a riddle than can ultimately be expressed in the form of math, but first you must solve the riddle. 

 

There is currently a scientific consensus that black holes preserve physical information in the entropy of their horizons by some unknown method.  By "Physical information" I am referring to quantum determinism and reversibility in the form of the quantum evolution operators via some as of yet undiscovered method.  While I am unaware of the current leading theory for maintaining physical information in a black hole horizon, all seem to include concepts regarding quantum gravitational fluctuations of the horizon membrane as the primary method.

 

Even without a formal theory of quantum gravity, there is a huge problem looming even if we indeed had one. If black holes preserve physical information in the entropy of their horizons it would be in a constant state of change. Material is constantly being added to a black hole so the horizon would always be preserving new physical information over time. Meaning all black hole horizons are utterly unique entities based on the black holes ever changing entropy, physical information, and mass which is being represented.

Allow yourself to imagine the entropy and information of a black hole horizon as a simple dataset.  If black holes preserve datasets in their horizons, those datasets would be in a constant state of change. New data is constantly being added to the existing dataset maintained in a black holes horizon over time. Every black hole horizon dataset is a unique entity based on the black hole horizon’s ever changing dataset and the mass which is being represented.

 

Setting localization issues of the black hole horizons aside allow us to consider a black holes ever changing dataset taking the form of a sphere. What would be the point of maintaining a dataset in the form of a sphere be if the black hole was not representing something beyond the horizon boundary of the sphere?

If mass or anything else is represented beyond the dataset sphere of the horizon it implies a spatial separation between the dataset being maintained in the horizon and what it is being representing beyond it.  Black holes in this respect share the unique characteristic of maintaining a dataset or identity inside out from our perspective. 
If this is the case there are two possibilities with regard to theoretical black hole coalescence events or merger attempts. 

 

Possibility One

 

In the event gravitational wave signatures of black hole coalescence and ringdown are discovered, I do not envy those attempting to complete the following task.  To describe binary black hole inspiral and eventual coalescence accurately we would need to do the following.  First it would be necessary to develop a formal theory of quantum gravity.  With a formal theory of quantum gravity we would then need to mathematically create a black hole using it.  This black hole would need to have a changing dataset in its horizon and mass beyond the horizon being represented.  Then we would need to mathematically explain how the unique datasets from the separate horizons would scramble, merge, or coalesce datasets without the mass being represented interacting since they are spatially separated from the horizon.  With datasets in the horizons scrambling or scrambled, we then must mathematically describe how the mass being represented merges and how this new entity sorts everything out in the end.

 

It seems to me black holes cannot have their cake and eat it too.  Intuition suggests this to be an utterly irrational and seemingly impossible event, too which I refer to as "Black Hole Merger Paradox" or "Black Hole Merger Problem". It is also worth noting that Cosmological singularities will also need to be explained using the same quantum gravity theory generated in this paradigm of thought. 

 

Possibility Two

 

Black Holes can never merge and will opt for entropy and physical information conservation through reassignment over the corruption of coalescence.  Binary black holes must surrender entropy, physical information, and mass before their unique horizons can interact in this scenario.  If black holes must abort each other by their very nature because it is rational to do so, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single cosmological singularity failure or irrational self-destructing black hole (I am doing the “Standard Model” a favor here, this is one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more black holes. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. Binary black holes will fail based on their mass (most likely at the relativistic binary orbital velocity of the speed of light) to conserve entropy and physical information maintained in their horizons at the expense of time. This process still occurs with every attempted black hole merger attempt albeit on a smaller scale since the first instance at the birth of the universe. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 5 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy or ANY other “Standard Model” constant at this point. To further express this idea I am forced to throw every man made constant in history under the bus with the exception of the speed of light for now.

 

 “The Vick Principle”- A perceivable and rational universe is committed to conserving physical information even that within the entropy of a black hole horizon.

 

 “The Vick Limit” – Is the point at which binary inspiraling black holes fail based on their mass (likely occurring at the binary relativistic orbital velocity of the speed of light)

 

“The Vick Field” – Is the structure of the entropy and physical information maintained in the horizon of a black hole when it fails.

 

“Genesis” – The reassignment of entropy and physical information to mass at the expense of time based on the structure of “The Vick Field”

 

 “The Vick Effect” – The return of space time to a non-black hole state.

 

Singulosynthesis: Is the point at which two or more black holes fighting to maintain symmetry turn against each other.  During binary black hole inspiral once sufficient symmetry loss or instability is achieved the “Vick limit” is reached.  My leading suspicion is that the “Vick Limit” is reached when inspiraling black holes achieve the relativistic binary orbital velocity of the speed of light.  Simultaneous to the “Vick Limit” being reached the “Vick field” is formed. Both signal the end of the black hole and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. During Singulosynthesis contents of a failing black hole are ejected from the black hole environment through the horizon containing a distorted entropy and physical information distribution causing Genesis to occur.  This process occurs until the black hole of least mass is extinguished. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we describe as H/He/D/Li of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. This is the process by which the universe recycles entropy over time. Singulosynthesis ends with the “Vick Effect”.

This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, elevator diagrams, and math I quantifiably describe this process propelling mankind into a new paradigm. Stop and ponder that idea. Is that rational? You want me to use “standard model” methods that cannot even accurately describe the exterior of a black hole (our current paradigm of consensus) to describe the interior of two failing unknown realities in a new paradigm? Is that rational? The standard model can only “jump the shark” when it comes to this scenario. The physics of the binary failing black hole scenario presupposes our perceived reality. It is not a mystery now why human kind has not developed a unified physics capable accurately describing the two realities separated by the black hole horizon. I argue that Singulosynthesis is the most logical candidate for the deterministic process Einstein always believed existed and you can guess what governs this process.

From this moment forward, there is a path to truth and man will need to set some things aside to get what he wants most. The unknown realm of black hole physics presupposes the one we live in and have built our knowledge on, and is in fact doubling down on the illusion to our perception. How then shall we proceed?

Gravitational Wave Detection

The detection of binary black hole events are on the very edge of our perception right now. Some unique patterns in gravitational waves must be observed and recorded (keep in mind gravitational waves have not been detected yet). They are unique patterns in the sense that nobody has thought of them and therefore nobody has bothered looking for them. Once these unique generic patterns can be located, we can focus our observations at pinning down the true signature of a synthesizing black hole precisely. This will indirectly reveal the mass loss rate of a binary black hole during Singulosynthesis.

Researchers right now are using exact predetermined theoretic gravitational wave signatures based on numerical relativity to hunt for patterns in the collected data. Patterns based on the assumption that black holes do indeed coalesce.  This presents a potential problem for my idea requires the opposite method to be detected.

The gravitational waves I seek must be objectively observed and then quantified. However everything may work out, I suspect black holes will likely be found using the predetermined theoretical match pairing signature method. If they are found, I predict they will deviate from their expected behavior drastically at some point during inspiral. It will be important to not lose track of the gravitational waves when they do.

If black holes do indeed fail based on a mass relationship, it would imply a gradient of gravitational wave signatures completely dependent on the mass of the black holes involved in the event leading up to the Vick Effect. At one of the scale would be binary black holes of equal masses and the other black holes of extremely disproportionate masses.  Equal mass black holes will shed mass evenly and create a gravitational wave reflecting this.  Larger mass discrepancies may lead to one low mass failing black hole shedding mass onto a larger one.  This may lead to one signature increasing while the other decreases proportionately.  In the most extreme mass discrepancy scenarios black holes may need to fail at or near the speed of light.  A possible explanation for low or no afterglow gamma ray bursts.

 

Since the process I am arguing for created the universe, there should be evidence of it present in the gravitational wave background of the universe.  While I cannot predict what this gravitational wave background will be, it will not be anything like the gravitational waves predicted by the Big Bang.  I argue the initial recombination epoch of the “Standard Model” which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one cosmological singularity failing alone but 2 or more black holes failing. Following this begins the Cosmic Respiration Cycle. The Quasi equilibrium state of the initial failing black holes should have a correlation to the semi homogeneous appearance of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and CGWB ((Cosmic gravitational wave background) (when it is detected)) of the young universe. With Singulosynthesis being a deterministic process, the BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations), the CMBR, and CGWB may aid us to creating theoretical black hole failure models on the smallest theoretical black hole possible.  This is of course aside from the indirect observations of more local failing binary black hole gravitational waves.  It is also worth noting that a scenario is created where discovering one set of failing black hole gravitational waves may help us find others.

 

Current Predictions

 

It is my sincere hope that Advanced LIGO and or LISA will detect some gravitational waves.  As of now I can only make the following two predictions.

1. The predicted gravitational wave background produced by the Big Bang will not match what we will eventually observe.  Whatever is observed in the gravitational wave background will also not be the result of pigeon droppings.

2. Black hole coalescence ringdowns will never be detected because they never occur.

Einstein's Deterministic Universe Project

Mankind must simulate binary failing black hole scenarios until they teach us what black hole physics should be and the underlying description completing our understanding of this physical reality.  With accurate enough gravitational wave data in hand we can then reverse engineer the true sub Planck environment of a black hole using numerical relativity and to simulate it.  Once mass loss is accurately simulated we then add theoretical entropy and physical information structures to complete the model. This could potentially lead to a quantum theory of general relativity, an update to the second law of thermal dynamics, and countless more new knowledge.

1. Set aside the “standard model” It should be looked at as dubiously as the Donner Party should have looked at The Emigrants’ Guide had they known what was to come. At least to begin with, it will come into play later.

2. Create a numerical relativistic hydrodynamic simulation in 3 stages

• Simulated black hole failure in the simplest scenario possible - This will require the creation of a sub planck particle generator to emulate the true mass
density of the black holes being reverse engineered 
• Once black hole failure is achieved, add theoretical entropy and physical information structures, possibly holograms
• In later stages, add theoretical magnetism

3. Get some computers – Just as a point of reference, a type 1a supernova simulation took 128k processors 60k hours to make.

4. Run merging simulations until we get something that looks like “standard model” H/He/D/Li and make sure it is reversible.

5. Once we are confident the computer has accurately reproduced a minimalistic black hole failure. Then run a large scale simulation through from Singulosynthesis to stellar Nucleosynthesis and back to Singulosynthesis again.  Continue to increase the scale of the simulation.

6. Simulate the universe until the simulation simulates you…

Black Hole Failure Speculation

What is it about the presence of two black holes that makes them not get along very well? On top of everything the mind wants to make the list shorter than it probably is. Gravity and Space-time seem fairly committed to their individual tasks. So here is the big list as it sits right now.

1. Space-time while flexible might not handle being contorted so well even with gravity behaving normally (pure speculation, possibly becoming rigid at a point or micro tearing or some other unknown limit).

2. Gravity can no longer perform the role it must in the binary black hole merger scenario. When you consider the extreme gravitational effects and symmetry necessary to create a black hole I cannot see how symmetry loss does not have a role with possibly undoing a black hole. With space-time behaving normally, the effects created by gradually increasing gravitational tidal effects over time may eventually lead to the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Gravity becomes unable to meet the demands of gravity.

3. A combination of effects leading to a runaway instability. The demands made by both gravity and space-time on each other become too great. Mass and physical information do whatever they can to exit the system, following the path of least resistance.

4. It is a perfectly natural and deterministic process that occurs based on black hole mass. While our perception leads us to think black holes are all equally infinite or equally infinitely approaching infinity. Binary black holes do not experience each other the same way we see them. Black holes are a timeless-state of matter, entropy, and physical information all being in a state as of yet undiscovered. Intuition suggests the relativistic binary orbital velocity of the speed of light could be the threshold at which a black hole could be excited out its timeless state based its mass.

Without any direct or indirect data I suspect a combination of 2, 3, and 4 would be most likely.

Thought experiment "Black Hole Billiards"

Man has found a stellar mass black hole and has constructed a double sided mirror in a sphere around it in order to perform an experiment. Nothing is allowed in the black hole and nothing is allowed out. Once the double sided mirror sphere over the black hole is finished man waits a few million years just to be sure the black hole is in some fairly stable state of equilibrium.

During the wait, man has discovered several other black holes within our galaxy. FedEx is then hired to accelerate our double sided mirror black hole to as close to the speed of light as possible and collide it into the other black hole with no double sided mirror. The target none double sided mirror black hole will also have a welcoming committee commissioned to bombard it with material constantly as the collision event occurs.

It would seem to me that preserving physical information within the entropy of the horizon of black hole becomes a difficult task when confronted with the entropy and physical information of another black hole horizon. If spatial separation exists between the horizon’s physical information and the inner region containing the mass being represented; is it rational to assume the horizons can somehow scramble physical information and sort it out later? 
There comes a time to put down the calculator and figure out what problem you are really trying to solve.  There is a Youtube video where Professor Kaku applies quantum mechanics to a theoretical black hole made with general relativity and the result is infinity. Kaku then takes general relativity and applies it to quantum mechanics. The result of this is a never ending series of infinity’s.

 

There is now a potential path around the illusion of this infinite stalemate.

In the event this argument goes anywhere I will rename variables accordingly based on their inspiration (that is unless of course the inspiration declines):

"The Vick Principle" will become the "The Susskind Principle"

"The Vick Limit" will become the "The Hawking Limit"

"The Vick Field" will become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves its existence.

“The Vick Effect” will become "The Einstein Effect"

“The Rambo” The true state of matter and energy inside a black hole, singularities only exist from our perspective.

"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" for obvious reasons moreover it is the effect produced by the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan.

"The Ted Effect" signals the return of matter, energy, and physical information to space time in a non-black hole state (potentially creating a strange, quark, or neutron star).

Welcome to Black Hole War 2: The Revenge of the Machinist

© 2013 Jimmy Vick

 

I will do my best to go through responses and give replies to those worthy of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest: I don't understand your argument and I'm doubtful it's rooted in science many of us will understand. Maybe you'll have better luck discussing its implications on a forum of physicists that discuss black holes, or possibly even a scientific / philosophical journal.

 

You assert one of three conclusions: A) The universe is irrational, B) The universe has a designer that is intelligent, C) The known universe is a simulation. I can think of at least two objections which, if true, would render your conclusions invalid. 1) You have a flaw in your logic or understanding of the physics involved. 2) The physics/theories you cite are incorrect in some way.

 

As far as what I do know; we're learning new stuff about physics every day. While you MAY have come up with a legitimate proof, it seems much more likely to me that either you have misunderstood the physics OR the theories of physics currently held are in some manner incorrect. As you tell us: 

 

 

I remember hearing about the neutrinos that had been clocked at going faster than the speed of light. For a breif moment, I considered that it might be possible and I was super excited. Then I remembered my physics lessons and Occam's Razor; how the speed of light was determined by Maxwell's theory and how our whole model of physics was based on it. "Sure," I said to myself, "it might be that all of physics is wrong and that these neutrinos are going faster than we thought possible. But," I reminded myself, "that's much less likely than the possibility that the guys at the research stations are making some kind of error."

To you I say, "Sure, it might be that the universe was designed by an intelligence and that all evidence that points to the contrary is false. But it's not as likely as the possibility that there's a fallacy somewhere in your argument or a falsity in your facts."

I have updated my argument in a new post to make things a little more clear and I have omitted my philosophical conclusions regarding them allowing you to make your own choice.  As far as the Neutrino going faster than light, it was debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome vickster.

Weird, I was reading an article on black holes earlier today and specifically mentioned Leonard Susskind, who I totally forgot about until today. And speaking of Through The Wormhole, I'm really fascinated by some idea mentioned a few episodes back about perception, reality, and how to grasp all that. Plus something on the holographic principle. I don't want to start out with a tangent, but I want to convey that I have thought about these details in order to write a short science fiction story about it. If anyone is interested, I'll send it to you.

I'll leave criticism of what you mention about black holes to those more savvy in cosmology than myself, but I see no philosophically unsound premise mentioned. For one, I don't see why it's a problem that black hole horizons are utterly unique entities. Everything is utterly unique, so I don't know what you mean. Now if you mean the sheer amount of information/energy/anything else is unexplained by mathematical models, you're right that it's a problem to be solved. Possibility 1 is probably unlikely, but you can't start off with saying that what's in a black hole is never coming out. Of course, looking for the "magic" equation can be fruitless if scientists assume what a black hole is - and black holes as a concept almost have no explanation, so it's all uncertain. Possibility 2 I have no special comment, except it sounds more amenable to current lack of knowledge.

Now, I don't see what this has to do with deism. I don't even detect a hidden or implied premise that a creator is part of it at any point. Nothing so far suggests a god, let alone a simulation, and certainly not any kind of intelligent design with less power over the universe. You didn't even pull the "it's so complex so of course god did it" argument. So, I'm not seeing a connection.

 

 

I started to read that link, but it's confusing to me. I think it basically means "where there's smoke, there's fire". That is, if you see smoke, you can in principle know there is a fire, and if you're observant enough, where the fire is, how hot it is, and so on, basically figuring out the state of something earlier in time. In that sense, everything has information, except when (according to some) black holes destroy information preventing you from figuring out the earlier state of something. So, deterministic process; reversible in the sense of thinking if A-> B, then I know A came before B in all cases; and operators as in how all that is manipulated (whether it's quantum gravity as vickster said, or anything else).

I reposted my argument and made a few edits.  I added some analogies that people may find helpful, added some predictions, and removed the philosophical crap allowing individuals to make up their own minds.  Susskind is the man... I was a Hawking black hole guy from age 10 on... Susskind led me out of Hawking's camp and eventually I found my own.  A few observations and failed predictions forced my hand.  The Big Bang is nothing more than another ugly step sister and the pain from wearing the glass slipper for so long is beginning to show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Background reading: The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics [Paperback] by Leonard Susskind

 

The latest on controversy about the physics of black holes is about whether the event horizon has a physical counterpart or not, and if it does would it be a "firewall" - a barrier made of energetic particles.  A New York Times article attempts to covers the topic, complete with excruciatingly awkward analogies.  A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox

 

The idea that space, time and gravitation are emergent phenomena from a more fundamental level of existence implies alternate methods of resolving several paradoxes, so the alternatives being posed by the vickster339 do not actually exhaust all the possibilities.

I do not know what makes what I am doing easier and yet harder at the same time... Scientists covet the second law of thermal dynamics to the point of irrationality while at the same time applying quantum theory to black holes from the wrong perspective.  Failing black holes create quantum effects by recycling entropy, mass, and physical information at different times over time through the deterministic process I am arguing for.  A process so complex to our perception of reality that what we perceive seems semi-deterministic or indeterministic in nature.  Susskind has a email waiting for him when class starts, it is my hope he gets it and takes it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I respond to Vickster's larger post directed at me, I want to point out that a rational or even irrational universe doesn't make sense. Rational or irrational refers to thinkers, or more specifically, intentionality. To say the universe could be either rational or irrational basically assumes the universe is "supposed" to look a particular way and if it doesn't conform to your expectations, it's irrational because it behaves as it shouldn't. What would a rational universe even be? In my mind, you have to assume there is a creator that puts it all together in a rational way, i.e. accomplishes its goal. Even if that were the case, rational according to whom? I would bet Vickster has some hidden premise he didn't realize.

 

*edit* I thought you were Vickster somehow, so... I edited wording >_>

It was actually a remnant of a jab at the concept of Hawking radiation.  The idea that information destruction could exist in a perceivable rational universe.

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*raises hand*  'Scuse me! I think by "the universe is irrational" what is meant is that the law of identity would not always hold true, thus leading to the actual existence of contradictions.

I mentioned this in another replay, it was a jab at the idea of Hawking radiation and the concept of information destruction.  It is still a concept highly debated among some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think of it in those terms, so thanks for pointing it out. However, it's also quite open to misinterpretation and perhaps expectations beyond the law of identity. In a metaphysical sense, rational or irrational would be mostly arguments for god by means of asserting a metaphysical rationality. In an epistemological sense, expectations are rational/sensible to humans, or at least, that's the most viable way to set standards. Irrational would be about a lack of a standard that does any good. As for how the universe is "supposed" to look, that's the law of identity, and the only facts people should take as a given are the axioms. But I shouldn't say that black holes are "supposed" to be a certain way other than they are supposed to have an identity. So, I'm thinking Vickster might have a hidden premise from the start that the law of identity is falsifiable meaning that indeed contradictions might exist, or perhaps that some principles of physics are axiomatic making any violation of them (such as some aspects of black holes) as proof against the law of identity.

I still find (ir)rational universe to be awkward phrasing, given that inanimate objects have no kind of intentionality ("aboutness" to thinking) or rationality.

Third reply to this, it was a jab at the concept of hawking radiation and information destruction.  A concept which is still highly debated, I have obviously taken a side in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...