Self aware in what sense? On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Felix Hoenikker <[email protected]>wrote:
> Sorry again, but I want to add one thing: > > The broadest mathematical closure of "the existence of computation", > "the observation of consciousness anywhere" suggests the following, in > my mind: all possible numbers (including transfinite-ones) are, in > fact, self aware substructures in the mathematical universe, > recursively "communicating" to "each other" by exchanging bits in an > attempt to develop the algorithm which compresses themselves to a > single state, which represents the number "one", after which it > promptly forgets and starts all over again, everywhere, and all at > once. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Felix Hoenikker <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM > Subject: The final TOE? > To: Everything List <[email protected]> > > > Hi all, > > Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the > following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically > "the exact same theory", modulo the additional "bit" of information > that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is > the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about > singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every > respect, as it "necessarily must be" since it follows exactly from the > asssumption of 3+1 spacetime embedded within some higher dimensional > structure of "any" form (i.e. including string theory). > > Since no "true" gravitational singularities exist, then "every point > in space is an apparent black hole" because "no point in space is an > apparent black hole". Thus, at every point in space, a "bit" of > information (or a "photon") can escape from the "observable" universe > on our scale, "go into the past", and come out "in the future" in a > symmetric manner for all observers, without considering your frame of > reference in 3+1 space time. This qualitatively predicts all features > of GR without QCD or QFT. However, since photons travelling through > locally closed loops can look like "point" particles with some net > entanglement coming out, then they can look like bundles that, for all > intents and purposes, appear to randomly add information in some way, > and in some spherically symmetric fashion, which predicts the > divergence and appearance of other "fundamental forces" early in the > inflating universe. > > It is often said that QM and GR differ from each other exactly by the > contemplation of the "singularity", and that our inability to discover > the "true" laws of the universe has been limited by our lack of > knowledge about the twin singularities: the inflationary bubble and > the black hole. It follows that this fact was "exactly true" all > along, and the laws of physics are a completely dimensionless > consequences of our "local" geometry of space, and our civilization > has, in fact, rather than been trying to "discover" the next laws of > physics, has in fact been struggling to "unlearn" the concept of > "Indeterminacy" and "quantum mechanics", since QM follows from GR, the > postulate of 3+1 spacetime and E = mc^2 (a nice, dimensionless > equation). Einstein, in fact, was right all along, and successfully > completed the "fully" deterministic general laws of physics. > > Consider then, the reason why indeterministic QM was ever suggested: > the apparently subjective indeterminacy of the universe from each > "observer" point of view (i.e. the uncertainty principle). Or > actually, consider the fact that, if the universe is completely > deterministic, and "you" for any defined "you" is getting non-random > information from any source, then that information must, in fact, be > added to you by the "rest of the universe" in some systematic fashion, > down to the tiniest quantum of "universe". This implies that there > "is" actually, some "quanta" of the universe, a "photon", and each > "photon" is having information added to "it" from the "rest of the > universe", in a systematic fashion, and recursively so for every > "observer". This is actually a fully generic model for the universe, > and the absolute generalization of QM and SR. > > Next, consider the fact that you are "conscious" and possibly > "indeterminstic" (i.e. have subjective free will). I think I do. > Therefore, I am not a "quanta" of information, or a "bit", but it was > "added to me" from "somewhere". No, consider the mathematical closure > of this observation. What does this imply about and anthropic > principle and "fine tuning"? Does that make sense anymore. Also, does > this not mean that our "observable universe", for "some definition of > observable", from "any subjective observer's point of view", is > constantly being added non-random information from "outside". > > I truly beg you all to consider this argument fully. > > Please let me know what you think, > F.H. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Felix Hoenikker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Every "apparent" event horizon is really a separation of two > > universes, where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with > > the inside universe. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an > > expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. However, by > > the uncertainty principle, this means the "outside universe" is > > "really" simultaneously in a superposition of a large but countably > > finite many possible universes (i.e. bitstates), with the net > > information between the "inside" and "outside" views cancelling out to > > zero. Equivalently, every "classical" black hole is really in a > > microscopic superposition of countably finite many bitstates, again > > with the net information "inside" and "outside" cancelling zero. > > However, it cannot converge to a singularity, because it cannot encode > > "bitstates" forever in the same volume, therefore it must leak > > information in the form of "photons" (i.e. Hawking radiation). > > > > Equivalently, the Hubble volume receives information one photon at a > > time from the "outside" in the form of cosmic background radiation, > > that information being about the prior state of the otherwise casually > > disconnected universe. (i.e. CMB == Hawking radiation). The > > equivalence principle implies length contraction and time dilation. > > Gravity mediated by photons is the single fundamental force of the > > universe. All other sources of apparent information and causal > > connectivity (i.e. all other forces) are the result of the initial > > state of the universe at the Big Bang, the only true singularity. The > > laws of the universe are extremely simple. > > > > This is the digital unification of GR and QM. What do you think? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
