I'm inclined to agree, although I would not necessarily say that numbers are self aware so much as they are patterns through which we articulate our own awareness (which may or may not correspond to elemental awareness). Think of them as sensorimotive prisms and lenses which have been purified to the point of qualitative transparency so that our own awareness can be reflected in the quantified 0ther.

All pattern has a kind of self-identifying content which I would say arises subtractively rather than through accumulation. Numbers aren't objects which communicate with each other, they are subjects which work more like scratches in an opaque layer of wax that reveals glimmers of the underlying sense which connects everything. If they are self-aware, I would suspect that our experience of them is not at all what their awareness is like - just as our own imagination could never give us a picture of our own face had we never seen a mirror or photo of ourselves. Numericity in general may be more of a universal entity which functions on the electromagnetic level. On Jun 4, 5:09 am, Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> 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 <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM > Subject: The final TOE? > To: Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > > 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 <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.