Comment on religious thread over at neogaf.

 That the meaning of a system can't be contained wiithin the system, is debatable, as fractals a fraction can contain the whole, as well as holograms, and I believe thus is the nature of god too.

As for mind not being knowable from brain, that is only for the time being, we are starting to know mind from brain with recent experiments.

The mind will be explainable naturalistically.

The idea of something from nothing, life from nonlife, etc, is seen when rules even simple ones come about, from simple rules everything can emerge.

As for information conservation, that is correct information is neither created nor destroyed, as was at the beginning will be at the end.

The information from the beginning merely evolves from beginning to end.   The word is merely expressed through the passage of time.

All is computable, including the human mind.   Computation cannot create or destroy information, as he says it can merely transform it change it, and the law of  change is evolution, grasp this law and you grasp the nature of life.

He comments on if his wife was a robot, not knowing the true levels of machine capability, he imagines clunky past machines, but his wife is a natural robot, a series of molecular machines with support molecules and the molecular tape providing the instructions.    There is a button press like logic behind human interactions and human relations, it is that simple at bottom.  It is reflected in the biblical stories, and the logic is shared by all known stories I've been exposed. In fact it is present in all of human writings.

[MEDIA=youtube]LY8iU9mbDiI[/MEDIA]

All paths converge on truth.

[MEDIA=youtube]s2YZN2L700Q[/MEDIA]

Newton doubted Descartes clockwork like universe, but gravity is computed by a digital computer following rules, an immaterial clockwork, wherein Descartes believed it material clock it is immaterial clock, rule following system.

The philosopher stone is also immaterial in nature, and it can indeed cure any ailment and grant immortality, the philosopher stone is another way to say truth.   The idea that truth can hold a finite body, is contested by some, but affirmed by others.

edit to further elaborate, everything is composed of symbols and symbols have meaning.   Every action, every expression, every word or letter, even every error is but a signal, signals carry meaning or intent, even intent beyond that which the person has.

That is how you can begin to grasp the button press like nature of human interaction and fables such as the sword of damocles, or the fire sword of eden.  Symbols are akin to buttons, they are pressed one way or the other and even not pressing or sending a symbol is also an action or a button press.  Inaction is also another type of action.

the idea of the finitude of the possible described the innate pattern at the heart of truth

Recent findings suggest human behavior is vastly more simpler than I had believed,  I had assumed far more complexity, but there appears to be a simpler stereotypic behavior that can explain the human condition.   Further details needed to see levels of variability and prediction potential of findings.

My hypothesis of simple animal, mechanical, like behavior of humans, there is ample evidence I seemed to have ignored.  Quite obvious once seen.   Quite beautiful too, as this can result in deeper understanding if true, true description of fundamental human psychology.   The assimilation of potential truth, though it needs to prove its worth, its validity as truth, by prediction both in human culture as well as observed behavior.

In any case this suggests that were the internal algorithm to be found it might not be as complex.  Right now it seems to be mostly a memory mechanism, with ridiculous representation capacity, the hippocampus appears central to function of the memory storage given the number of representations the brain can handle appear vastly outnumber atoms in the universe, the associations between such complex representations are quite limited by the far limited finite number of connections.   There appears to be organization and reorganization of the body of truth, trying to embody stereotypical truths in the world to guide behavior, the complexity of behavior limited by the limited connectivity.

 

Explicit or implicit it seems not only are these truths widely displayed, in part probably to help children understand the true nature of the world, but also they seem to describe the innate observed behavior as well.

The finitude of the possible hypothesis, which suggests that the assumptions made by the brain are based on an underlying finite structure, a finite body of truth that can be fully embodied in the  brain's structure, but only in an approximate way similar to a circle's drawing's relation to an infinite circle.

Another comment related to the finitude of the possible

Im not sure that fundamentally there isnt a boundary on the meaningful content of ever larger programs.

Look at a 1080p image, look at a 4k image, look at an 8k image. Look at the set of all 1080p images, look at the set of all 4k images, look at the set of all 8k images. You could bring a 16k image, but would it bring any meaningful additional information not contained in the smaller sets? It most likely wouldnt. You could keep increasing 128k,512k, infinite-k. You exhaust all possible meaningful information content quite early, the larger sets add nothing.

It may be similar when it comes to arbitrarily large programs. The larger they become the larger the chunks of code that will repeat unchanged from smaller sets. There may come a point where meaning is exhausted and only meaningless rearrangements, and repetitions, conveying no additional information remain.

The universe, if infinite, ever larger regions will repeat at set distances. Any region will also have a finite number of states. This will bind maximum information content even if it were an infinite size computer. If even an infinite real universe has what seems like finite information content how can we expect computer programs to exceed such.

I repeat a region an infinite number of times and it carries no more information than just a single copy. An infinite universe has ever larger regions repeating unchanged the further you go, the chunks that are rearranged unchanged become larger and larger.

…

Take the set of all 4k images. Lets put accompanying digital audio files and arrange these as frames of say 5 hour video. The set of such videos is finite. Yet this set contains video of all possible worlds past present and future real or imaginary from all locations and perspectives.

No mathematical or computer conference can exist not contained in its entirety within this set, at most using several of the videos. Even if a conference was of infinite length it would merely repeat content or videos by necessity.

All the video of an immortal mathematician giving an infinite length lecture on the infinite body of math with the infinity of theorems would also be contained in the finite set.

By logical necessity the mathematician would start repeating words, later sentences, then paragraphs, hours of video would repeat, then days, then months, years, millennia as the conference progressed. As time went on the amount he would have to repeat exactly unchanged would grow longer and longer. This would make the sequence more and more compressible until it became infinitely compressible binding the infinite to the finite through an intimate relation.

Comment on the kolmogorov complexity wiki vs the finitude of the possible

Uncomputability of Kolmogorov complexity

Proof: Otherwise all of the infinitely many possible finite strings could be generated by the finitely many^{[note 2]} programs with a complexity below n bits.-wiki

Comment:

I guess this goes to the what doe we mean by compute issue.   Some people would say if you generate something, say a particular number by an algorithm, you computed such even if the computer does not halt and keeps on churning.   It is true, that if we're using deterministic systems, it is basically impossible for a finite program to code for an infinite number of strings as output when it halts, as of course it will halt deterministically if it halts at all,  it is also easily deducible from this that even an arbitrary yet finite group of programs will of course fail to code for an infinite number of  possible outputs.  

But what we're talking about here is systems that halt, systems that do not halt will trivially generate all possible sequences throughout their evolution, even with trivial finite designs.    They will just keep working past the production of any particular result.

And we again have to talk about whether this infinity of outcomes truly carries infinite information.   Already some physicists have said that the number of possible arrangements of the visible universe is vast yet finite, and if there is variation and a truly infinite universe, these finite set of possibilities would endlessly repeat.    That is there is a finite set of possible arrangements for the visible universe, and they will repeat at intervals.    Would we say that if we reordered these entire unchanged universes in different sets of repetitions we're adding meaningful information?   Or can it be said that once you've got the finite set of possible arrangements you've basically gathered it all, at least as pertains to this particular ruleset?

Suppose you rearrange words, sure additional meaning can be derived, rearrange sentences additional meaning can be derived, rearrange paragraphs additional meaning can be derived, rearrange pages, additional meaning can be derived, rearrange the position of entire books without changing any of their contents... clearly the contents of a bookshelf, rearranging the books in the bookshelf does not seem to add meaningful information, at least to the contents of the books, and whatever information may be added seems like it would be symbolically in terms of the arrangement of the books, which would be a minute quantity of information.   Note this does not mean that the order of reading does not matter, but that if you already know all the books reading them in different orders will not give you meaningfully more information if anything at all..   It seems like the more complex you get, the more is already contained within the complex entities being rearranged, and less and less is added.

More comments on the finitude of the possible hypothesis and god state hypothesis of convergence

The number π is a mathematical constant, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, commonly approximated as 3.14159. It has been represented by the Greek letter "π" since the mid-18th century, though it is also sometimes spelled out as "pi" (/paɪ/).-wiki

 The Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula (BBP formula) is a spigot algorithm for computing the nth binary digit of pi (symbol: π) using base 16 math. The formula can directly calculate the value of any given digit of π without calculating the preceding digits. The BBP is a summation-style formula that was discovered in 1995 by Simon Plouffe and was named after the authors of the paper in which the formula was published, David H. Bailey, Peter Borwein, and Simon Plouffe.[1] Before that paper, it had been published by Plouffe on his own site-wiki

Some have hypothesized that the number pi might contain all possible information within its digit sequence, if I recall correctly, this hasn't been verified, but seems likely given its properties from what I hear.

The formula for generating pi, is an example of what I call an implicit pattern.  I call formulas or algorithms that define or describe spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal sequences of elements or digits as implicit patterns.   The produced sequences, the raw data I call the explicit pattern.  E.G say a particular clothing pattern, there may be an algorithm for producing it, which is a form, implicit, of the pattern, but there is also the raw visual pattern itself, which is more explicit.

 The finitude of the possible suggests, that there likely exists a class of implicit patterns that can describe all possible information.  Suggestions for these have already likely been made, as the algorithms that are believed capable of generating all computable universes can likely qualify.  But there is also the possibility, hinted at, that there is also not just an implicit pattern but an explicit finite pattern that might bind all that is possible, and larger patterns might not offer truly meaningfully more, meaning might peak at a certain finite level, though as said this is hypothetically speaking, it may or may not be the case.   If it turned out to be true it would in essence allow for a finite amount of data to in essence allow access to all possible information, probably in some form of procedural generation kind of way.

Regards the hypothesized god state.  As I've hypothesized previously, an accumulation of freedom, security and time, has the potential to at the limit grant virtual equivalence with what has been described as god, so I've termed it the god state.   Absolute security, Absolute Freedom, Absolute time, grants immortality, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

   If knowledge is absolute, the mind design is the optimal design, and intelligence is at the limit of the possible, and if determinism is true, it would seem that there should be convergence of behavior.   Though variations in mind design, as well as minute errors in knowledge before reaching this state could allow for divergence of behavior, as chaos like phenomena might cause minute differences to be magnified and result in unpredictable behavior.    There's also the possibility of multiple optimal mind designs that may lead to slightly or even vastly different behavior.  

More knowledge is needed regards mind design to know whether there would be convergence or divergence.   But my belief is that hypothetically speaking as a being nearrs perfection and becoming the greatest godlike being, there will be convergence.   This is why even if many beings attained the state, it is likely it would be like a hall of mirrors and the difference between such beings might not exist, as they'd be instances of the same exact pattern, they would all have all the properties intrinsic to the pattern.

Intrinsic to the pattern, or intrinsic information, refers to all that is implied or carried along with the pattern, properties that come along with an instance of the pattern.   For example a specific sequence of characters can be looked in different ways and means different things from different points of view, it may also have an infinite number of implications, all that is intrinsic and part of the pattern.  In terms of a spatiotemporal pattern related to a mind, if we assume determinism, there would be causal implications in certain environments and upon passage of time.

On the ridiculousness of IP laws, copyright

The US copyright law:

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place
where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family
and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance
or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times.

Ah, their ridiculous attempt to rule out devices which are merely natural extensions of the body. Problem with that is Stephen Hawking, and other people with neural interfaces, they need devices to even interact aptly with the world.

Also we can define both the muscles of the body and their action as both natural device or process.

If money is a form of speech, ideas are speech. When banks exchange money they exchange digital data, digital numbers, there is a numerical quantity equal to any work of art that is possible. So if we are free to exchange money which today is basically just fundamentally digital numbers, we are free to exchange those numbers at any value including ones corresponding to works of art.

Say, I have a lot of money, and say I send a precise quantity of money, but the quantity corresponds to the compressed form of some copyrighted work. Are you saying it is illegal in principle for me to send this precise quantity of money? Don't you see how ridiculous and self-contradictory that is.

Inflation alone will ensure quantities get big enough that you can send precise quantities corresponding to any of the reasonable size finite set of works of art. Or are you going to DICTATE what precise quantities of money people can send to each other?-source kurzweilai

Link between neural networks and the nature of reality

Computing

The Extraordinary Link Between Deep Neural Networks and the Nature of the Universe

Nobody understands why deep neural networks are so good at solving complex problems. Now physicists say the secret is buried in the laws of physics.

• by Emerging Technology from the arXiv
 
• September 9, 2016-source mit technology review

Interesting article on why deep neural networks can function as well as they do

Comment on the immortal's dilemma

The problem with expansion in my view is that it assumes that adding more states yields ever more meaningful differences in experience.

But look at say resolution, say 480p, go to 720p, go to 1080p, go to 4k, keep going.  All the larger resolutions are either scaled up versions of the lower resolution content or stitching-up(mosaic-like) of chunks of the already seen content at the lower resolution.

Say you exhaust all content at 1080p.   Can you expect to find meaningful differences in the 4k set of images? Nope, the 4k consists of stitching up the 1080p images, and the 1080p images not only have zoomed up chunks of the 4k image but they also have scaled down, zoomed out versions of entire 4k images.  At 4k you won't find meaningful differences, and this likely holds for all higher resolutions you go to.

That is vision, basically the most important sense, scaling up eye sensors will basically not get you outside of the finitude of the possible, no more meaningful content differences can be extracted.    The rearrangement of small sequences deals meaningful differences, but once you reach a certain threshold of sequence size up to which you've seen all sequences, further increases do not add further meaningful differences.

You could say that, although I've not the math to show it, it is my intuition that a similar phenomena to what is seen in computation happens with regards to content.   In computations, once you reach a certain threshold of versatility in the workings of a machine, that is universality, increasing the versatility of the machine beyond that does not allow you to compute things beyond the simpler machine's capabilities.  

I suspect that it is the same with regards to content, once you reach a certain threshold in the complexity of sequences you're dealing with, a certain length or size, further increases do not yield meaningful differences.  

Infinity in essence is bound by the finitude of the possible.  Which refers to the hypothesis that there are a finite number of meaningfully different possibilities, and anything else is just rearranged combinations of these finite possibilities, that do not add any further meaningful difference.

That said, even if you end up trapped within a loop for eternity, so long as you controlled the transition between states, it shouldn't truly matter that you repeat.   The problem with mortality is not only that you die, missing out on many potentially pleasing experiences that you could controllably experience indefinitely, but that without certainty of the finality of death you do not know, for sure,if you will continue to exist in some manner outside your control.

Immortality grants control and certitude(when accompanied with adequate technology or means), if you're in a pleasant state and can guarantee it indefinitely, one might consider the endless repetition pathetic in a sense, but I don't see why the lack of novelty must objectively and necessarily truly mean it would indeed be pathetic.-coolball 

link to original site