I = E, Information = energy, reason is "deduced" from visual geometry.

[Gannon]

*** updated *** changed -->> Information behaves like E, in "dsta space"

Metaphorically -- I beahves like E, information = energy (metaphorically), and what we call reason or 'rationality' is "deduced" from visual geometry.

"Reason" as we know it, is embedded in the visual-geometric world. Reason is really: Allowed geometric logical operations, or simply the permitted (allowed) movement of objects and their characteristics, according to the boundary (boundaries of objects = symmetry) conditions

Then "reason" is really the application of system logic to a set. And the set itself contains phoenomena that are allowed in the set, or not allowed, by the axioms of the set (i.e. set theory). But sets can be represented by points and lines in geometry, so if geometry changes shape and the symmetry of a geometric object is brokem this also means that the same MUST occur for symbolic mathematica; sets. If I = E. Then Point math (visual data, points, lines colors) are equivalent to symbolic math which is symbolic numbers, that is number systems, (i.e. 1,2,3, etc).

To think of set theory, in geometric space... visualize a circle, then visualize 'dots' in that circle. That would be the set of all things that look like dots (regardless of their color, any thing you see that bears resemblence to that dot, is "dot like" or similar to dots in the "dot set".

If this is really the case (as I am postulating), then it follows that "math" is really embedded in the information of the universe and we are just converting frequencies of light to different form of energy, which we call data. And the data exists in it's own infometric (informational geometric) space.

This means that informational-geometry "is" exactly like energy itself in terms of it being universally convertable in terms of data.

I deduced this from just "reading" geometricizing (converting concepts to shapes and representing them as points, lines and geometric concepts, like points and lines) in my mind.

I hope I'm making sense to you guys, because it makes sense to me. What do you think?

 

[TuxDave]

 

[lyssword]

"n the information of the universe and we are just converting frequencies of light to different form of energy, which we call data"

How does that help reasoning, you can have same data which could be interpreted differently or not at all..
Maybe I'm not getting what you are trying to say.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: lyssword
"n the information of the universe and we are just converting frequencies of light to different form of energy, which we call data"

How does that help reasoning, you can have same data which could be interpreted differently or not at all..
Maybe I'm not getting what you are trying to say.

I'm saying what we consider rational is bound by geometric-mathmematical logic within a geometry. I'll try to clear it up, in my next post. I've got to mine my writings about this matter.

In boolean logic, you exist or you don't, so... All energy must be a boolean probability field. IF I = E, then E = Boolean Probability

If we think about about how onne form of energy can be converted into another... it makes a hell of a lot of sense!

Basically it goes like this: The universe uses boolean logic. Either you are there or you are not, 1 or 0, yes or no. So if this is the case, then

Everything that exists can be represented by binary data, I call this binary data "A data-shape" or boolean probability field. Which we weave all data from when we are thinking and writing and doing anything pretty much. Since even electrical signals are frequencies and frequencies are numbers and numbers are shapes, so that means

Frequency = shape
Number = shape
Data = shape
Concept = shape
Word = shape
Language = shape

Shapes are numbers, and numbers are shapes.

We all know energy can be represented as boolean data from electronics, so it follows that I = E. Then some laws apply to information as they do to energy.

I was playing around with E=MC^2 and changed E to I so it looks like

I = MC^2

Which made me think, what is M in boolean probability space? (my definition: space being a geometric-numeric data-set ala set theory). It follows that in fact the mass must be Information density.

So all data we recieve and process ultimately come from boolean probability (or simply data), and can be universally converted into different types of data (represented as something else). For instance numbers can be represented as points of light and dark, and sound can be represented as numbers, waves can be represented as geometric points of light and dark, etc.

I found this awesome quote from galileo:

"Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean universe - which stands continuously open to our gaze, but which cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth." - Galileo (1623)

 

[Nathelion]

You are entirely correct in the the manner in which one chooses to model the universe doesn't really matter so long as the results are consistent with observed data (and a lot of other criteria). This is axiomatic in the scientific method, which it seems that your ideas implicitly subscribe to. However, does a new model bring anything new to the table? That is the question.

PS.
What makes you think that only boolean values are necessary? Ever heard of Schrödinger's cat?
DS.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Nathelion
You are entirely correct in the the manner in which one chooses to model the universe doesn't really matter so long as the results are consistent with observed data (and a lot of other criteria). This is axiomatic in the scientific method, which it seems that your ideas implicitly subscribe to. However, does a new model bring anything new to the table? That is the question.

PS.
What makes you think that only boolean values are necessary? Ever heard of Schrödinger's cat?
DS.

Because boolean logic I believe (I am postulating) is a universal logic (is a "transcendental" or at leastone step down --> a "superclass"), which all other logics are formed by, since boolean probability can create ANY possible shape (infinitely many shapes).

I've heard of Schrodinger's cat (how do u get the funny o? what's the ALT characater?).

I came upon my idea when listening to particle wave duality, it didn't make sense to me from a geometric perspective, so I said... "Ok" the only way something can have two nature's is if they are merged and occupying the same space. (Same DATA-SHAPE).

I came up with the concept of what I call "node space", node space is a movement space, in which an object is allowed to move, but node space itself uses boolean logic, so that means for every number or frequency, there is corresponding node-space.

I reasoned that if two objects of different properties (wave --> particle) were to exist in the same space, then it must mean that what we percieve as a "solid" particle is not a particle, but a harmonic wave.

Because in geometry you can visualize it like two spheres, one of different colors (each representing their own node space).

So red spheres can move in red-node-space and blue spheres can move in -blue node space.

Now when I heard about electron wave-particle duality, that gave me an idea--> what if an electron is not a "a wave and a particle" but an oscillating wave who's "particle properties" are the result of energetic harmony?

This is where it will get hard to explain without a picture or a 3D animation, since I can see it in my mind... but it seemed to me that electrons existed by or in their own "node space", that had "converters", that were converting them from "energy waves" to "harmonic particle waves".

See it' gets fuzzy without a picture, I see it in 3D geometry in my mind with colors, points, opacity, lines and phases.

 

[firewolfsm]

Information would have to have a particle for any of this to be true.

You lose.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Information would have to have a particle for any of this to be true.

You lose.

Is this really the case? because a particle is a wave, a wave is a shape, a shape is a frequency, and a frequency is a number.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Information would have to have a particle for any of this to be true.

You lose.

Is this really the case? because a particle is a wave, a wave is a shape, a shape is a frequency, and a frequency is a number.

no

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Information would have to have a particle for any of this to be true.

You lose.

Is this really the case? because a particle is a wave, a wave is a shape, a shape is a frequency, and a frequency is a number.

no

Please explain.

 

[firewolfsm]

You're not using proper definitions, and to be honest, you're talking out of your ass. You're not, in any way, smart enough to start new theory like this.

Philosophy shouldn't mix with physics, especially weak philosophy with no support like yours.

You must be thinking of wave-particle duality which is limited to matter showing just some wave properties, not that matter is actually a wave.

So as we all said, your argument is shit.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
You're not using proper definitions, and to be honest, you're talking out of your ass. You're not, in any way, smart enough to start new theory like this.

Philosophy shouldn't mix with physics, especially weak philosophy with no support like yours.

You must be thinking of wave-particle duality which is limited to matter showing just some wave properties, not that matter is actually a wave.

So as we all said, your argument is shit.

Lol. Gotta love HT. Bullshit doesn't live long in here.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
You're not using proper definitions, and to be honest, you're talking out of your ass. You're not, in any way, smart enough to start new theory like this.

Philosophy shouldn't mix with physics, especially weak philosophy with no support like yours.

You must be thinking of wave-particle duality which is limited to matter showing just some wave properties, not that matter is actually a wave.

So as we all said, your argument is shit.

What if it's the reverse? What if particles are waves in supersymmetric harmony? Thereby giving the illusion they are "particles".

No support?

Energy Equivalent of Information
Journal Cybernetics and Systems Analysis
Publisher Springer New York
ISSN 1060-0396 (Print) 1573-8337 (Online)
Issue Volume 36, Number 5 / September, 2000
DOI 10.1023/A:1009453512074
Pages 791-792
Subject Collection Mathematics and Statistics
SpringerLink Date Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Energy Equivalent of Information

A. I. Landar'1 and V. A. Ablamskii2
(1) Center of Computer Technologies, Poltava Cooperative Institute, Poltava, Ukraine
(2) Poltava Technical University, Poltava, Ukraine

Abstract An interpretation of the primary unit of information in terms of energy is given. On the basis of experimental investigations, some relationships between information units and physical quantities are proposed.

units of information - units of physical quantities - relationships between information units and physical quantities

 

[wwswimming]

This means that informational-geometry is energy itself.

I deduced this from just "reading" geometricizing (converting concepts to shapes and representing them as points, lines and geometric concepts, like points and lines) in my mind.

I hope I'm making sense to you guys, because it makes sense to me. What do you think?

almost no clue what you're talking about.

but it is true, if you're going to design "renewable energy
stuff", being good at geometry and vector calculus and
all those fun things comes in very handy.

so, informational geometry begets energy, but they
are not equivalent.

new formula

informational geometry + human sweat + electromechanical stuff = power

power + EM energy storage stuff (integrated over time) = energy

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

This means that informational-geometry is energy itself.

I deduced this from just "reading" geometricizing (converting concepts to shapes and representing them as points, lines and geometric concepts, like points and lines) in my mind.

I hope I'm making sense to you guys, because it makes sense to me. What do you think?

almost no clue what you're talking about.

but it is true, if you're going to design "renewable energy
stuff", being good at geometry and vector calculus and
all those fun things comes in very handy.

so, informational geometry begets energy, but they
are not equivalent.

new formula

informational geometry + human sweat + electromechanical stuff = power

power + EM energy storage stuff (integrated over time) = energy

Ok I've got it, I miscomunicated in the first post... what I meant to say was.

Information BEHAVES AS AN EQUIVALENT of ENERGY when converting one form of DATA to another... there that sounds better... I was using a metaphor... so when I said

I=MC^2, I was speaking about it in terms of DATA, as having the behavioural characteristics of energy. There THAT is better right?

What I'm trying to get at, if INFORMATION has similar properties to energy, what kind of equation would measure data--> that as "energy" characteristics has density against computable time required?

Now if energy has mass in the real world..

Then data must have an "Eqivalent" characteristic to mass in the data world... so an equation has "computational density". That's what I meant, sorry for the confusion!

I miscommunicated using a mixed-metaphor there, without giving the necessary information.

 

[wwswimming]

the world is running out of oil and we're philosophizing about ...
the metaphorical parallel between information and energy
relativity ?

oh well, maybe this will help us build better generators.

 

[Nathelion]

Now you're actually making a bit of sense. I don't know enough about information theory to be of any help here, though.

 

[KIAman]

So.... gravity's equivalent to data is that a massive density of data creates potential for more data created from nothing?

And black holes are so crammed full of information density that all its function is to absorb and destroy more information?

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: Gannon
*** updated *** changed -->> Information behaves like E, in "dsta space"

Metaphorically -- I beahves like E, information = energy (metaphorically), and what we call reason or 'rationality' is "deduced" from visual geometry.

"Reason" as we know it, is embedded in the visual-geometric world. Reason is really: Allowed geometric logical operations, or simply the permitted (allowed) movement of objects and their characteristics, according to the boundary (boundaries of objects = symmetry) conditions

Then "reason" is really the application of system logic to a set. And the set itself contains phoenomena that are allowed in the set, or not allowed, by the axioms of the set (i.e. set theory). But sets can be represented by points and lines in geometry, so if geometry changes shape and the symmetry of a geometric object is brokem this also means that the same MUST occur for symbolic mathematica; sets. If I = E. Then Point math (visual data, points, lines colors) are equivalent to symbolic math which is symbolic numbers, that is number systems, (i.e. 1,2,3, etc).

To think of set theory, in geometric space... visualize a circle, then visualize 'dots' in that circle. That would be the set of all things that look like dots (regardless of their color, any thing you see that bears resemblence to that dot, is "dot like" or similar to dots in the "dot set".

If this is really the case (as I am postulating), then it follows that "math" is really embedded in the information of the universe and we are just converting frequencies of light to different form of energy, which we call data. And the data exists in it's own infometric (informational geometric) space.

This means that informational-geometry "is" exactly like energy itself in terms of it being universally convertable in terms of data.

I deduced this from just "reading" geometricizing (converting concepts to shapes and representing them as points, lines and geometric concepts, like points and lines) in my mind.

I hope I'm making sense to you guys, because it makes sense to me. What do you think?

Claim: Your argument is bullshit.

Proof: See above

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: Gannon

Claim: Your argument is bullshit.

Proof: See above

I made a mistake in my first post, I meant there was partial similarity, speaking in my metaphorical style... so yeah I can see how you'd see that.

But read my last few posts and you'll understand that.