tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post6923185621554395457..comments2024-01-12T23:22:31.704-08:00Comments on relativistic observer: Future, Part 1Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-57774005635828464682012-10-07T00:46:26.692-07:002012-10-07T00:46:26.692-07:00Correction. Should prove that there is a coinducti...Correction. Should prove that there is a coinductive categorical dual to the inductive Axiom of Infinity:<br /><br />https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala-debate/vysv97J0xok/7WXkMPvjLI4Jshelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-17355275132667731532012-10-07T00:22:39.027-07:002012-10-07T00:22:39.027-07:00Some insight on the cut off frequency between long...Some insight on the cut off frequency between long-distance quantum entanglement and traditional gravity:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk_Yy6TqgJs&feature=player_detailpage#t=2353s<br />(jumps to the 39 min point in the video)<br /><br />See also:<br /><br />https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala-debate/vysv97J0xok/l1boM1tvpZgJshelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-66970418357167622842012-10-04T22:52:24.212-07:002012-10-04T22:52:24.212-07:00Our prior discussion was essentially incorporating...Our prior discussion was essentially incorporating the coinductive type Bottom (of all the type hierarchy in subtyping), which I have now proved is the model of our Universe.<br /><br />Math proof that God (an outside observer of universe) is consistent with our reality.<br /><br />Final proof:<br /><br />https://github.com/ceylon/ceylon-spec/issues/186#issuecomment-9145391<br /><br />Initial proofs start here:<br /><br />https://github.com/ceylon/ceylon-spec/issues/186#issuecomment-9124932shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-77529340541966472692012-02-21T15:03:26.622-08:002012-02-21T15:03:26.622-08:00I am referring to the recursion "a program th...I am referring to the recursion "a program that programs a program" in metaprogramming.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-27208260693909405982012-02-21T14:53:16.165-08:002012-02-21T14:53:16.165-08:00I composed a rough draft. My crazy ideas ;)
A rec...I composed a <a href="http://copute.com/docs/Event.html#Theory" rel="nofollow">rough draft</a>. My crazy ideas ;)<br /><br />A recursive semantic meta-model to increase "declarativity", seems intuitively applicable because unbounded recursion is Turing-complete and thus is a model of the irreversibility of time and universal entropy (the environment).<br /><br />My idea for the definition of "proving there are less bugs" (i.e. declarativity) in the real world context is to increase the resonance between the intended semantics and the actual semantics, i.e. eliminating ordering, duplication (and higher-level semantic) dependencies in the unintended (opaque) semantics.<br /><br />Phil Wadler had an insightful comment immediately below <a href="http://gbracha.blogspot.com/2011/06/types-are-anti-modular.html?showComment=1311534787150#c2109159097718758997" rel="nofollow">mine</a> on a related topic.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-66710352881040334302012-02-17T19:54:53.949-08:002012-02-17T19:54:53.949-08:00Code does tend to be deterministic, although acces...Code does tend to be deterministic, although access to things like clocks to set the random number generator tend to confuse things a bit. Of course, I do that on purpose quite often.<br /><br />A bug is indeed a perceptual mismatch, though.<br /><br />Sometimes it helps me to think on a meta-level when it comes to code. But usually it's that I need to write a program to write the program, etc.<br /><br />When it comes to proving that there are no bugs I do see the value in that. But usually this is impractical on real-world-size problems. I'm sure Phil Wadler would have a few things to say about that. He was always a rhetorical genius.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-57282329619905029892012-02-16T11:31:57.783-08:002012-02-16T11:31:57.783-08:00Runtime program behavior is normally deterministic...Runtime program behavior is normally deterministic (repeatable, non-random) relative to the program code as the observer, but I argue not relative to an observer which is the semantic model in the programmer's mind. A bug is an arbitrary, indeterminate, deterministic condition relative to the program code, but I argue it is a random aliasing error artifact for the programmer. (my entire argument is a bit more convincing)<br /><br />I am writing a document about declarative programming (and proposing a more declarative state model) that posits this phenomena is due to the inability of the programmer to build a model (in his mind) of all code paths, because the programmer can't test all (Halting theorem).<br /><br />I am not expecting you to agree with that terse summary. I will come back to provide a link.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-70439689729939174642012-02-09T13:46:51.779-08:002012-02-09T13:46:51.779-08:00Bill Joy is a killjoy because of his half-empty at...Bill Joy is a killjoy because of his half-empty attitude. I met him a few times when I was going to Berkeley. A hard worker, for sure.<br /><br />It seems that the force of will does define life, and someday perhaps a computer will be alive, but I doubt I'll be alive to see it. However, as I have noted, progress and technology accelerate.<br /><br />Perfection is something that I probably wouldn't enjoy in any way. It's not human, for one thing. But that doesn't stop me from fixing mistakes.<br /><br />Virtual space is interesting, for instance an old friend David Taylor is very active in Second Life. But there's enough to do in the blogosphere and in social media to keep me away from that - which I view as an online gaming experience. But imagine selling property online. Might be some money to be made there.<br /><br />I see my kids become immersed in the online experience and I also realize that things are much different now from the way they were when I was a kid riding bicycle to the library (now largely obsolete) and listening to records (now replaced by an iPhone hooked up to near-field-monitors).<br /><br />But things largely stay the same, nonetheless. Same patterns, different toys.<br /><br />Social media like Tumblr and DeviantArt become the new malls that teens go to and meet online friends.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-6765359596465535882012-02-09T13:36:25.309-08:002012-02-09T13:36:25.309-08:00Einstein posits that mass curves space. This expla...Einstein posits that mass curves space. This explains gravitational lensing, sure. But space is curved less by less mass. The effect is inverse squared g*m1*m2/(d*d), so up close, small masses can have a greater effect, but it's not a huge amount. Think - to create 1G, we need 6 × 10^24 kilograms, so gravitation is a *very* weak effect.<br /><br />The consequence of this is that space curves in on itself and forms a singularity where we have black holes, because they are so massive. And some neutron stars might be dangerously close to this as well, depending upon their mass. The gravity gradient near a neutron star would rip normal matter apart, so its protons and electrons could separate from its neutrons - degenerate matter. The charged particles are cast off, since they form a less stable result. Here the universe is heading towards a deadly loss of entropy, since neutron stars are highly regular compared to other matter.<br /><br />Having seen the TV series "Sliders" I am, of course aware that it sure would be nice if we could curve space and go somewhere else instantly. They loved to create wormholes with a handheld device.<br /><br />This is called "instant elsewhere" in the SF literature.<br /><br />Mathematically, knowledge can be converted to a "subject graph" with nodes that are concepts and arcs are the relations between them. It's worth a post someday...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-14561888745475438242012-02-09T05:07:36.372-08:002012-02-09T05:07:36.372-08:00I gained some insight from the painting in your fi...I gained some insight from the painting in your first sentence. Putting physically, because for our current perception (this body, etc), the physical world is most real to us.<br /><br />And the blackhole a shortcut across the kinks?<br /><br />Perhaps the blackhole is a bridge on the macroscale and entanglement on the quantum scale.<br /><br />As you say, disorder fundamentally relies on the number of actors (and their independence). If universal entropy was not increasing, <b>unpredictable</b> change would eventually stagnate. I posit that predictable change would be equivalent to knowledge stagnating. C.f. the hypothesis I made in my comment further below about the imperfection of humans being essential ingredient for human creativity and free will. Is there a mathematical representation of knowledge?shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-53561312699080691482012-02-09T04:20:25.910-08:002012-02-09T04:20:25.910-08:00Your upbeat free spirit is so inspirational.
I am...Your upbeat free spirit is so inspirational.<br /><br />I am thinking of your blog about balancing creativity and rationality. I recognize that we still have to produce in our current reality. I think creative people desire to stretch their dynamic headroom to the extremes on the continuum. And very successful people additionally try to experience the gradations on that continuum, focus to complete goals, and not just oscillate between extremes. I believe there is no perfect balance, each (unique) person adds something to collective knowledge and creativity. For example, you've alluded in your blogs that Tom Hedges' brilliant rationality was necessary for Fractal to ship products.<br /><br />I wrote a response to the "Why the future doesn't need us" by Bill Joy who quoted Ray Kurzweil, who quoted Theodore Kaczynski (the Unibomber).<br /><br />The collective creativity of mankind continually outstrips the number of programs that could ever be written, because humans leverage the computer to increase the collective knowledge of the human race. For example, my external memory is Google. The human mind is not in isolation. It is social and alive, and the combined neurons of all humans alive is always increasing. The rate of communication and number of connections on the human network is increasing exponentially by leveraging the increasing capabilities of the machines.<br /><br />In my theory, existence is being able to perceive and interact with order (in some dimension, e.g. spacetime), i.e. order exists for the actor that can perceive it (a mutually resonant phenomenon). Some might say that the rock and the computer do not have truly sentient perceptions because they lack <b>free will</b>. If ever we do succeed in programming a computer to emulate the way we humans network knowledge, creativity, and free will, then I posit that we will have created another human, with imperfections and thus adding to the pool of humans. I suspect their is mathematical basis to the claim that the imperfections of humans are an absolutely necessary component of the human creativity process. Perfection would be static-- a rock.<br /><br />Thus as knowledge increases perhaps humans might be able to design machines such that the human sensory perception may feel and think it is still in a body, but the actual physical location and actions may be transformed (not necessarily even in the same location or informational dimension). Then maybe we "program the universe" only in the virtual space (a new model of our existence). What happens in our current physical world may become much less relevant (since we aren't perceiving and interacting it in as much). Perhaps we can make a duplicate copy in the virtual space. I am thinking of people who spend much of their time immersed online games or facebook. As those outlets become more realistic, many more might fall in. Is it a good outcome? In virtual reality, I could see with two eyes again. And I can choose. Free will.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-91796767227290541352012-02-08T22:34:55.140-08:002012-02-08T22:34:55.140-08:00It seems pretty hopeless for us to transfer inform...It seems pretty hopeless for us to transfer information from our minds into a computer directly. Since we don't yet understand how brains work. I think neural networks are interesting, but probably about six orders of magnitude too small to be of any usefulness in real thinking at present.<br /><br />Your thoughts on perception seem to be too Descartes-oriented. I'm not sure, for instance, that I buy that the fact that I can think is central to my existence. I think if I were a rock, than I would still exist, but simply not be aware of it. Yes, trees make sounds when they fall in a forest but nobody hears it.<br /><br />And I don't think I'm qualified to profess knowledge of life after death. After all, I'm still alive. Faith and perception might just be two different things for me.<br /><br />Still, what we perceive is clearly affected by the way we model the world. If our model is not sufficient, then we will always be perceiving in a box, with no way to look outside it.<br /><br />And that's part and parcel to where ideas come from. And that's also why its good to try out theories that don't necessarily fit other peoples ideas of correctness or conformance.<br /><br />Keep thinking impossible thoughts, Shelby!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-48073955545940468432012-02-08T22:24:51.284-08:002012-02-08T22:24:51.284-08:00So, if I understand correctly, fighting against en...So, if I understand correctly, fighting against entropy is actually putting kinks into the universe, which wants to unkink itself?<br /><br />I suppose thats possible.<br /><br />That entropy trends towards a maximum I never found surprising. Randomness seems to be the natural order of things. A consequence of having so many particles. But there are a few things like quantum tunneling and uncertainty that seem to be at the heart of randomness.<br /><br />But I never thought of disorder as something that has to be conserved. It just seems to fall out from things like diffusion processes.<br /><br />Perhaps dark energy contributes to it.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-76060246043703029932012-02-07T00:07:30.697-08:002012-02-07T00:07:30.697-08:00Corrected link for Ipaglalaban Ko.Corrected link for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wudfsN8BhhQ" rel="nofollow">Ipaglalaban Ko</a>.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-17984573978779758472012-02-07T00:06:17.313-08:002012-02-07T00:06:17.313-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-8341475311091978022012-02-06T23:56:16.662-08:002012-02-06T23:56:16.662-08:00My crazy idea is that mass is giving up its disord...My crazy idea is that mass is giving up its disorder a/k/a degrees-of-freedom, and I am positing that mass is a perception of the observer. I am thinking that perception includes not only the physical senses, but this physical body we use to interact with the physical perception of the universe. Gravity can kill that physical body. Perhaps the information in our brain could be orthogonal to the physical body, say if we could download it into a computer.<br /><br />Hehe, mabuhay pud <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtLWCY8O0us#t=65s" rel="nofollow">kababayan</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_Ko#Lyrics" rel="nofollow">translated</a>). For filipinos, it is <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100228215734AAK8Eky" rel="nofollow">all about the love</a> (<a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100228215734AAK8Eky" rel="nofollow">translated</a>). The <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-BfEEZ62WY#t=71s" rel="nofollow">marriage proposal</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1mUuxvWDV8" rel="nofollow">Serendipity</a> of meeting you again after 17 years.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-50147345804960061592012-02-06T21:58:19.253-08:002012-02-06T21:58:19.253-08:00My crazy (half-baked) idea is that the perception ...My crazy (half-baked) idea is that the perception of the order is bending spacetime. The cost is the reduction in degrees-of-freedom due to that perception, i.e. the maximum disorder of matter has to be conserved (1856 entropy of universe is trending to maximum). To exist one has to tradeoff other realities whose dependencies are not resonant (which you stated can even be deadly or dangerous). Composing s/w modules is a dependencies problem.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-87584344938167348492012-02-06T09:39:46.627-08:002012-02-06T09:39:46.627-08:00Our progress is accelerating because of the synerg...Our progress is accelerating because of the synergistic properties of the factors that make it accelerate. It's quite a circular issue and also now is a great time to be around.<br /><br />We don't always work best in isolation.<br /><br />Consider the shiny stones in the stream. They got there one way or another, we know. Was it the slow smooth erosion of the water passing over and around the stones that did it? Or was it the turbulence of the stones hitting each other?<br /><br />Developing software alone can be like the slow smoothing effect of the water. It can be millennium-slow. But when you subject that software to a QA cycle, it gets beat on, and polished much much faster.<br /><br />Developing ideas is also this way.<br /><br />And spacetime has to be curved otherwise there wouldn't be a Hubble constant, I suspect. Its just not the kind of curvature that easily sits with our brains.<br /><br />As I stated, the real question is what bends spacetime locally? What is expended to do this? What is gained and what is lost?<br /><br />I don't believe that the curvature of spacetime is a "free" thing.<br /><br />This thing about canceling gravity is really an issue. We can't just walk around with an earth-sized mass to make flying cars. Degenerate matter is just too dangerous to carry around in our pockets.<br /><br />At least there is hope for communicating through solid matter though. And in the demonstration of this effect it indicates that some sort of signal can penetrate solid matter effortlessly.<br /><br />Well, we knew already that weakly-interacting particles like neutrinos could already do the free space transmission thing. And detector technology is improving.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-1591610396857730212012-02-06T09:14:27.634-08:002012-02-06T09:14:27.634-08:00Gravity is a perception that can kill us. If I jum...Gravity is a perception that can kill us. If I jump. I will fall and hit the ground.<br /><br />Decartes aside, the concept of programming the universe is not new, yet I suspect that we are far too naive to accomplish it in my lifetime. I hold out some hope for promising Gedanken-experimenten, though.<br /><br />Multiple copies does indeed violate the conservation laws of our universe as far as we know it. However, once we break conservation, all sorts of things are possible. We are clever enough to think of it, but I suspect we are not clever enough to actually make it happen.<br /><br />Still, my comment "what does the generation of gravity conserve" is valid.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-48674691640850330472012-02-06T09:07:08.830-08:002012-02-06T09:07:08.830-08:00Yes, I have often looked for transformative soluti...Yes, I have often looked for transformative solutions, ever since I learned of the Fourier transform and the frequency domain.<br /><br />But dark matter and dark energy, the fabric of spacetime, definitely are interesting. And I agree that informationally, they may yet be pried open. Particularly because they are difficult to detect and thus measure. And so very few avenues are left.<br /><br />There are those that posit that spacetime is composed of very small volumes, each of which has a small number of bits of information in it. But some of those bits are privileged and cannot be accessed ordinarily. We just need the keys.<br /><br />When determining primality, you need to squeeze information out of a number until there is no information left that can render the number composite.<br /><br />This same method may yet be used in evaluating the fabric of spacetime.<br /><br />But here's an interesting question: in the universe energy and many other properties are conserved. Yet gravity seems to emanate from mass (as waves). So, I ask this: what property is lost from mass when gravity emanates from it?<br /><br />I am aware of the Einsteinian concept that mass bends spacetime. Yet, that bending should take some property to do it. Nothing is for free. So what property is lost from mass when this happens?<br /><br />Particularly concerning is that mass emanates gravity constantly without end. It's like it sets us a stable resonance in spacetime.<br /><br />Our models of gravitation tell us what its effects are and accurately predict lensing and exotic things like black holes, yet we still don't really understand its mechanism. The wave model of gravity is only the start.<br /><br />My sense is that gravity might be treated like light if we can understand its mechanism.<br /><br />...and mabuhay, dude.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-70052585372618871782012-02-06T05:15:30.458-08:002012-02-06T05:15:30.458-08:00Transforming the domain of the representation can ...Transforming the domain of the representation can enable perception of order that was hidden. Order that is present but perceived (measured) as disorder, is disorder relative to that observer. Your clever blog about creating seamless patterns popped into my mind. You mention doing a Fourier transform so you can manipulate the data in a different domain (then transform back). Desired order is achieved that was obscured prior to the transformation. The order was always there, but not relative to the observer who didn't use your transformation. This is a practical example of why I have the idea that the disorder of the dark matter may be harvestable with information technology. Perhaps we already are. I am thinking we have real world examples that measures of order are relative to the observer, because we can potentially achieve higher rates of compression <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324949" rel="nofollow">as we add perspective</a>. (the relationship between compression and entropy)shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-57622330810332938352012-02-06T02:42:00.895-08:002012-02-06T02:42:00.895-08:00Less abstractly, paradigm shift the problem set fr...Less abstractly, paradigm shift the problem set from spacetime to the entropy (information) domain. One possible way to levitate is connect the sensory perception of the brain to a computer that shifts the reality in space. (I had a comment somewhere on the net about how creating multiple copies of information escapes the spacetime manifold.)<br /><br />To get the expected result, I suppose ditto for all the other actors in the environment.<br /><br />So developing a s/w model for relativistic composition of declarative programming and the environment may be applicable to the challenging of polarizing gravity. My point being that gravity is just a perception.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-51045841685121270142012-02-06T01:53:34.803-08:002012-02-06T01:53:34.803-08:00From your compression of time blog, perhaps the ri...From your compression of time blog, perhaps the ride is accelerating. Humans don't perceive the exponential function in the early stage.<br /><br />Fascinating topic. Hope in future to dwelve into the math of relativity and try to see if I can develop a more concrete theory. I have <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324727" rel="nofollow">rushed some half-baked understanding</a>, but I am not satisfied with that. For now, I have some conceptual, speculative ideas.<br /><br />I'm consumed with self-funded <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7860163/what-are-some-compelling-use-cases-for-dependent-method-types/9151764#9151764" rel="nofollow">R&D on a s/w model</a> for <b>relativistic</b> declarative programming with environment state. Every decade or so <a href="http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4441#comment-69070" rel="nofollow">there is a paradigm shift</a> in programming languages.<br /><br />On another of your blog pages, I shared a link to a summary of some of my past ponderings, where I speculated (circa 2008 or so) that quantum entanglement may be due to resonance. The 170+ IQ 13 year old Jacob Barnett <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmMghIiOQ10#t=146s" rel="nofollow">speculates that space-time may be curved</a>.<br /><br />1. Reality is different for each observer (perspective). The bug crawling on the ground doesn't know he is on a mountain (the curvative is hidden, i.e. isn't resonant to his Q...see Barnett's point).<br /><br />2. Signal and noise are filtered relative to resonance. Tesla's insight also factors in, that attenuation in space is scaled by resonance. The wormhole in the space-time manifold may also be resonance.<br /><br />3. Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem tells us that we never know if have the true signal until we have infinite samples. If we could sample everything, nothing would exist, because the world would be static. It is essential to existence that there be infinite realities. Our perception of time exists, because there is change. If we could measure everything, time and change couldn't exist (from that master observer's perspective). Existence requires a coinductive, irreversible, infinite world. I have also related this more simply to why we can't exist with equal distributions (everything the same color, nothing can be seen), i.e. knowledge then won't exist. Software is the encoding of knowledge, which is why s/w is never static. The master observer of a free market can't exist. These concepts tie into economics, s/w engineering, everything. Very interesting to me.<br /><br />4. So then order (entropy) is relative to resonance. Entanglement may be the perception of the tip of the iceberg of some order in that the dark matter. It is dark to us because our resonance is not tuned to perceive it all. What is dark to some us, might be simultaneously ordered to others of us. So it can be measured by those who are perceiving it, and we measure it by tips of the iceberg (there is the Nyquist aliasing, as quantum particles pop in and our of our resonance band).<br /><br />5. I speculate that <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-324757" rel="nofollow">matter could be maximum disorder</a> (trending to maximum). So the dark energy is matter that is ordered from another perspective. The yen yang that we can't perceive good without the existence of evil.<br /><br />Perhaps there isn't much substance in my contribution.<br /><br />As for tapping into the dark matter and polarizing it, I speculate it is an information science problem. Social networks scale very fast. Communication accelerates knowledge exponentially, because the individual brains begin acting like neurons of a larger brain-- like the ant which has a community exo-brain. I tie this back to my work on how to enable independent s/w development to compose. It is all about resonance. The Dunbar number indicates there is a complexity limit to how much each brain can contribute in isolation.<br /><br />Collaboration is form of love-- the legacy of Fractal for me. We exist because we are not all the same.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-35881997680402120852012-02-05T09:50:22.585-08:002012-02-05T09:50:22.585-08:00Shelby,
I do remember; though you mostly worked w...Shelby,<br /><br />I do remember; though you mostly worked with Tom on the PC angle of the apps. It was work greatly needed and respected.<br /><br />I will, I'm sure, find your ideas interesting. I am someone who looks at things from a fresh standpoint, since I know a small amount about a lot of different things.<br /><br />Personally, I don't hold out for the antimatter antigravity theory. It seems to violate certain symmetries and conservation laws. But we can't seem to get enough of it to test that hypothesis.<br /><br />Annihilation energy could be a really good source of quick, plentiful energy for powering planes and such. Yet also a source of a crazy level of power for weapons. Which is why the military have been studying positron traps and why they have their tabletop terawatt goal.<br /><br />I'm also not likely to believe that gravity can be polarized, though I do suggest it as a future possibility. And the effect should be measurable.<br /><br />There are so many ToE theories. For instance, John Gowan likes to call matter an asymmetric, massive, immobile, local, conserved form of light.<br /><br />It all comes down to what makes up space-time itself. Your theory about dark matter sounds plausible. I'm curious as to what you think dark energy is: the fabric of space-time. If we can tap it, then we might be in for quite a ride.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05314130812566991108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8334018989882702842.post-28097747217168469082012-02-05T07:16:58.733-08:002012-02-05T07:16:58.733-08:00Hi Mark,
W.r.t. to 'antimatter', are you ...Hi Mark,<br /><br />W.r.t. to 'antimatter', are you aware of the theory of an entropic relation to gravity?<br /><br />http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page20/page20.html<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde<br /><br />My TOE is that the dark matter is disordered (at ordered frequencies) beyond what is measurable due to Planck's constant. Due to the uncertainty principle, we can't measure such directly, only the side-effects. I have a more detailed explanation of my ideas in numerous comments on the following blog page:<br /><br />http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3744#comment-327029<br />(above and below the linked comment)<br /><br />I just found your blog today. You may remember I briefly did programming work on Painter X2 and 3.1.shelbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192118408905938326noreply@blogger.com