Popcorn Sutton

o means occurrence. I'm using the statistical mechanics framework here.

It's a philosophical argument and it's ignoring the physics. I'm arguing about the speed of t with respect to the observer and I stated, as many others have stated before, that nothing is faster than c. Because of this, I've found a loophole. You guys consistently tell the newbies here that nothing travels faster than c and that no information can travel faster than c. Ok, I'll let that stick for the moment. But, because of quantum entanglement, which hasn't been explained for over 100 years now and still stands as a kind of chestnut of inquiry, it's just that little counter intuitive thing that people accept about physics, I think that it finally has an explanation. Nothing travels faster than c is the explanation. Treat nothing as if it were something and you solve the conundrum. So.... Nothing, literally, travels faster than c. In other words- "Nothing" travels faster than c. As stated in my law- Nothing travels faster than t while t = 0(o) So, therefor, something travels faster than c and we just haven't found out what yet (until maybe now) because of quantum entanglement. Well, we can say it like this. Something travels faster than c. Because of quantum entanglement, we know that 1(o) travels faster than c. So, therefor, nothing travels faster than 0(o). One can put a spin on it and say "what about -13(o)", hence, trying to say that there is something that exists that actually occurs in the negatives. I don't buy it. I think that all time exists now and that time is experience itself. When we measure light coming from the sun, we see that it takes approximately 8 minutes to get here. However, if we freeze ourselves in time and then send ourselves to the sun, we can literally be there in less than a second. Hence- Nothing travels faster than c. No occurrence travels faster than c. It is not possible to travel faster than no occurrence (nothing). It's not possible to travel faster than t while t = 0(o). Hence, solving the quantum entanglement problem by assuming that our universe has a mind. Time, itself, simultaneously travels faster than c as well as slower. You can travel faster than c as long as nothing happens. (Or, if o < c)

It still doesn't disprove the law. There is no way you can disprove the law. Nothing is faster than t when t = 0(o)

There's no reason it shouldn't though. Entropy comes to an absolute halt. If things are absolutely frozen to absolute zero, there would be no movement or friction in the object at all.

Traveling faster than speed of light may not be possible, but it is possible with respect to an observer. Imagine freezing yourself in a bubble of absolute zero. For you, no time passes. So wrt to observation and the speed of light, it takes the light about 8 minutes to get here when it could only take you 1 second. That is technically traveling faster than the speed of light. Duh, right? This, combined with statistics, makes time travel possible. And teleportation if you can preserve yourself during the process. Here's a new law for u guys- Nothing can travel faster than t while t = 0(o). t = time with respect to the observer. In this case it equals 0 occurrences (0(o)) Omg I'm laughing so hard right now! "Nothing" travels faster than the speed of light. Lawrence Krauss would be proud lol

Take a look, http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q14.html We measure the "mass" of a black hole by looking at its gravitational influence. So a 1 to 1 correspondence between a black hole and our sun is measured by the gravity itself. It's circular reasoning. So our sun could be 10000 times larger than the black hole that "has the same mass". My point is that the sun could easily take up a lot more space than a black hole with the same gravitational influence. I've seen how electromagnetism can defy gravity... but I've also seen acoustic levitation as well thanks to your blogging Swansont. I don't think that anyone has fully explained why magnets works, it's been a question of mine since I was very young so I should know this by now and I do search it every now and then to see if there is an explanation yet. I have a hypothesis about it, but for now, I would like to draw a correlation between a magnetic force and cooling. I think we all know that the black hole at the center of our galaxy has an extremely strong gravitational influence on its surroundings. It's also one of the coldest places, if not the coldest place, we know of. Our galaxy just happens to be solid around this thing in the center. Swansont, look at this image, it demonstrates my point about frozen bubbles. Volcanoes, decay, light escaping the sun. Basically, hot things rise and cool things fall. Stuff that has more potential for heat rises, and stuff that is harder to heat typically stays grounded.

I want to draw on interdisciplinary evidence to spark a train of thought into what gravity actually is. Here's a few links that I think are appropriate. Gravity is stronger near extremely cold objects. Magnet- http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_cold_and_hot_temperature_affect_the_strength_of_a_magnet Black Hole- http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971111e.html Also, rats live longer in colder temperatures. http://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/2013/02/25/cold-temperature-and-life-span-its-not-about-the-rate-of-living/ We also know of the ice man mummy who survived this long because he was buried in ice. Cold temperatures preserve the structure of the bodies that are exposed to them, and I assume that it's a very fundamental property of longevity. Entropy is extremely reduced in the cold as well. Take a drop of red dye and put it on a block of ice, it does not disperse throughout the ice. A bubble can exist much longer if it is frozen. This suggests that the center of our atoms are actually very cold. The center of our planet is probably very cold, and even the center of our sun could be very cold. I'd like to propose a new law- Preservation requires refrigeration. It sounds like a truism to me. Given this law, we can say that there must be a point of refrigeration for every unitary element in this observable universe at least until it decays. I'd like to suggest that there is essentially a black hole at the center of every solid object (including photons etc.) Because gravity is so strong at a point that is so cold, we would have to assume that there is a correlation between low temperatures and gravity itself. I'd also like to propose another new law- Absolute zero is perfection. What I mean by perfection is that there is no possible way, given all the time possible, that any item at absolute zero will ever decay or otherwise disintegrate by itself. This goes to suggest that any unit at absolute zero exists in time but is also independent of time because of its longevity. Another point that I'd like to make is that anything that is in a state of entropy and has a temperature above absolute zero is being repelled by the point of refrigeration because heat rises. This, of course, says that gravity is, in theory, a repulsive force. (And I think that there is plenty of evidence to support that claim.) I'd like for us to collaborate on an equation about this if the moderators permit.

I sometimes wonder the same thing about the treason/heroism. I had a thought earlier today about science. I've decided that I, personally, do not care who takes a scientific insight and finds a use for it. I do not think that science itself cares either. There's no race, no borders, no ethnicity, no cultural boundaries, no religion, no language, of science. It's knowledge in its purest form. It sparks imagination, it leads to a better world depending on how you look at it. It's a driving force of peace and understanding. It's preventing crime and enhancing our ability to survive and live conveniently through simple equations and complex engineering feats. Michio Kaku said that he was giving a speech on the 3 types of civilizations. 1 being the planetary, 2 being the solar, and 3 being the galactic. To this, a young child came up to him and said "Mr. Kaku, you're wrong!" He replied with "Ya sure kid, go away." "No but you're wrong! You forgot the type 4 civilization! They harness the power of the continuum." Mr. Kaku, with all of his honor, was humbled. He thought about it and decided, the kid was right. Is the kid a genius? Can you even call a kid arrogant? Does arrogance even apply to kids? Newton came around with a brilliant idea at the age of 23. He talked about it, he had his equation, he proved his equation by calculating the movement of a comet. He shared it (and if Newton is anything like an average person in these times, people in his proximity wouldn't have even cared, which seems to be the case). Finally, (if I have my story correct) a man from France took a look, and he had an epiphany! "Newton, you have the greatest discovery of mankind right here written down! You have to publish this!". And so came the Principia Mathematica. Newton was an arrogant chump. He thought he knew everything about everything in the eyes of his peers. Who could possibly look at that madman chump and say, "I like him, his obsession with an apple falling is right down my alley." I couldn't imagine a single person who had the same interests as Newton. The same goes for anyone that we consider a genius. There's simply no one else that is quite like them. It is for that reason that, when these people "come out" with their ideas, they are shunned. They might seem like they're belittling everyone else. You look at their work and you say... "ok, so what?" They respond with "SO WHAT!?!?!? WHAT ARE YOU A FOOL!?". Honestly, who cared about calculating the movement of the moon on a piece of paper? We knew what the moon does, it goes around the earth, enough said. And after people became familiar with Newtons equations, who really cared about whether they were precise? Well, Einstein cared. He probably knew at a very young age that they were wrong, but who cared? What man in their right mind, going about their daily tasks of shining shoes and picking apples, really cared that Newton might have been wrong? Ya, ok kid, go away. My point here is that, any given genius could easily come across as arrogant (especially at the ripe, and immature, age of 23), especially if they are not entitled, in some way or another (I.e. having a PhD in Physics). I read in another thread here something along these lines. "Hmm, I'm looking for something to research." -Said no scientist ever. Genius, in my opinion, starts with a question. The question just bugs you and you think to yourself "hmmm, I don't know." You discuss it with your peers, and if you're lucky, they will contemplate it with you. Note the "if you're lucky" part because that is a BIG IF. Science knows nothing about the people who participate, it is simply a tool that gives insight. The distinction between arrogance and genius is pragmatic.

Here's a paper I wrote some time back. I thought it was relevant. Why We Cannot Believe that the Free Will exists

Well then, I'm in a weird position because I have the math and the logic done for my theory, but now I need to know- "How do I make a UI?" "What do I do if the storage exceeds my computers capacity?" "Is there a way to make it more efficient?" Stuff like that. It's like math and logic just aren't enough. That's where other sciences come in.

What you do is freeze yourself below absolute zero until you inflate back to your normal self. Warning: you might find yourself inside out.

Quantum prompting is different. The effect is that because a point of interest is entangled, it seems that it emits a light or radiates in some way that affects it's surrounding providing context based on proximity in space and time. All I can really do is describe it at this point and play with my toy program. What happens is that the poi (point of interest) sort of bubbles up in your nerves at the point where the hair meets the receiving end. It's a weird hypothesis but I'd really like to explain it. Here's some math to link it (remotely) with quantum entanglement. When you flip two coins, because of entanglement, you see one is heads (that was a 50% chance) and you know that the other one is tails (100%). Think of having 10 neurons all with different parts (like heads, tails, sideways, upside down, etc...). When you know that one neuron is heads (10% chance), you know that the rest are not heads (100%), the chance of one of the rest of them is now equal to (11.11111111111% chance). This is like adding more output. So we figure out the next one is tails, all others cannot be heads or tails (100%), so the chance of one being upside down is now 12.5%. The emergence looks like this (and so does the output)- [H, T, U] If, however, the chances were different, so as to have connected two separate sequences of likelihood, the output will change. So you have a sequence of 10%, 11.11%, 12.5%, but then it gets more added on (i.e. 10 more), now the chance is 1/17, 5.9%, 1/16, 6.2%, 6.6%, 7.1%, all the way until it beats 12.5%, then the emerged unit becomes part of the output . So the output would look like this- [H,T,U,C] but the emergence looks like this- [H,T,U,P,J,K,Y,C]

This conversation was had on April 14, 2012. The original poster was interested in a theory of grammar using statistics and posted the following while quoting from one of his fellows. He said- The word oink doesn't sound like a pig, but it is the word that is relevant to the sound that pigs make. So yes, it does mean "pig" in some sense. Clearly related There may be a relation there, the relativity is within a minimal environment, but there is definitely a correlation. But these words are also correlated through relevance. The word "hissing" occurs relative to the occurrence "snake" and therefor, "hissing" occurs within the environment of "snake" and visa versa. This is a pattern of language. Quote: Conclusion: I've explained how to approach the sound-meaning relationship. I've shown several clear specific examples of how sound and meaning are related. Therefore, my theory is right, we can explain all language in this way, and every other theory (Minimalism, for example) is wrong. That's a fallacious overgeneralization. I see what you're getting at, I got the theory in my head, understand that the only reason I am responding and drawing out diagrams and making it more clear and filling the gaps is for the benefit of humanity, and more importantly, my benefit. I want my phone and my computer to literally be my best friend. And for humanities sake, we could have our children grow up with a best friend ear attachment that listens to everything and tells them the best choice, then they can make educated decisions which will lead to better survivability. All for life longevity. That, my friend, will come later, in the analysis of the discourse. Quote: (*Disclaimers: 1) This metaphor is not fallacious. This is not proof. This is an example of how your argument sounds to us. 2) Some researchers actually believe claims like these, so I'm not just making up a silly example-- note that my point is not about the content of the argument but about the style of the argument.) Right, it's fallacious because it appeals to belief, it also appeals to popularity (to an extent), it's also biased. Statistics of how many times something occurs, and how many times it occurs within the environment of something else(plural). Quote: so we can't say "well there just isn't evidence for that". If you're really saying that language is just a result of probabilities of people saying it... well... of course. The immediate future is completely predictable from an omniscient knowledge of the moment. That's not language-specific. It's also not realistically computable. And it doesn't explain why language is more interesting than, say, the way that flocks of birds fly as a group. That might just be statistics too. Why are you studying language, then, not birds? I have studied birds, and there is a correlation between their flight pattern and fuel efficiency, so there is statistics there as well. Because that is not my field of expertise, and I think this will benefit everyone. Really I'm not a selfish or self centered guy, if you hung out with me in real life you would see that. I'm logical to say the least. Quote: Someone else wrote: Your point seems to be just that the things people say are non-random. Well...yes. Is anyone disputing that? Has anyone ever disputed that?And more specifically, XXXX, how does your theory actually explain language, beyond the fact that everything relates to everything? We're missing the link between the details and the "everything=everything" claim. Take Einstein's popular theory of relativity, translate it to linguistics, you get relevance. Take quantum theory, translate it to linguistics, you get probabilities. Connect the particles (tagged with knowledge, P600) and you get a probabilistic link. The knowledge then becomes maximized. OK the next post will be an analysis of this post as discourse. On to the next post. I want to discuss this post, especially in relation to current knowledge, quantum entanglement, and the quantum mind hypothesis. It's been quite some time since this post and obviously the poster has convinced a lot of people about his method. Whether it's useful or not is a completely different topic though. I, personally, don't think it's going to be used, at least, for a little while (maybe a couple hundred years) because implementing this method in code, in the very basic sense, means raising a child. Regardless, I thought you guys might like to see.

I think this sums it up very well. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152107331692726&set=a.10150126121157726.302978.5978057725&type=1 Daniel Dennett takes a compatibilist view on the subject (but I feel that his argument wasn't convincing). http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaKLAbWFCh1E&ei=2A7EUtz3DOjQyAHP4YHQCw&usg=AFQjCNGfJThcNQpk3Y-EczY6MMHiLWeEdw&sig2=DSGlVT5lH18fbKQMYKxQow&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc I am biased towards Sam Harris.

Time is one of the most fascinating subjects for me because it is one of the only things, if not THE only thing, that doesn't seem to be physical. I do have my own speculations about it. But, with regards to infinity, I HIGHLY suggest that you do not appeal to it for one reason, it's unobservable. I think that an appeal to infinity should be regarded as a logical fallacy. It's like saying "I give up". Saying something like "language is infinite" (as Chomsky often states), or saying that "it goes on to infinity" or that "there are an infinite number of universes", implies, at least to me, that one has thrown in the towel on the subject. They've lost the willingness to be puzzled. Chomsky himself says that it's a very important thing to cultivate. (but he also condemns people who have my type of interests into the category of "unwilling to be puzzled")

I support it

And the only reason I was near them was because I enjoyed disc golfing and they went to high school with me and wanted to disc together.

I have to disagree that information cannot be transferred through entanglement on the sole basis that the quantum mind hypothesis depends on it and because I cannot see any other way of making the brain computational and closing that gap in the mind body problem. The reason I posted that video of max tegmark earlier is because he seems to think that neutrinos have the capability of "learning" as they pass through objects and also that it's a quantum effect. It's about the "package density". It's obvious to me that the mind is quantum in this sense, and I wish I had a citation to the video of calcium activity in the brain so I could show you guys what I mean. Information is transferred through entanglement. Let me edit that, information is probably not transferred because it's all the same information, but information is being prompted. An example is this- How are you? I am fine. How-> fine Are -> am You -> I

Thank you for the special advice. You know what they say though, you're only separated by a factor of six at most. In this case, the separation is 2.

Listen to this, it's going to be funny and it suggests the opposite (see post above). I knew some people. One of those people was a known thief. A piece of shit, lowlife, good for nothing, thief. We called him sticky fingers. I learned because not even a week after hanging out, my hat disappeared and he had conveniently acquired one with the same sweat stains. His friends supported him by saying that his brother actually did buy him that hat. He had no intention of returning it. That's not even close to the worst that's happened to me either, but for the sale of making a point I'll continue. The other day, I hear that the two best friends weren't friends anymore. Why? Mr Dumb stole weed from Dumber. Nooooooooo? He really did that? I WOULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT! These people openly talk about these things. I think they were conspiring to murder me at some point RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. Needless to say, I can tell they're going to do something bad because 1, they're psychotic, 2, they're kleptos, 3, they're addicts, 4, they've done stuff in the past, and 5, they enjoy sadism and punch a wall when they get angry. They're "alpha". There's no one I hate being around more than the person who feels like they're entitled to everything everyone has and are going to hurt you if they don't get their fix.

I think that there are several ways to fix it. One is socialism, two is changing the monetary system, three is a complete redefinition of what we know to be a system. Socialism sounds appealing, but doesn't mean we will be productive (I would like to have a cutoff on the amount of wealth one can acquire to preserve that productivity). Changing the monetary system has been a topic for a while I'm sure, but it seems that every politician who has ever said that they would like to focus on that while in office has gotten killed. Scientocracy seems to be a bit of a topic at this point and a Brazilian economist is talking about it on tv and YouTube. I like this idea because productivity will skyrocket and priorities will be dealt with as quickly as possible so we can reduce their significance. Whether we also change the monetary system is up for debate. Like I said before, I would suggest limiting what one person can earn, but even that number can rise and lower depending on significance. A redefinition of our society would almost certainly be tragic because I don't think it's possible for people to stay at peace with such a sudden transition.

Well, regardless, I think I can do you guys the liberty of explaining what I was getting at. Say that the sun produces n photons which are all identical. You travel around the sun for n years collecting more photons for a bigger data sample. If you measure a slight variation in the equilibrium of your data set, and it is likely that an outside force acted upon the photons. By measuring the simultaneity of the fluctuation in equilibrium, we can assume that the fluctuation is either quantum in nature, or classical, measured by simultaneity. If it appears to be simultaneous, then based on the assumption that the sun also contains a doppelgänger of our test set, we can conclude that something is occurring at the sun. If we get enough data, we can classify it and use pattern detection to correlate the disturbance with a solar flare.

I guess that my question is, since the particles are entangled, are they also affected by their environment? If yes, are they both affected simultaneously? If you poke one, will the other move as well? If no, then death to the method I am trying to explain.

So basically the cat is still both dead and alive even if you observe it's doppelgänger die? I understand what you're saying but it sounds like a problem of verification rather than specification. In this case, we would need experimentation and verification to support the hypothesis, but I don't think it is necessary to be able to use this method (unless my first sentence is true). From what I know, the evidence already supports knowing the result of the entanglement even if we only have the one bit to look at. We wouldn't need to communicate the results faster than the speed of light if we predicted a solar flare faster than the speed of light (before the actual flare itself reached the earth). I have a speculation here but I'll save it for another time.