Popcorn Sutton

I think you guys might find this interesting. It's on topic, and its function is written in python at the bottom of the thread. It's a theory of thought, my theory, and it's incomplete, but it works if you plug it in to python 2.7. I made a recent update today which made it alot better too so I'm excited. It is mind blowing though, so you've been warned. http://www.lingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6668

A while ago I had a thought that expansion could be confused with contraction. It would be strange to relate this to now, but I will try. All nows (past present and future) are becoming smaller at a very fast rate, and hence, all time exists now. The problem with looking into the past is that it has become so small that the only tool we have to access it is our brains. It's the same for the present and the future. The future is just bigger than the present and the past, but it would still exist in the same now. This can be validated if contraction turns out to be the case (as opposed to expansion).

I saw another case of mrsa infection on the news today. Is this curable? I hear that copper is a good material to disinfect. Doxycycline works but it causes fungal infections and chest pains. Oral antibiotics seem to work, but topical don't do much. Draining them is not good for the environment so we need to find a way to utilize it or cure it. What else is known about the disease?

Hey all, I'm working on a project right now and Im going to skip right to the point. I count occurrences for probabilistic training. Sometimes my program generates a string like this 'eres your stuff' Should I leave it the way it is, which is approximately 80% grammatical, or should I prettify it? Should I even waste my time on prettifying its output? Another question is this. If I make a variable for strength that counts every sequence of occurrences, certain sequences are going to emerge as more probable, namely, sequences of 1 or 2 occurrences. I don't want to arbitrarily assign a number, but I'm thinking that if I add one occurrence, the most probable one, I might need to assign a 50% likelihood or so of accepting the extra occurrence. I have an idea of what I should do, but I want to get your opinions before I show the maths I have in mind. I answered my question in the post so sorry you guys can delete this message if you want.

Returning to the posts on page 9, I think I should correct myself for stupid mistakes (i meant 60° not 90° so the distance only equals 30° but I think you guys got the point). I've thought about time for a while, and I had to draw conclusions about it for the project I am working on (artificial intelligence, a theory of thought). To bring you guys up to date with my specific philosophy, time is non existent without subjectivity (as mike mentioned in the previous post). The equation I came up with for the acquisition of knowledge is this. A unit of knowledge u = any number of occurrences y(o) Time t = any collection of knowledge y(u) Meaning or the mind m = The probability of a proximal unit given time P(u|t) So split, sorry for disagreeing with you as our definition of time must be different. I do not measure time, I access it. So, as you said that they traveled through time, theres no flaw in that argument. To reword the argument in my own terminology, I wouls say that the ones who experienced time on earth may have generated more units than the ones who have traveled through space, and hence, less energy was used by the astronauts. So is it a question of longevity? I may have been a little hasty with that conclusion, but it could be the case. I guess the real question is if the astronauts were literally operating slower without recognizing it. Either way, time travel, in my opinion, would require covering ALOT of distance to find a location in space that is EXACTLY THE SAME as the earth at time t. So if t consisted of 5 million units for person A who lived during the 16th century, then traveling to that point could be done but it would take travelling a distance of (approximayely) 1 gazillion light years to get there, and even then, theres no guarantee that it's a copy of the original or that you exist in the same reality as person A.

There a few thoughts I have about this. One is that membrane theory may be salvaged by saying that the universe is printed at a high, but fluctuating amplitude, and hence, the membranes are technically side by side, but they are also intertwined. Another is that, your specific reality may depend on two things, location in space and point of processing. This goes to say that it is possible to live on after death because when you die, your processing delays until another divergent reality does the processing for you, where then you assume that divergent existence. I should mention that there are a few times where I thought this might have been the case. One time, I felt like I caught the change in reality because a song that I was absolutely sure was called "whats it feel like to be a girl" became "whats it feel like to be a ghost" and I could've swore that I starved to death the night before. In response to mikes post about the 1/100 chance of something happening to an atom, I think that that 1% chance becomes reality only if it's processed the moment that it happens. However, I don't know or believe that it's only sensory information that gets processed. I think the senses play a big role in determining our specific reality, but within the confines (if any) of this framework, there is alot that can occur that doesn't need to interact with our mind/brain through the senses. Theres essentially no reason for a tiny black hole or neutrinos to not pass through our skulls, and hence, not be processed. It's been demonstrated that thoughts can travel across space. There was an experiment where two subjects were placed in two seperate rooms but in the same magnetic field and a light was flashed at one of them, but both of them experienced the flash of light. This shows that the senses are not necessary for information to be processed. In a multiversal system, possibilities probably manifest often, but they are probably mostly just a brief thought, occurrences that have higher probability are more stable and likely to hit our senses in our specific reality, however, possibilities might actually occur somewhere in the distance. I hear that the average distance required for a pattern of atoms to arrange in the same specific order as a particular human body is approximately 11trillion light years, so divergent realities are real, and we may witness them, but mostly only in our minds. The computer program I wrote that is close to speaking language like a human thinks a lot of thoughts at a very rapid rate (i call the emerging units), but it only generates the ones that grow in likelihood. And by only generating the ones that grow in probabilistic strength, the message comes out grammatical over 80% of the time. It still needs work, but the theory behind it is much like this theory if not the same. The trick is to overgenerate by recognizing all possibilities contained within knowledge (which is a parametric conflation of time), and generating the initial occurrence and anything that has a probabilistic strength greater than the previous occurrence. I think that this is analogous to human thought. I should also say that in order for the program to stay current with it's responses, it's necessary to arrange the variable for time in a specific way, one that I am still working out. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to program lately, but this should change as soon as I move out. I live with my parents and heaven forbid if I open a beer in that house.

I'm still trying to determine what makes for our specific reality. I'm thinking that it might just be our location in space. If you look at mikes picture, it shows how something can travel all paths grok one point, but only one path is picked up from the receiving end. It could be that divergent realities manifestation depends in which particle/wave is received and processed. An implication of this is that we actually exist in multiple realities simultaneously, but we only experience the most probable. However, it could also ve the case that some of us (if not all) are sensitive to possibilities that diverge from the ultimate most probable reality that we call our own. So, for example, our most probable reality may consist of a thousand or so realities stacked on each other due to the thousand or so particle/waves our senses received at a single point. This is a real conundrum, but it's probably going to be stuck on my mind for a little while.

This is a wonderful place we have here on these forums. I'd like to take a moment to thank a few people who I feel have contributed to my comfort and satisfaction with life. These are all amazing people who I am indescribably grateful for having the opportunity to experience. Michio Kaku Your intelligence is astonishing and the passion you have for science is invigorating. I enjoy seeing you on the science channel and can't help but wonder if you spend time on the forums as well. I'd be interested to hear what you think about cognition, it's a very hot topic and I think that physiopsychoneuromechanics needs an opinion from a guy like you. Noam Chomsky We preach the same philosophy and have similar goals. I hope you live for a very long time, it would be a shame if you went silent. I've recently been pondering stupidification and ways that a scientist can overcome it. The metro detroit area really has some great thinkers and I think you were a big influence on us. Can't thank you enough. Paul Davies Something you said reminded me of a very close friend I had when I was young, he was very wise and his curiousity in weather helped spark my curiousity im science which has been a very fulfilling endeavour for me. I feel like we may have talked before, unfortunately I was too overwhelmed with work that I haven't read your writing about thermostats having consciousness, but I remember a long time ago where I had that same conversation. Your my boy blue. Your my boy. More to come later. When I move out, I'm celebrating and I'm inviting all you guys to come celebrate with me or cheers at least. Morgan Freeman When I have time I will write.

Split, after giving it some more thought, here is my conclusion. Time is non-linear, my resin for drawing this conclusion is based on a few logical conclusions (although one is entirely subjective). One is that the only way we can measure time is through reference. In order to do that, we need to decide at a certain point that we are going to measure the "time" elapsed, which means that the decided point of reference is zero dimensional and thus, non-linear. Another reason is due to my growing understanding of the multiversal system we are subject to. Interconnectivity doesn't seem to care about time, meaning that the future can affect the past (literally). And the last reason, which is subjective, is based on the interconnectivity of matter. Sometimes when I write, I hear responses to my writing as I am doing it. The responses can't possibly be by people reading my writing as I am writing (although it is a possibility that people are watching and reading as I write, I wouldn't blame them for doing so). It seems that the voices in my head are not entirely my own. I'm a strong believer in telepathy and telepathic intemporality. For these reasons, time is non linear. But as for the example of time travel that you've provided, and that I've seen presented multiple times, I'm going to have to stand my position about its fallability. It seems to me that it is a question of longevity rather than time travel. As I said before, the astronauts leave earth at point A which is 30° (in orbit around the sun), they arrive at point B which is 90°. They've only traveled 30°. The earth has also only traveled 30°. There is no difference in the time traveled because for both parties, only 30° have passed before they arrived in the same place. The reason that it is an example of longevity rather than time travel is because the travel was different for the clocks due to the effect of the travel on the energy of the mechanisms being measured. Earth has alot of friction, and space probably has friction too, just alot less of it than here on earth. The reason I say that space is fricative is because when we sent a probe to a comet, we saw that it was "snowing" behind the object. Why should that be the case? If space is not fricative, there should be no draft behind the object for the snow to occur. Given that, the conclusion is that space is fricative, albeit less fricative than here on earth. So because the force of friction is different for the astronauts, there is a noticeable difference in the clocks measurement in space as opposed to here on earth, therefore, it's a question of longevity rather than time travel. Another thing I like to do to help me draw conclusions and maintain my position is this, when in doubt, think about water. If you answer no to any of these questions then your are susceptible to my stance. If you were a deep sea creature, would you know yo were surrounded by water? If yes, would you know the water was surrounded by air? If yes, would you know the air was surrounded by space? It probably goes on.

At the beginning of our universe, which I'm thinking it's actually just our galaxy, there was an impact, something was put to the power of something else, it caused the solidification of our galaxy. But, it turns out that there are wormholes (or folds) in reality, which means that there is another galaxy out there that had the same event (or something similar) and all the same things unfolded (at approximately 11 trillion light years away on average). Well, these similarities turn out to be equalities which explains the spooky nature of interaction. So what happened before the beginning is explained by saying everything................... except! the last reducible unit.

Split. I agree with you about non linear time, byt probably not for the same reasons. The example you provided can be debunked by considering time as a measurement between two points of reference. If we measure time in 360° (earths orbit around the sun), then both the astronauts and the earth could have traveled only 30° or so before they arrived at the same point in space and realized that their method of measuring time was flawed. If the astronauts and the people on earth met st the same point, byt their clocks were different, they are existing in the same now, but their clocks have diverged. It doesn't mean they actually traveled to the future. For engineering purposes, there was essentially no traveling st all. They all ended up in the same place at the same point. My point is that anyone who uses this example and makes a conclusion about time travel is committing a fallacy. Youre talking about longevity and concluding about time travel.

Boy this is quite the conundrum.

I don't get it. I'm thinking if c were max, then it's completely logical that their clocks would be different. They were operating slower. That doesn't mean that they traveled into the future, it means that their clocks diverged from ours due to cmax. All points in space exist now. My prediction is that they technically may have aged slower, but it could also show the opposite if cmax were the case because they might have lost a bit of mass due to friction.

I believe henry stapp suggested that there must be "conscious agents", or some sort of particle or molecule of "awareness". But, I don't believe in consciousness, I think that what we consider to be conscious is only the thought that has been so highly processed and becomes so probable that it is basically unavoidable that it would become audible or visual etc. I still think it's automatic though. Theres just no other logical conclusion from an engineering perspective. Automatic means that it's not free btw. Freedom is phlogiston

No ophiolite, the questions are asked regardless of having the answer. I could google the answer if I knew the right vocabulary. To make a long story short, here is my rough draft for an academic paper on this topic. Please help me revise and edit before I submit it. The leprechauns push on an object at c. The object is continuous depending in it's length, so it's an infinite push (or the closest thing to it), its kinetic energy is strong because of the sheer number of particles, while the kinetic energy of any single zero point in the ray is very small. So under these circumstances, would the leprechauns be applying enough force to create coesite and stishovite? It's a different type of mass.

It captures curves really well. We use it in newtons equations.

0^0=1. This is interesting. Why do we raise to the power of to begin with though? It's not just a mathematical trick, there has to be some physics behind it.

All questions of why aside. We eat. Our food has mass. If we don't eat, we get thin and die. Conclusion, eating is solidifying the mind. When we die, our bodies solidify the planet. It goes on The ultimate conclusion I made is that the mind is 1 dimensional. It's a point of interest. Also, with the business I'm in, humans are explicitly trying to solidify the mind.

Although! There is another possibility... What if it was actually the remnants of something like a gamma ray burst?

Thank you for your input Ophiolite. I see what youre saying and I concede. Thank you for introducing me to minerology.

There is a whole bunch of thought that doesnt reach consciousness, I can safely say that through my experience in language processing (engineering). The reason that the free will doesn't exist in my book is because there is no action that I have performed or had been performed by others that you can definitively say "that wasn't probable" to. All actions can be traced back through a vector of probabilistic actions that ultimately go back to an initial occurrence. For engineering purposes, it's safe to say that a free will doesnt exist, and that is because we would never be able to replicate intelligence assuming anything else.

Forgive me for not reading entirely through yet, but I do see that in the OP you are referencing some, in my opinion, outdated thoughts. You say that the free will doesn't exist, ok I agree, and you say that we are here to survive and replicate (understandable and justifiable hypothesis). This is where I feel that there is a flaw in logic, which you point out later in your post. You mentioned substance abuse and suicide and contributed them to consciousness. I subscribe to the automaticity juggernaut and do want to label consciousness as irrelevant and possibly a category error. I've fought for many years about survival and replication, what are supposed to be our ultimate purposes in life, well as I said and you mentioned, what about suicide and substance abuse? Those don't seem to fall within the speculated purposes. How do you account for them? How do you account for behavior of all things and do so with one phrase? Here it is "Everything is trying to solidify the mind". I won't pollute your mind with the implications of this phrase, but I think it captures it very well. I'm not a believer in teleology without subjectivity and that is why I strongly believe in the solidification of mind hypothesis.

Ok so coesite and stishovite occur under high pressure. An impact of the type I'm talking about would make rock act like water... but not entirely like water. Imagine watching a super solid object impact the ground in front of you at the speed of a bullet and it only has about a 50 foot diameter. It would create a hole in the ground, and if you dug it up, you would probably find the coesite and stishovite beneath the point of impact mostly, maybe very small traces around the parameter. But, if it were going c max, it would completely penetrate the crust and there would be very small traces of these elements. Plus, the magma might melt then or cause them to combust on it's way up. An impact like this probably wouldn't be devastating though. It would be like taking a bullet through the earth.

But if you choose a point in space, any point that had no observable unit, and you put a probability if a unit being there, say 10% chance that there is an atom of hydrogen at that point. G will be influenced because the hydrogen is both there and not there at the same time, so you can observe G wrt earth as approximately .00000000001 at a probability of .1 that it exists at that point, so the gravity from that point has an area if effect on our planet (too small to notice), but then we observe that there is, in fact, a hydrogen atom at that point, then the probability becomes 1 and G gets amplified after observation (approx .000000001 wrt earth). Still barely noticeable, probably unnoticeable, but amplified by observation, but the area of effect would be the same. Plus, your straw manned me because I never said that the mass of the unit would be the probability, just that the probability affects G. I could be wrong, but it coincides with QM. G = P(u|o)*len(u)|len(poi) Simple enough Now for the aoe (area of effect) This one is tricky because the two edges of the length of the unit get infinitesimally close to the center but never absolutely converge, so how do I represent that in math? Aoe= len(space to u)|len(poi)*(len(u)*.9(repeating)) So this should give you a result like this. Given the distance between us and the asteroid, the gravitational influence it has can be pinpointed at (location) at 1/1000 the size of the planet. The gravitational influence at time t is equal to .001 the gravity of earth, and the rotation of the asteroid could cause dust clouds, potentially a tornado at time t that will move in this direction until the object is altered or earth moves out of the spiralling gravitational tension. (hypothetical scenario of use) Through complexity comes clarity.

The prove me wrong part was in regards to everyone else not having a mind. Sry, I let the beast out for a moment. It was fun while it lasted To further respond on what ophiolite said, this time with sincerity, the reason I'm working with the numbers is because 1 swansont prompted me to do so, 2 defining a numerical value was part of the procedure, and 3, if I'm right, the equation could be useful for predicting atmospheric and terramorphic events.