Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The lure of physics raises its fascinating head again

I recently drove a thread about NSA and ECC off-topic, by way of speculating what breakthroughs NSA might have hidden away among its secrets. In the process found my general interest in mathematics, topology and physics re-awakening.

This led me to go out and find yet another paper that suggests Joy Christian's purported refutation of Bell's Theorem is in error, and this time the paper is more general and, it seems to me, powerful than others I have read in the past, especially ones that basically just rely on there being errors in some of Christian's equations. This one instead profers a wide field of error, into which it claims Christian's approach falls.

Meanwhile however the NSA and ECC had already led me into an interesting area of speculation and that speculation might not actually involve locality thus might not really care whether locality is broken or not. Which means for its purpose Bell's theorem might not be particularly interesting.

The thread had led me from the number four, as the four colour theorem, through to octonians, as seemed to be called for by Joy Christian's writings. I already know that quaternions can be used to do a whole bunch of interesting transformations upon three dimensional images and such. In the thread the idea had come to me (from the term 7-sphere) that maybe seven dimensions could be similarly worked with using octonions.

I also had long long long ago some ideas about how one could use a space-sheet or a time-sheet to represent the world, with one being the complement of the other. I don't think I have anymore the paper on which I wrote those ideas and I am fairly sure i never transcribed them into any computer so I think what i recall of them is all that i have left of them now.

The idea though had been that any infinitely tiny slice of time is static, so that we usually need two slices in order to derive notions such as movement and velocity. Part of the enquiry was whether one really does need two slices or whether one instant of time could contain all the information necessary for dynamics - the arrow of time, movement, accelleration and so on - to be derived.

The idea of using a time sheet and a space sheet was, I think, the idea that the space sheet would show all the static "things", and the time sheet would show all the "forces" or whatever it would be that would cause the configurations of those "things" to be changing. It would have things like potential energy depicted on it, for example, if potential energy is not something implicit in the static configuration of the "things". It would show momentum, if momentum is not something implicit in the static "things". It would encode the dynamics.

Possibly one might not need both in order to depict the universe, if one such representation actually implied, in its details, all the information represented in the other.

The off the cuff idea I came up with in the course of the thread, that maybe trying to relate a three dimensional situation to another three dimensional situation through an arrow of time, reminded me of those olden days when i had thought about a space sheet and a timesheet, because I also back then considered to space sheets, that is, two static slices of instantaneous time, and how forces, dynamics, could be cast as basically all the changes needed to get from one moment to another moment.

Another thing I had done long ago was to try some of those clever fractals one can make by iterating affine transformations across points of a space. From that I learned that a general equation or transformation can be applied to points "from outside", it need not be some kind of behavior encoded into the point itself. One can come up with tree-like shapes, for example, without needing a cellular automaton; indeed without any cells at all in a sense. The rules generate the shapes, directly from an empty coordinate-space, without referencing values each point or cell of that space already contains.

So. What I had said in the thread was that maybe taking a three dimensional situation and relating it to another three dimensional situation by means of a one dimensional arrow of time might add up to seven dimensions. Later I have thought "hmm" about that because of course usually when one is relating a past situation to a present or future situation (for example) one has in mind three dimensional situations that are situated in the same three dimensions. So why would one need two sets of three dimensions related by a one-dimensional time? Wouldn't one, rather, want the same three dimensions to contain different situations at different points along a timeline?

Could that be where the idea of four-dimensional spacetime goes wrong? If it does go wrong that is, of course. ;) According to wikipedia there are only four normed division algebras. The quaternions are wonderful for doing transformations of three dimensional space but what about a fourth dimension? If we wanted to do similar things to a four-dimensional space wouldn't we need something a little larger than quaternions? Maybe we would only need what one might term "penternions", that is, arrays/vectors of five numbers? But those are not normed division algebras, it seems. So maybe we need to jump all the way to octonians? Maybe octonians could even be used as some kind of "four dimensional space related to four dimensional transformations"?

What would happen if we used octonians to generate seven-dimensional images similarly to the way we can use quaternions to represent affine transformations which we can use to generate three-dimensional images?

Maybe eight dimensions gives us enough numbers per point to be able to represent each point as not only having a position in three dimensions of space and one of time but also to have a momentum along each of those dimensions?

All this stuff about numbers of dimensions always of course brings back to mind Crowley's "Naples arrangement" (see his "Book of Thoth") in which one point is a point, two is a line, three is area, four is volume, five is time and so on. (Six is a point, located in space and time; seven is the point's idea of bliss; eight is the point's idea of thought; nine is the point's idea of being; ten is the whole thing: the point, with all of the above, and all around it - all the points, the whole shebang, the actual world.) I am now thinking maybe one could use the term "agency" for five, "agent" (or maybe even "self"? but I am second-guessing myself) for six, "motive" for seven, "method" for eight, "behavior" for nine. Or something like that. But enough; Crowley is, after all, not really famous for being much of a physicist nor even mathematician. :)

But back to the number four again. It only takes four colours to colour any two-dimensional map. According to the holographic universe theory all the information about a volume might be able to be represented on its surface, so much so that, for example, the surface of a black hole might contain all the information "inside it"; so much so that it maybe need not even have any inside, just a surface. Do we only need four fundamental forces to "explain" the universe because we only need the surface of a universe in order to code all information about that universe? Is the fact that we have so far only needed four forces to explain the universe basically just the four colour theorem with forces as the colours? That seems like as good a place as any to stop writing and go do some more thinking... ;)

Friday, September 06, 2013

Re http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Heh, been a while.

But paulgraham.com has no comments / contact right now as I learned when wanting to help out by pointing out a seeming typo/error in an essay there other than the one I am about to comment on - or maybe springboard off of - right now.

Which I guess is good, if racking up another blogger post for my inventory of "things I have written" is good. Maybe I am creating wealth by writing. :)

So, about http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Maybe for starters it might be useful to have a mind prepared by having already read http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html - which might even be the article i thought I saw a glitch in, and tried to find a feedback method so as to point out the glitch.

If you really want to score big, the place to focus is the margin of the margin: the territories only recently captured from the insiders. That's where you'll find the juiciest projects still undone, either because they seemed too risky, or simply because there were too few insiders to explore everything.

Maybe people don't always know what they want. Or maybe a huge amount of what a lot of people want is to have errands/chores taken care of for them by someone else so they can do something that is more important to them.

I find myself have to ask myself whether the people who want something want it more than they create wealth?

I mean, like, if errands/chores are a way of avoiding creating wealth how much would I be helping, really, if I provided what they want to people who want errands/chores done? Why are those people even worrying about chores instead of working on the most difficult problems in their field? Maybe errands/chores is in fact their field, and they figure that having me do an errand or chore, or having me create or help create some errand-doing or chore-performing tool seems a promising path toward doing the most difficult errand or chore in their field?

Me I am sitting here with the luxury, the wealth, of time at my disposal. So much so that I am able to finally get back to posting here as part of my still-ongoing work of tackling the hardest problems in one or more fields.

Why has it taken me so long to get back here to do this? Well let me think, oh yeah I remember, there was this errand or chore known as "making money", which the last few years has had me doing most of my writing over at http://bitcointalk.org/ instead of here.

If you have been following my career maybe you remember when I used to write on my own websites, that is, ones I ran on my own servers. Well guess what, some idiot somewhere came up with the idea that servers should cost money, even servers used to run sites such as Makemoney Knotwork, which was itself all about making money. (That bitcoin stuff we talk about over at bitcointalk.org is just another plugin for the fully automatic money maker that Makemoney Knotwork was on about, afterall.)

So yeah I have procrastinated with regard to getting back here to write here. I have also procrastinated with regard to keeping my Knotwork.com and Knotwork.net domains populated with live websites. If you make use of archive.org's "wayback machine" though you should hopefully find that they are hosting the web parts of those two domains very nicely, lets have a big round of thanks for them for taking care of the chore of keeping all those writings of mine online for me, obviating the need for me to maintain webservers at those domains.

The thing is, stocking one's inventory with money is an errand, a chore; it is itself thus a form of procrastination. It is a problem, and it is a problem a lot of people seem to have.

http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html tells us that money is not wealth. So maybe it could be useful to question whether the world would be better off with wealth than with money, or even to ask what ratio of money to wealth would be the most optimal. 100% money but no wealth Paul is telling us is not ideal. how about 100% wealth but no money? How about 99% wealth, 1% money? 90% wealth, 10% money? Etcetera.

I have been working with Open Transactions as well as with Bitcoin. If you look only at bitcoin you might get some idea that money is indeed something you (or a computer, anyway, even if not you yourself personally) can "make". But understand Open Transactions and you'll maybe see that money can in some cases or forms be just a token. A bean that beancounters can use to try to "count" and/or "account" some actual wealth or even some abstraction such as a mathematical result of a function that attempts to derive or determine or measure a common denominator among a set or collection or collection of sets or collection of collections of preferences.

The bitcoin project is an interesting study because it is in a sense at least partially an empirical investigation or test or experiment probing the interface between money and wealth.

But I am going to end this post for now. Maybe it won't be years again until I post again...

-MarkM-

EDIT: Ouch, how the heck do you get a permalink to a post in this blogger thing? How do blog psts get links if people cannot get the platform to tell them a URL that will always point to the specific post they want to link to? Maybe it will be years before I am back, as I cannot even savwe a URL of this post so that I can post links to it that maybe someday will remind me oh yeah I still have a blog...

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Cool Limits on S-C H-A O-S W-E today...

Just saw a very nice issue of "Outer Limits" earlier, inspiring me to log in at Blogger/Blogspot to write... :etcetcetc: ...And eventually here I am back at that tab of that browser-window, wow, is Firefox getting better at ro-busting or are today's roes less determined to shoot down every browser that comes their way?

Hmm, maybe its that they're more canny about which browsers look at them sideways, which Internet Protocol (I.P.; IP) addresses they're not quite so wary of, and stuff like that?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, the short of the long of it has it that "Outer Limits" is on again already, on another channel (Thanks TROP! Hmm, tropism, taxis, praxis, what next?)

Another organics versus inorganics episode! Have the robots in management been infiltrated? Which reminds me...

...Remember when the Borg were equals? Like, before some sick f*** vented "Queens"? Which reminds me...

...Remember when no Changeling had ever harmed another?

Speaking of navels, loose lips, and ships, I may as well throw in a couple of horror stories about loose lips:

Once upon a time I mentioned to someone of an XY persuasion that on the Enterprise, no-one ever has to be alone. His response? "We're not on the Enterprise."

That might not sound surprising, plenty of organic peripherals could well be expected to have still had programming back in those days (it wasn't this millennia) that could lead to such a response. But the specific organic peripheral wasn't one I'd've expected to be that sad a case. Sad. Sad. Sad. :sadsadsad:

Then there was the time I mentioned to someone, possibly of the XX persuasion, that no Changeling ever harms another. The response? I was behind the times. That too wasn't this millenia, most likely. (Does anyone bother remembering what happened in which millenia instead of merely what precededed what? Numerology? Did numerology really work back then? It didn't seem to me to be such a danger then as in this millenia, in which possibly becoming so totally predicted as to have no need for anyone to actually experience it could maybe even happen in some futures... What, that's merely Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? Uh, no, its Obsessive Compulsive Order...

BB
MM

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Trying to upgrade email processing...

Again it has been a long time since I last posted to my blog. Too many things to do, blogger/blogspot had to go on a 'back burner' for a while.

Today I have started trying to process an email account on Yahoo that had hundreds of emails in the inbox dating back quite a while (due to using yahoo for email was on yet another 'back burner').

In the process I came up with a new strategy to attempt. I sorted the inbox by sender, and noticed the sender t the top of the list had only sent me one message. That led me to think hey, someone who waits for a reply before sneding another email might hypothetically not be a spammer. (Understand that the specific yahoo email account I was processing was one I tended to use in contexts in which I figured I might well be setting myself up to get spammed if I gave an email address, and sure enough if there is anything other than spam in that inbox, other than whatever I expected to arrive there today and thus went these to look for, it sure is hard to find amongst the hundreds of items that have many of the hallmarks of the kind of spam I figured I might have been letting myself in for.)

Thus I started to compose a first draught of a "form letter" to be used in future to reply to emails from people from whom I only seem to have received one email but that I cannot find in my files any indication of how exactly they came across my email address, what thread or conversation or whatever we had been engaged in that had led to them sending me that email, maybe even what computer I had been at when I requested that email or why, if I had subscribed to some kind of mailing list, that list had only managed to send me one email instead of whatever regular postings I had subscribed to that list in order to obtain.

Here is what I came up with:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings! Unless Yahoo has deleted or spam-foldered any other emails you have sent me, the email to which I am replying seems to be the only email you have sent to this email account.

I am in the process of reviewing my email processing methodology and hopefully upgrading it in various ways, for example I do not seem to have any record of how exactly it is that we came in email contact initially nor why we settled upon this specific email account as our preferred method of keeping in touch with each other. Do you happen to have such records on file? As I cannot recall precisely when and where I told you to use this specific email address as send-to address when sending this specific category of information/email.

Since I see only the one email from you in my files, I am guessing the email to which I am replying is not a mailing-list message, because if I am on a mailing list I'd expect to see regular posts coming in from the list to which I subscribed. Thus I infer that that either I accidentally got unsubscribed or we were communicating by some means other than email, or by means of some other email account than this one, then for some reason I requested this specific item of information to be sent to this specific email address instead of to whatever address we had hitherto been using in our correspondence.

I am sorry it has taken so long to get back to you on this, unfortunately I got so swamped with spam that it has taken this long for me to come up with the strategy of looking for senders who only sent one message and who therefore are presumably waiting for my response to that message before continuing our conversation/correspondence.

Let us try to pick up the thread and get back to whatever it was exactly that we were trying to achieve.

-MarkM-

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Politics' version of progressive revelations?

Surfing BlogSoldiers I came across this interesting snippet: "It would be strange to see the Libertarian Party advertise themselves as "true democrats" in so-called "Democratic" districts and as "true republicans" in so-called "Republican" districts, but they literally have the right to do so." (See Our Independent Libertarian Spirit.)

~mgm~

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

The crafting of an imposter

I suspect there might be a "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" episode that I haven't seen yet.

I am thinking of a story-arc involving Odo and Kira, which I recall coming to a focus in a cave where Odo could distinguish an imposter from the purportedly-real Kira by the fact that the purportedly-real Kira would never admit to such a thing as loving Odo.

I do not recall any clues in that episode indicating that the audience, or even the author(s), were to be taken as being aware of a mechanism by means of which whatsoever is believed to be true is perceived as true, thus the impression I took from the episode was that the creature Odo was observing was in fact an imposter, rather than its having actually been the purportedly-real Kira up until the moment when his belief that it was not crystalised into the material plane he was experiencing, resulting in the purportedly-real Kira being replaced (possibly by a switch of timeline or something, who knows, there could be many potential mechanisms for such things for all we know, maybe?) by an imposter.

So there you have it, that was the highest point of that arc I recall having seen. The reason I suspect the existence of an episode that I have not seen is that I have since seen more than one episode in which, presumably, Kira has been permanently replaced by some such imposter, as witnessed by the fact that, lo and behold, the creature purported to be Kira expresses expressions that presumably correspond to the kind of expressions Odo had believed, in the cave, the 'real' Kira would not express.

Hmm. I kind of wonder how it came to pass that Odo's timeline changed from one in which the real Kira would not express such things to one in which she would. :)

~mgm~

Monday, May 19, 2008

Then there was the whatsit that used the widjit to do the whajamacallit...

You heard the one about the awards committee that used the slushpiles to sort the candydates, yes?

No! Omagoshin, y'don'tsay?! 'Nuf said then, maybe?

Option: s/candy/candi/ ;)

~mgm~

--
What, me watch Renee and Street trash a health spa whilst writing my blog? Sure. Any reason why not?