The Universe Papers
by Swinton Roof
2. Credits & Historical Perspective
6. Entropy and Universe Algorithm
Universe Papers is a free-floating ongoing discussion of what shall be called the universe algorithm. The premise is that the universe operates according to a grand principle which can actually be talked about if not explicitly proven. The great underlying theme is that meta-systems recursively modify each other producing an integrated self-organizing whole which manifests on all levels ranging from software to hardware. Software is inherently subjective, abstract, and intelligent. Hardware is inherently object oriented, physical, and law abiding.
Alan Turing demonstrated in the 1940s that hardware and software can and do meet. Their union occurs as fact in the ubiquitous modern computer. Goedel and Hilbert were mathematicians along with Shannon & Weaver who developed the possibilities and limits of computation. Information as both description and causal agent has become commonplace today. What has been missing is the realization that this modern development is but part of the same ongoing process in Universe which has evolved from the very beginnings of space & time into the current immensely complex world of life and consciousness. It is hoped that these talks will inspire a study into the origins and meaning of consciousness itself, but the main focus for now will be on elementary process and evolution.
Apologies to the reader:
These papers will most certainly be dense and obtuse to some readers. The terminology may seem vague or unusual. After years of discussion, analysis, and synthesis my associates and I have integrated terminology and ideas scavenged from a myriad of cutting edge technologies and authors. The concepts are sometimes difficult to convey as they cut across disciplines as well as levels of meaning. It is hoped that a certain amount of repetition by saying the same thing over and over again in different ways and in different contexts will provide the reader with the main thrust of these papers. Conclusions proffered in this paper are not necessarily scientifically rigorous but at the minimum they might possibly be provocative and even inspiring.
...rasputin11
pseudonym for Swinton Roof
April 23, 2000
CREDITS AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
Most of my ideas have emerged from conversations with Deric Morris, Eldon New, Ernie McCraken and others involved with Metaphysics Anonymous. Deric Morris can be considered the prime architect of this new way of thinking. Deric has compressed these ideas into a form so terse and succinct that most people cannot make sense of it however. When reading his skeleton key of universe algorithm it is sort of like looking at Schroedenger's quantum wave equation for the first time. I have attempted to expound on his basic thesis with some additions of my own (esp. the compression nexus concept). I have been told by initial readers that my writing is not a whole lot better. This testifies I think both to the simplicity and the complexity of these concepts. A whole lot of peripheral reading in many subjects is probably a pre-requisite for fully appreciating the breadth and depth of the ideas. I do believe though that one comes away from a superficial reading with the basic picture. Understanding can occur only over time as the process unfolds on its own.
Below is a historical list of general ideas I became exposed to over time. They all contribute to the Universe papers in one way or another.
1. Excluded Middle (1964-68) - Life is not black & white. Polarities don't balance. Yin & Yang transform each other. Crack in the Cosmic Egg. The end of identification. Awareness of levels of abstraction. Man enters space. East meets west.
2. Expansion of Consciousness (1968-78)- From existentialism to yoga, the journey of consciousness. The long strange trip. All is one. Unity.Schroedenger's Cat is let out of the bag.
3. Geodesics & Logistics (1975-80) - The forces and structures of nature conform to geometric principles of parsimony. Building a new temple. Celebration of unity. New Age communion. MorpUniverseenic resonance.
4. Recursion & Fractals (1980-85) - The process endlessly enfolds upon itself and rebirths to new levels. Bifurcation into self-similar diversity. Monstrous complexity.
5. Cognitive Metaphor (1985-90) - Computers & Internet establish a new paradigm. Information theory and connectivity. Neural nets & distributed processing. Global brain begins to awaken.
6. Nanotechnology (1990-92) - The floor drops away into room at the bottom. Cognitive metaphor begins to recurse to lower levels. Total reassessment of limits of physical reality required. The next millenium begins to throw shadows.
6. Semantics & Memes (1990-95)- Issues of meaning and communication dominate. Wharf & Korzibsky. Reshuffling of kerasses. Excluded middle rears its head again. Opinions diverge. Cultural relativity. Evolution & Religion at odds.
7. Self-organizing systems & Chaos Theory (1995-2000) - All is flux. Groups dissolve into chaos but Attractors still accrete. Evolution becomes a major issue for all complex systems.
8. Universe Algorithm (2000-?) - Randomness, emergent order, enformy, metalevel recursion between software and hardware, nested levels. Compression-expansion codec, bridge from quantum to macro. Goedel & Exclusion Principle. Origins of space- time. Local vs. non-local and private vs. public keys to universe algorithm. All the above concepts begin falling into place. Encryption & security become social issues. Global regulatory systems emerge.
S.A.Roof
The
Universe Papers
by S.A.R., March 11, 2000
Issue 1 of the Universe Papers
"When confronted with that which one cannot change or know the outcome of, one learns the necessity of virtue and the virtue of necessity."... B.D.Morris as paraphrased by S.A.Roof.
This paper was inspired by a series of talks Eldon New (Captain Nemo) and I had concerning evolution, religion, and science. Our discussion culminated in a lively sharing of ideas when B.D.Morris (Colonel Kurtz) joined us at Dennis the Dreamer's estate in Shelby Forrest. The setting of nature and Dennis' wonderful stone sculptures was idyllic. As a background to our discussions we listened to the sounds of Santana and "The Division Bell" by Pink Floyd.
Nemo began the discussion with his concept of the world's religions nested logically within each other like Chinese balls with the more primitive central layers archetypically encompassing all the outer ones. Similarly evolution seems to begin with primitive order that variegates into the diverse speciation of the phylatic tree of life.
Before continuing with the details of our discussion, however, I wish to first digress into some thoughts I have had recently about such matters. I began ruminating about the great thinkers of evolution after reading "The Third Culture" by (?). I noticed that many of their arguments were a result of ideas coming from different levels and approaches. My own reductionist tendency led me to ponder the very beginnings of space-time and what general organizing principles might allow evolution to proceed and cohere on all levels. Here are some of my thoughts prior to our night at the retreat.
I reasoned that the most primal unifying force is gravity. It ties together all matter across incredible distances into one attractive universe. Without any other influences the universe would collapse into one mammoth black hole singularity. There had to be another prime principle that created distinctions, a separative principle. The ideal candidate appeared to be the Pauli Exclusion Principle of physics. Simply put, no two things can occupy the same space at the same time. Indeed one can philosophize that this is the essential nature of space i.e. space is the relation between objects which are separated by space of course. This principle hints as to why electrons are organized around atomic nuclei into discrete shells and why electron shells are populated by oppositely paired quantum spins.
Once one has reached this level of organization, the entire body of chemistry can be formulated. I do not have a sufficient understanding of particle physics to talk about the origins of subatomic particles other than to say that quantum fluctuations and virtual particle pairs probably interact via the exclusion principle to organize pure energy into masses which interact. The total mass energy of the universe appears to be perfectly balanced by the total negative gravitational energy.
A short while later I read a paper recommend by DeWayne Lafrain. It was titled "Pregeometric Modeling of the SpaceTime Phenomenology" by Cahill & Klinger. The authors attempt to develop a Heraclitean Quantum System with no classical structures in its axioms. They use an algebra of random fluxes to study the relations between virtual interaction nodes. A spatial metric emerges naturally from this pre-geometric formulation. I was thrilled to note that the authors stated that an assumed intrinsic property of their algebra was an abstract form of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This affirmed my initial intuitions about the beginnings of the all. This property is realized in their algebra as the anti-commuting property ( AB = -BA ).
I believe the math of quantum physics is rife with expressions which don't commute. Sequence order is an essential feature of Universe. This suggests a philosophical speculation about the role of time and entropy also. Eldon and I had previously discussed the above paper with regard to Goedel's Theorem. My interpretation of Goedel's Theorem is that with any propositional symbolic system complex enough to be extensible, there can exist theorems which are true but unprovable. Myself and others have taken this to imply that holes exist in any system of thought. Eldon and I extend this to suggest that the landscape of logic extends to infinity with many differing islands of thought which may contradict each other and still be true.
This is the point at which I interrupted my reverie that night and stepped into the conversation. I pointed out that the logical landscape is divided into four domains - the known, the unknown, the knowable, and the unknowable. The knowable and the unknowable are antipodes within the domain of the unknown. The known is an island within an infinite sea of the unknown. It is the core upon which those interpenetrating balls of belief reach out into the unknown differentiating as they shape the knowable into the known. To this I added that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is in essence the principle of the excluded middle - Aristotelian logic i.e. A != ~A.
Might not this be at the heart of quantization in nature. The knowable fractured by sheaths of the unknowable become realized as the known. The unknowable manifesting via time injects an inherent uncertainty into all quantum interactions. The whole must be fractal structured down to the tiniest quanta as a frothy process. Its Goedels all the way! Not all of the above was explicitly said that night, but my mind was racing with these thoughts amidst multiple simultaneous conversations as is our style at times.
Dennis the Dreamer was keeping it real with translations of what we said into human terms and talk about interpersonal relationships. Division Bells by Pink Floyd was a particularly synchronous input from Deric. I next mentioned that the pre-geometric modeling concept with metric space as an emergent order reminded me of Stuart Kauffman's work with random networks that evolve into islands of order amidst chaos. Kauffman argues that life and evolution flourishes on the outside edge between order and chaos. This seems to be the link I was searching for between Big Bang Theory and Evolution. One of the inner balls in Nemo's Big T.O.E. theory. Colonel Kurtz interjected that that's what he'd been talking about since when! Nemo and I had to agree.
Kurtz also suggested that the four dimensions of space-time were the four domains of the logical landscape. At least that what I think he said. Nemo and I both went silent as we pondered the ramifications. Deric has formulated so many of these ideas in compressed nuggets that we seem to always be rediscovering them at different times in different ways. Deric also reminded us to re-read his paper "The Blind Watchmaker's Braille". I am quite sure I have left out much of what we said that night. Hopefully the rest of the gang can fill in the rest. S.A.R.
Issue 2 of the Universe Papers
by S.A.R. 3-13-00
"The map is not the territory ... or is it?" ... Rasputin11
Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem continues to provide insights into how man's relationship to the unknown is structured. Sequential logic is deterministic, yet we now know that any symbolic system has at least one gap in its coverage of truth. Let us entertain the possibility that there is in fact an infinity of gaps that open up as the system is expanded into ever more complex propositions. Not only is any system incomplete, but incomplete in an expanding fashion. We shall explore the nature of this possibility.
What is meant by "the map is not the territory"? Semiotics looks at the symbol and the thing it represents. The two are obviously not the same thing. Just as a map of Memphis is not the real city Memphis, likewise the word 'apple' is not the apple you eat. Things are not quite that simple with propositional symbolic systems, however. The symbols represent abstract entities with no real territory except Hilbert Space. Consider the system called arithmetic.
One can say that the number symbols represent real numbers as their territory, but closer examination reveals that those so-called real numbers are defined by the arithmetic system itself. One might argue for Platonic Ideals, but that is really missing the point that any truths revealed by the system are inherent in the system itself. Now consider the scientist's world of physical atoms and chemistry. Physicists use symbols like H,O,p,e,and n to represent atoms and the subatomic particles they are constructed of. In this case the symbols represent real physical entities that can be measured and observed, albeit in an indirect fashion. There is a physical territory although it is somewhat tenuous in definition. In fact, entities at this level of reality are very close to being purely symbolic.
Sub-atomic entities cannot be directly observed by our senses. Physics tells us that any quantum particle is completely defined by its unique set of quantum numbers and space-time parameters. Using symbolic systems (such as QCD or QED) we can capture the total accessible reality of any particle in principle. The downside of this is that correlated space-time parameter pairs ( i.e. position vs. momentum ) become indeterministic with respect to each other ala the Uncertainty Principle. This is the rub. Macroscopic measurements cannot capture the total truth of the system. This sounds a lot like Incompleteness.
Let's look at the situation a little more closely. I imagine that it is possible to formalize chemistry into a simple symbolic system using sub-atomic particles and their properties as premises. For example p[] + e[] = n and p[] + e[] = H[]. P and e are proton and electron; n is neutron; and H is hydrogen atom. The brackets are inserted to indicate that a set of quantum state numbers are embedded in the algebra that determine the propositonal logic. Informally one might note that n was just H[0,,,]. H[1,,,] might indicate the hydrogen atom in its ground state. The system might require an algebra of groups or some sort of similar formulation, but the important thing to note is that chemists use this algebra daily without being extreme mathematicians. They simply have built up a large body of truthful propositions by experiment. They have found that H + H = H2 or hydrogen gas. H2 + O = H2O or water. Physics has clarified why these reactions work in the logical and orderly way that they do via electron shells and pair bonding. Indeed it has been discovered that the logic is determined pretty much only by the outer electron shell of each atom.
My assertion that in principle we could build a formal 'off-the-shelf' algorithm for solving such equations leads to interesting conclusions. Chemists have found that answers are easy for simple molecules (i.e. propositions). If the energy factors (space-time parameters) are sufficient, bonding will occur in a completely mechanical fashion. This is the basic premise of nano-technology. As the chemical propositions become more complex, however, things are less certain. Propositions that are bond-to-bond decidable become uncertain en masse. There are several reasons for this. It seems to me that the uncertainties creep in via space-time parameterization. Quantum physics tells us that this must be so, but we are already at a higher level symbolically than the simple propositions that were based on the starting premises and which we know to be certain. So what's going on? Part of the problem is just plain complexity. Mathematical complexity overwhelms one at some point and one begs for higher more powerful symbolic tools. This comes at a price though. One looses a certain fineness or granularity of concept when one jumps to higher levels. Another way to look at the situation is spatially.
The proposition H + H = H2 is one-dimensional. It matters not the least how the two hydrogen atoms orient in space so long as they come within some linear distance of each other. Now H2O (water) is a bit more complex. It is 2-dimensional because three points determine a plane. The atoms themselves have 3-dimensional extent but the proposition conveys only a two-dimensional truth about their bonding relationship. Ammonia ( NH3 ) is a 4-dimensional proposition which in actuality is very close to a tetrahedron. The spatial nature of chemical propositions goes off the map when one gets into hydrocarbons and proteins with thousands or millions of elements. Bond rotation, cyclic sharing, and folding introduce complexification that just cannot be propositionaly decided.
Herein is where Goedel's Theorem rears its head. At what point does the symbolic system itself collapse into froth regardless of what the real 'territory' is doing? With the Incompleteness Theorem, decidability is the issue, uncertainty is the outcome. Yet truths are still capable of being expressed whether by speculation, intuition, or boilerplate experiment. Context is the key. Outside factors enter the system and affect the outcome. All non-degenerate propositional systems are inherently open even if unbounded. Another way of saying this is that no propositional system can be allspace-filling in Hilbert Space.
The above considerations lead me to suggest that quasi-periodic tilings of Hilbert Space may be possible in a limited way. Say one has a system and expands its propositions into real complexity. Logical gaps begin to open up with undecidable propositions at increasing frequency. Now say one reformulates a new system that overlaps with the undecidable propositions and captures the truth or falsity of their embodiment. One might thus create a tiling of individual systems that together throw a net over some region. Individual nuggets of truth might still escape, but one would still gain a certain hedge against uncertainty.
I muse now that a complete deterministic theoretical bridge from quantum reality to macroscopic reality may in principle be impossible. This is not to say that an engineering workaround is impossible. Continuous adaptive rearrangement of Hilbert tilings might be a description of how intuition works. Mixing metaphors may even be a specialized tool for apprehending truth. Faith may have a place in this dynamic of possibilities also. It may even be said that the brain itself works in this fashion. Neural nets use distributive processing to solve problems that can be represented symbolically only with extreme difficulty. Is not distributive processing in effect able to span the Goedel holes in linear logic systems by virtue of its distributed-across-space nature. Might not some future math embody such ideas? An interesting aspect of such distributive processing is that it can be imprecise yet robust and convergent. Recursive feedback allows dynamics that are computationally undecidable yet which are able to grasp higher-dimensional truths.
"Just because I wear rose
colored glasses and look through a glass darkly doesn't mean I
can't see the log in YOUR eye!"
... Rasputin11
Issue 3 of the Universe Papers
"A little bit of subspace is the existential quantifier" ... Rasputin11
Issue 2 discussed the Incompleteness Theorem as it may apply to physical systems at the finest degrees of spatial resolution. Hint was given of a possible pre-geometric modeling of space. The anti-commutative or exclusion property of a symbolic algebra system was proposed as representative of how space divides itself into itself via virtual node relations. Frothy quantum space was implicated as an emergent property of this new subspace theory. Issue 3 looks at this concept from an information point of view.
An ultimate expression of the Exclusion Principle might be A != ~A i.e. That which is, is not equal to that which it is not. The 'not' includes a lot of territory - the rest of the universe so to speak. Information theory is based on the 'bit', the smallest unit of information. A bit is either on or off. Anything else is undetermined or uncertain. If B = ON then ~B = OFF. B != ~B. This gives us a segue into information theory and its implications for space-time phenomena. Being the smallest bit of 'isness' qualifies the bit as the existential quantifier.
Now how big is a bit if it is the smallest unit? Well, that is a spatial question and actually so far, we have mentioned the bit only in a semiotic or symbolic context as the smallest unit of information. Information in this context is defined by some coding scheme which translates some semantic response or meaningful process representationaly into a series of on-off bits. Knowing the coding keys gives one how many bits it takes to represent some message or amount of information. Consider the ASCII code. Eight bits represent all the letters of the alphabet plus some - 256 characters in all. The number of possible messages that can be encoded is given by 2 to the power of the number of bits used. 2^8 = 256.
This is the defining method for quantifying information. This still doesn't answer the 'how big?' question though. How big is a book? It depends. We can extract the entire meaningful contents of a book and encode it into binary digits or bits. The size of the book will then reduced to the space it takes to record those bits. If recorded on a CD then the size of a bit depends on the size of the laser beam used to spot weld the surface of the disc. The size of a bit on a computer chip depends on the size of the smallest transistor that can be etched on a silicon wafer. What we are talking about here is the process of representation - making a real extant example of an abstract quantity called the bit. It becomes immediately obvious that the size of a bit depends on the physical encoding process.
The spatial question thus has no simple easy answer. There is a lower limit however on the physical size of a bit - it is the limiting quantum nature of physical space itself. Plank's quantum is thus seen to be the physical analog of a bit of information. The encoding may be in a physical substrate, an electrical field, or even electromagnetic radiation, but the lower limit on size is set by the Planck Limit of physics.
Now let's explore the suggestion in Issue 2 of the Universe Papers that quantum physics pushes physical reality to a very near purely symbolic level. This allows application of Goedel's Theorem. Grasping this idea one can see that an informal information-centric view leads to the concept of ultimate physical reality as binary information. Quantum numbers represent the total intrinsic properties of sub-atomic particles. Their information content or bits can in principle be specified. The catch is that no real physical experiments or measurements can be made without translating to the level of macroscopic physics where local space-time parameters mediate a prescribed amount of uncertainty into the results. It appears that we know the number of bits or amount of information but it is encoded in a scheme that decrypts into uncertain but readable amounts of information on the macroscale. Quantum numbers seem to be an information cryption key to some compression algorithm.
Consider an analogy with computer software. It is possible to construct a compression algorithm which takes a given amount of information and compresses it into fewer bits by removing redundancies. Now imagine it is a 'lossy' algorithm. Expansion gives back an approximate version of the original but not an exact copy. The process depends on a code key plus the algorithm. The code key is the original compressed data bits. Now imagine that we label the compressed code as a 'private key' and invent a 'public key' whose data bits provide a randomized set of bits to fill in the holes produced by the lossy algorithm. Every time we run this algorithm on the private key we get a novel representation of the original assuming we change our public key each time. The process is completely deterministic, but an observer would see random variations on a theme. Note that the private key and the algorithm are constant or fixed. All that changes is the public key.
Now let us apply this analogy to a quantum system. The quantum numbers of a particle are represented by the private key. Local space-time parameters are the public key. Expansion by the algorithm into a measurable event yields a particle interaction that is governed by the uncertainty principle. We can vary the space-time parameters but the results will only be law abiding in a statistical sense. God apparently IS playing dice, but in a very controlled sort of way. This makes some sort of sense in the light of this analogy, but where is the algorithm? God? I think not; not yet anyway. Returning to the computer side of the analogy, the algorithm is just another string of bits on a level equal to the private and public code keys. It is just a third key - call it the 'universal key'. But how does it do its thing?
On a computer the chip clock is the initiator or all action cycles. Electrical pulses produce forces that cascade through the computer bit switches flipping bits on and off. From the first tick of the clock real forces move real energy but it's completely determined by the binary logic of the bits. I propose that the motivator of my quantum algorithm is nothing more than the expansion of space itself - Hoyle's expansion of the universe. Ok, that's nice, but where's the algorithm itself. Well, what about the absolute dimensionless cosmological constants of nature that so far have been only anthropomorphized into meaning. The actual laws of physics themselves must constitute the body of the algorithm while the constants represent global parameters that give a signature to the original construction of the algorithm.
By applying a little willful suspension of disbelief we can now turn on our algorithm and watch it in action. The big bang starts it all. A subspace decoding of the original private-universal-public key produces an initial explosive expansion into real space-time. The corollary effect is the creation of negative gravitational energy. Gravity is the algorithm running in reverse as compression. Meta-level recursion of the algorithm acting forward and backwards on public space-time keys and private sub-space keys leads to the creation of sub-atomic particles. The rest is history.
The quantum keys mediated via the space-time keys prescribe particle forces. Time is mediated by the extant rate of expansion. Randomness and uncertainty are built in as the existential quantifiers of change mapping the translation from compressed intentional essence into the allowable possibilities of extension. Historical evolution gives a large-scale world full of lawful pattern and beauty but constantly renewing itself with novelty. Truths step out into the light of day but no expression of truth will ever be complete so this issue must end.
" God doesn't play dice; He plays roulette!" ... Rasputin11
postscript:
The astute philosopher will probably rankle at the above filly-folly.
A major question is whether randomness can be deterministically
be built in. If it is, a way to defeat the uncertainty principle
might exist. This question is so vexing that another issue of the
Universe Papers might be required.
Entropy and the Universe Algorithm
Issue 4 of the Universe Papers
S.A.R 3-23-2000
"The chaos-order-reorganizer probably won't hurt you but it hasn't been tested yet." ... Kid Blue as paraphrased by rasputin11
Suggestion: Just plow right on through the first paragraph. Succeeding paragraphs will be more explanatory and easily read.
This paper continues with the discussion of the universal compression-expansion codec as it relates to order and entropy in nature. Gravity is seen as the prime organizing principle operating in conjunction with the exclusion principle on all levels to produce emergent order in the universe. The natural tendency of nature to sort itself into levels of organization is the premise behind the metalevel recursion concept. Information or software rules the fundamental levels of organization. This is the implicit, discrete, and non-local aspect of universe. This is the platonic god realm if you choose a literary interpretation, or quantum physics if you choose a scientific symbolic representation. Expansion of the universe then creates hard but randomized exteriorizations of this implicit order. Local space-time parameters operate on the above implicit levels to produce a macroscopic continuum of explicit, local hardware representations or physical reality.
Enformy is the temporal recursion of these levels mutually operating on each other and informing each other. Implicit attractors are the result of this mutual enfolding relationship. Order accretes to these attractors by synchrony in time. This establishes causality. The Principle of Superposition establishes a bridge between discrete atemporal information and the infinite processing of possibilities in time. The resultant is described by the term synchrony and establishes the foundations for force laws, motion, and energy. Mass and inertia are diagnostic of local entrainment of light-speed force interactions in attractor orbits. These entrainments present a set of constraints or space-time operating parameters which shape the infinite realm of possibilities into local probabilities which become eventful actualities.
Now that we have restated the universe algorithm, let's return to the analogy of a computer program that compresses files. This will give insight into the concepts of entropy, order, probability etc. After we gain an idea of how these ideas inter-relate we will discuss a few real world examples of the process in action. Three examples - the earth, a tree, and a human being will provide a sufficient range of examples to allow the reader to extend these concepts to just about any thing he desires. Remember it is the universe algorithm we're talking about so that covers a lot of territory.
The simplest type of software compression is called run length encoding or RLE. This consists of removing all the spaces and replacing sequential runs of the same character or symbol with a shorthand for how many copies of the same were in the run. A symbol table with the symbols and how many in each run and where they are located results in an overall shorter file. The space and some of the redundancies has been removed. This type of compression is very analogous to how gravity packs everything on the surface of the earth. Everything attracts to a minimum size with as much space removed as possible. Likewise similar elements adhere to each other into contiguous runs of the same type - earth, metal, water, air. This type of compression directly corresponds to the first stage of gravity compression operating within universe.
The next type of compression is more subtle and requires use of fundamental relationships beyond simple removal of space and superficial redundancy. This type of compression encoding is called Huffman encoding. It sorts symbols by frequency and removes space by progressively encoding the descriptions with variable sized indexing. The first indexes into a table require fewer information bits to encode so the most frequent symbols are encoded first and the less frequent last. This is probability encoding. Encoding a message stream on the basis of probability takes less space-time. Periodic messages will be perfectly predictable and highly compressible. Random messages will not compress well at all because frequency sorting does no good at all. Each symbol has an equal frequency or probability of occurring. Huffman encoding employs an abstract meta-level system to remove probabilistic redundancies and produces a different level of organization from RLE. Analogously, gravity sorts mass events by frequency also. The inner planets of the solar system pass reference points in their orbits more frequently than do the outer planets. The probability of encountering a mass event is greater near the center of a gravitational well that at its periphery.
Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. Mathematically it is represented by the log of the ways a system can be arranged. A highly random or disordered system has lots of equally possible arrangements. Ordered systems have arrangements that are more probable than others. The system is constrained to fewer possibilities hence it is described as having a lower entropy when those probabilities become actualities. Another way of looking at it is that if one superimposes all possible arrangements the most probable will group together in an ordered system to present one fuzzy but ordered whole. It's like looking at a stack of photographic film overlays where each overlay represents a particular possible arrangement of the system. An ordered system will have a particular focused image. A set of random high entropy overlays will present no particular image at all.
To continue our analogy then, gravity as the prime organizing principle orders mass and lowers the local entropy. Expansion of the universe raises the entropy or randomness on a global scale. In addition the Exclusion Principle places constraints on local systems too, so it acting with gravity is instrumental in producing order because constraints reduce the allowed number of possible arrangements. An atom with electron shells is a good example to look at. In a sense electron shells are binary. Electrons can have an either spin-up or spin-down quantum state. Now the most probable arrangement for an atom is called the ground state. For the simplest atom (hydrogen) the ground state shell is called the s-shell. It can hold two and only two electrons. Actually for hydrogen it only holds one electron because there aren't enough protons to hold an additional electron against the other electron's repulsion. This is an additional restraint on that particular system. In more complex systems though the s-shell is the lowest most closest shell and can hold only two electrons - one with spin-up and one with spin-down. This is the classic expression of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This ordered pairing of electrons goes on throughout all the outer shells and ultimately is responsible for the chemical properties of all the elements.
The purpose of the above physics lesson is to point out that there is a binary space-filling process at work which is quantized with more simple orderly and most-probable arrangements at the center. This is very reminiscent of our discussion of Huffman compression encoding. Another thing to note is that spheres are the most parsimonious geodesic in nature for containing the most amount of volume with the least amount of surface area. Electron quantum waves plot the most probable locations as surface shells with the inner shells being the most probable surfaces to constrain the electrons. At this level, electrical force attraction between proton and electron performs the same function as gravity in that it is the compressive tendency. The exclusion principle orders the net system by placing space-time constraints on the possible arrangements. This is an anti-entropic principle of nature. It has mostly remained hidden from physics thought because attention has been focused on the entropic arrangements of macroscopic systems.
Gravity at large drives large-scale systems into conflict and disorganization. This superficial aspects of macro-scale gravity tends to hide the fundamental organizing principle at work. The ultimate end to all such systems will be a higher degree of organization. Of course the global expansion of universe itself is even more ultimate and may override the syntropic effect of gravity. This issue remains to be resolved. It depends logically or mathematically on whether the universe is closed or open. In a closed system, chaos or disorder will ultimately triumph. There is a paradoxical element to this discussion when one gets into singularities, so I won't go there. Goedel says this must be so.
Quantization is another method of algorithmic compression that uses a reduced set of quantized values to represent a range of values. Upon expansion, various methods of interpolation based on entropic or probability models then fill in the holes. This model neatly fits with the electron shell quantization model also. More probable states are discretely quantized toward the center where less space is involved. Higher energy shells eventually blend into a continuum of energy modes as they expand outward from the nucleus. The degree of randomness or entropy is a function of space-time parameters. The net quantum model is a fuzzy superposition of all these possibilities constrained by the set of fixed quantum rules. constraints.
Further work needs to be done on the relation between Goedel's Theorem, uncertainty, and the Exclusion Principle especially with regard to mathematical singularities. That is beyond the scope of this issue #4.
Now, finally let us proceed to the three examples promised - the earth, a tree, and a person. Consider the earth. There is a spherical core composed of dense nickel-iron in a relatively ordered state highly compressed with few possible arrangements. Next there is a shell called the mantle composed of various metals but mostly silicon in all sorts of mixtures which circulate in a fluid state transferring energy from the core to the outer crust. Finally the outer crust is in a state of upheaval and continuous recomposition of all sorts of chemical compositions and structures. Features emerge as like coalesces to like via synchronous affinity. Organization is emergent at the surface as mountains present an excluded middle to weather systems and oceans of water compress from the skies under the influence of gravity. The crust is in a sense more disordered than the core, but a meta-level of organization occurs as it becomes the interface between the discrete quantized inner system and the randomizing space-time parameters from outside the earth.
Impacts from outer space terraformed the earth millions of years ago. cycles of season and solar influence pumped randomizing energy into the system but in a quasi-periodic fashion. Metalevel recursion sorted elements and compounds into chemical cycles which continue today. These cycles formed the necessary exclusion constraints for life to evolve on the surface. This points out another aspect to the universe algorithm. The interface between the implicit rule governed order of the interior compressed system and the randomizing expansive impacts from outside the system forms the basic crucible for self-organizing systems to emerge.
Possible arrangements of implicit rule-governed formative agents provides the test-bed of attractors upon which order accretes. Small changes in initial conditions leads to divergent cycles and exploration of possible states or arrangements. Cycles which synchronize interact and coalesce into more probable patterns over time. These patterns are fractal because recursion in a gravity space-time system implies self-similarities of spatial shrinkage and expansion. This is a mathematical consequence of the space invariance of natural laws.
Now consider a higher level of organization - a tree. Trees are immanently fractal. Their entire growth process is a recursive flow inward from the roots and outward to the leaves and backward again. Growth is an expansion of possible arrangements of branches and leaves subject to the rule-based constraints of the implicit genetic informational order implicit within. It is also subject to constraints and randomizing elements of outside space-time influences like weather, rocks, other trees etc. so that two genetically identical trees will grow somewhat different. The body of the tree exists as fractal interface between these two domains which are metalevel different.
Order is discrete and non-local within. Random expansion within constraints produces organization which is self ordering through fractal recursion. The rule-based order within is considered implicit and non-local because relative to the total tree interface, genetic information while discrete and centered within cell nuclei is non-the-less dispersed throughout and has non-local effects. The centered order at a cellular nuclear level is a whole other level for discussion. It too is subject to the same fractal compression of the universe algorithm.
Where is the orderly compression for the tree as a whole however?Well in the seeds of course. Within each seed is a small compressed version of the whole tree complete with its own genetic rule set. This rule set is similar to a Huffman code for all the possible symbols and their probabilities of expression rolled into a complete instruction set for expanding a full sized tree. Just add water (space-time parameters that fall into the realm of constrained possibilities that will allow growth). Metalevel recursion forms a historical branching tree of trees that lives, grows, dies, and evolves. The whole is universe algorithm as process and has to be visualized as the organization behind evolution.
Natural selection is part of the constraints introduced by the randomizing space-time factors. The interface between these two meta-level domains is where the organizing principles of contraction and expansion operate and produce organized systems which cohere yet evolve over time. Implicit exclusion restraints produce emergent divergence of forms which are then selected explicitly by space-time parameters. Probabilities emerge and local entropies decrease while complexity increases overall. Complexity is organized order or meta-level order. Entropy is relative to the particular level or system loosely considered as a whole.
Then comes the human example. We will treat this example at a deliberately abstract level to show how one can find the universe algorithm to be operative on all levels. A tree's form exquisitely portrays its fractal interface but it is immobile. A human's form, likewise is bifurcative to a lesser degree, but its main expression of interface is behavioral i.e. expressed via movement. According to Chomsky, human's appear to be born with an implicit structural blueprint for language. Even if not so, almost all people eventually acquire language hence an internal rule set for processing reality. This rule set enables behavioral decisions to be made and recorded symbolically.
Behavior in situ becomes an actualized space-time expansion of discrete non-local internal states and displays probabilistic or anti-entropic characteristics. As a person grows behavior evolves from stimulus response to instinct to personality to character to wisdom etc. Results of actualized responses enfold inward and shape the internal representations in an ongoing recursive process. Personal expressions tend to diverge into various temperaments such as artistic, musical, scientific etc. but there is a creative process which continuously reorganizes the interface between inner and outer experience. From tool making to symbol making, man has evolved into the seemingly highest version of the universe algorithm operating on all levels from the physical to the sublime.
Issue 5 of the Universe Papers
3-26-2000
"Once Evolution is understood, all else is history" ... rasputin11
The current state of affairs within a system in Universe is the end result of the universe algorithm acting over time since the 'big bang'. Implicitly ordered within are the seeds of all future evolution. This state can be represented by the intersection in phase space of all instantiated lightcones which intersect with that system's own lightcone. This intersection is the interface between past and future. Both past and future become increasingly uncertain and unknowable when observed from this interface. For every living being, the past is encoded by universe algorithm into a genetic record which although instantiated in local nuclear hardware is non the less a discrete non-local akashic branch of the tree of life leading up to that organism. This genetic record is a compressed piece of software which when uncompressed (given suitable space-time parameters for instantiation to occur) will recapitulate the whole evolutionary journey along that branch leading up to that organism, becoming more specific and personalized as the organism develops.
Primitive single cell organisms form the trunk of the akashic software tree. Some branches terminate in phase space but the trunk continues on. In fact, the ponderate mass of this abstract tree at any level is focused on these basic organisms. From the viewpoint of local space-time hardware, the tree is a pyramid of organisms with the simplest at the bottom contributing the preponderance of mass. Sexual organisms residing at any particular temporal interface on the tree are the nexus between a branching dual-lineage of ancestors and a n-tuple branching of offspring. The entire akashic tree is a fractal intersection of individual lineage cones which lie within the much broader light cones of relativity.
From the local hardware viewpoint any temporal plane intersecting the tree reveals the flora and fauna populations of that epoch. Universe algorithm acting through each local organism's interface operates on all levels of system organization to produce compressed encoding(s) of that organism. These software encodings are instantiated as the genetic seeds of reproduction. Reproduction is the algorithmic expansion of these software encodings into individual hardware representations. Space-time parameters both randomize and constrain the encodings and decodings into totally unique akashic cones.
Birth and death can be seen as local hardware entrainment cycles about attractors. As a localized instantiated encoding becomes expanded, any appropriate and available physical structures of chemistry are entrained into life process cycles within the developing organism. The software seed becomes clothed in hardware and multiplies as the organism grows. Internally this seed becomes the implicit non-local organizer of the organism's growth. At the total organism system level it can be viewed as non-local software. At the point or moment of replication it is continuous local hardware operating within space-time parameters. As the organism grows, the space-time parameters randomize and constrain the development such that clone seeds which are identical instantiated software compressions, none the less expand into somewhat different individuals.
Death is the loss of cohesive entrainment of the life process cycles. If reproduction was successful the akashic tree maintains the continuity of that particular thread. Otherwise that twig of the forward branching cone terminates. Even if the branch continues on with reproduction ,though, the localized hardware entrainment cycles diverge away from their local attractor and enter into new cycles within the universe algorithm which may lie off the more organized areas of the akashic tree. There is no real dividing line between life and not-life on the akashic tree. Life is just the highly complex organized interface* region between order and chaos that lies within the relativistic light cones of universe algorithm. The software entrainments of physical hardware fall away and the organism dies so to speak but the process lives on.
Sexual reproduction normally involves production of a large number of discrete seminal compressed encodings by both partners. Each encoding is a unique variation on a theme. The merger of one encoding from each sexual partner produces a combinatorial encoding that multiplies the total possible modes or varieties of expansion. Two different akashic software cones become merged into one entrainment system which will expand into its own cone. The male encoding usually has space-time parameters characterized by parsimony of energy resource, smaller size, higher mobility, and greater numbers. Heavy resource investment, larger size, less mobility, and fewer numbers usually characterize female encoding. A specific encoded union is but one of many possible unions. The software itself proffers as many viable options as it can within the resource restraints of the hardware entrainments of each partner. This is the main source of genetic diversity. The randomizing influence of the hardware also introduces mutations which occasionally are viable. The specific union of two encoded halves is a game of chance wherein as many options as possible are encoded but only one is selected. The immediate precise local space-time parameters make the choice. Imagine two player pianos playing musical chairs with each other. Each has its own theme in counterpoint to the other. When play begins each automatically unwinds as many variations on its own theme as it can produce. When the bell sounds, only one combination is selected. Occasional mistakes occur in the playing of course also.
Once a union is accomplished space-time parameters begin the growth entrainment process under the guidance of the software instructions encoded in the genes. It's a fifty-fifty process. Genes without a body accomplish nothing. Body without genes is mere flesh. Typically the female egg provides the body half of the equation. All asexual reproduction, mitosis etc. is basically female, providing body and gene in one package.
The body half of the equation has mostly been ignored when studying evolution but recently it has become apparent that there is a whole host of encodings and entrainments which are part of the process. This includes mitochondrial DNA and even rogue bits of encoded genetic information. Likewise after development begins within an organism, hormonal influences from the parent can have profound effects. The local space-time parameters are very important and not to be ignored. Selfish gene theories address only half the equation and miss the ongoing metalevel recursion inherent in universal process. Growth of the organism represents the expansion phase of universe algorithm as does the further replication into other individuals i.e. the forward-looking cone of the akashic tree. Each seminal intersection of the backward and forward cones of the tree represent the compressive software encodings. The whole is fractal encoded.
Strict Darwinist interpretation of evolution is flawed because it assumes all variation is random mutation. This misses the whole point of evolution as universe algorithm in action. Natural selection as a concept is a crude approximation to the pruning that occurs within the body of space-time parameterizations operating on akashic encodings but it does the job of simply stating the process. The full depth of what's going on has yet to be truly appreciated. Survival of the fittest is a very relative term which only has meaning within a very narrow context of environmental space-time factors. The broad view sees such fitness as historical, contingent, and merely the details of natural selection in operation. True evolutionary fitness is much more a product of emergent robustness implicit within the universe algorithm encodings. The most sophisticated sports car can become dead weight when taken 'off road' of course.
Heated debates about evolution will continue to occur until the operations of universe algorithm are more fully understood. It is hoped that a full understanding will allow a healing process between people who need a spiritual understanding of life and those who need to understand the details of the process.
Issue 6 of the Universe Papers
3-27-2000
"There's room at the bottom" ... Richard Feynman
An important point not mentioned in the previous issues is that sub-atomic particles have no features to distinguish themselves from each other. Any electron is identical to any other electron except for the space-time parameters involved in the act of measurement or detection. They are in a sense completely ubiquitous. At this level particles have no superficial identifying features like macroscopic objects do. It's as if there were only one electron which manifests at many different places and many different times all at once. The quantum values that distinguish an electron from other particles such as protons or photons are mass,charge,spin etc. These values apply to all electrons equally. In a very real sense, an electron is nothing more that the quantum numbers which define its space-time behavior. In this sense it is a finite chunk of information or code which tells nature how to react. This paper will not deal with quantum spookiness or space-time foam. We have fish to fry at levels just above the level where quantum uncertainties dominate.
A goal of modern manufacturing is to remove the uniqueness from its products. A maker of auto parts wants every part to be as identical as it can make so all instances of that part will be interchangeable, defect free, and provide uniform performance. If macroscale parts were like electrons the manufacturer could just whip out lots of completely identical units without needing quality control etc. He produces his parts according to a set of blueprints or plans which inform the production process with the details needed to make the part. It would be nice if some of the information was already built-in to the unit or sub-units. In fact what's going on is that an abstract encoding of information becomes entrained with physical space-time hardware via layers of processing. The first layer might be a drawing of ink onto paper guided by an internal representation in someone's mind. This recurses back into abstract representation in someone else's mind. From there it might direct the hands of a machinist or even a machine to entrain operations on a more physical mold of the part in space time which involves another process of casting etc. Eventually a concrete physical actualization of the part emerges. The process will then recurse back and forth between metalevels as the process is refined and made more efficient and accurate.
If the manufacturer can reduce resource requirements and trim unnecessary material from the part he can produce more parts with less cost. The size of the part is given by the design constraints so there is a limit which occurs rather quickly in that particular business. There are certain forms of manufacture, however, where the design constraints are nature herself. These limits have yet to be fully explored.
Now think back to the concept of universe algorithm and see if you can guess where we are headed. Imagine that one were producing a machine that did something useful. Over time features were added until the machine became larger and more complicated. To make up for manufacturing deficiencies it was necessary to add extra braces and controllers and detectors. These additions added their own problems so the machine gets really complex. Eventually it is decided to build it really big so that all the necessary additions can be accommodated. How big and complex can you go. Well modern engineers have built very complex skyscrapers a hundred stories tall but that is about as far as they can go. The strength limits of materials is just part of the problem. Space-time logistics of supplying energy, water, electricity, elevators etc. become overwhelming at some point and either there is no room for people in the building or the complexity of operation becomes untenable. There are other natural limits to the process also. One could image a living being the size of a galactic space cloud. The limits of the speed of light transmission would make the being so vulnerable to the effects of gravity that it might be torn apart faster than it could sense and react to what was going on.
Ok, making things bigger and more complex seems to add problems instead of solving them. Why not make things smaller and more efficient. This is exactly what the computer chip industry has been doing. Computer chips are among the most complex devices ever invented yet millions are mass produced very cheaply and they function very well indeed. How is this possible? Well for starters, smaller size means less raw materials, less manufacturing space, quicker operation, less heat generation etc. This all translates into production savings and better devices. The process has synergistic effects which drive manufacturing, competition, marketing etc. to produce even smaller, faster, denser chips. Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on chips doubles every eighteen months. This law has held for quite a few years and it appears that it will continue to for some time. The question now posed is why are these devices amenable to such compression and how small can they get? The universe algorithm gives some clues.
A computer processor chip is essentially a finite Turing machine. It processes logical operations in a strictly deterministic fashion. One could say it is very close to being a silicon copy of a logical blueprint someone drew up on paper. A set of informational relationships has been instantiated in hardware. An abstract implicit order has been clothed in space-time hardware with as much of the randomizing effects eliminated as possible so that the pure symbolic logic shines through. The imagination, design, and manufacture process of chips is in fact one of the inspirations behind the universe algorithm as compression-expansion metalevel cycles in which the software informs hardware and the hardware encodes software (a la Deric Morris). The hardware encodings become progressively smaller and more strictly conform to the symbolics. The software in turn becomes progressively more complex and comprehensive. It's as if the very clothing of matter is being stripped from the machine. The whole process bounces back and forth through all levels from hardware to software refining itself as it goes. This is universe algorithm in action. Man happens to be right in the middle of this process and evolves right along with the chips he makes. Alan Turing's original goal was to find a bridge between thought itself and the material world. He found it in spades.
The computer industry is at the present more or less working at the first level of compression. Remember RLE compression? This consists mostly of taking out the spaces and removing superficial redundancies. Shrinking the litUniverseraphic die process has accounted for most of the gains achieved so far. Forays into the next level are already taking place however. This is where Huffman frequency encoding and symbol dictionary lookup methods come in. Pipelining, cache-hit prediction, etc. are beginning to exploit the informational properties of the data being processed to increase speeds and simplify design structures. A new method involves an abstract emulation layer around a fixed rule set core enabling smaller and faster processor cores. Software running on full size computers helps design the next recursions of the entire manufacturing process. The chips are helping to design themselves. Metalevel recursion between hardware and software is driving the process toward the ultimate limits of hardware.
The ultimate limit is at the quantum level where the Uncertainty Principle makes any further reduction in size untenable. This is the limit of hardware compression. The advent of quantum computers may make this boundary only a gateway into a whole other realm however where the effective compression ratio becomes perhaps limitless. This paper only wishes to explore the levels above that though. Nanotechnology is the lower hardware limit. Nanotechnology works directly with atoms to build precise chemical structures which perform desired functions. Current computer chips represent a bit of information with a miniature flip-flop transistor involving electrical leads and a semiconductor layer to hold an electrical charge. A nano bit, in contrast, would not necessarily need an electronic representation of logic for it could represent a bit simply as a different configuration of the molecular structure. This would result in another thousandfold compression in size and a thousandfold speed up. So far no true nano devices have been built but designs are already being made. The beginnings of hardware entrainment and software encodings are not far off.
So far we have focused mainly on compression of hardware with a few hints about the software encodings. Once nanotechnology enters the market a new software paradigm might emerge also. At the present there are two basic forms of software encoding. One is linear symbolics and the other is distributed processing. Linear symbolics uses patterns of bits either sequentially or in parallel to perform logical syllogisms on binary encoded data. This is your ordinary computational Turing machine. Distributive processing (called neural net or recurrent networks etc.) uses a connectionist model that processes data sub-symbolically. What is missing is software that processes data like the universe algorithm does. I believe compression-expansion codecs are the key. Fractal or holographic software codecs could be used to do symbolics without having to hardwire the symbols.
Human vocabulary, grammar and language may in a sense be hardwired but I believe the actual symbolic processing is a form of codec (code-decoder) that minimizes representation while doing logic on the fly. The software is able to write itself so to speak. Computer programmers are just getting to the point where this might be envisioned. This idea goes way beyond simple adaptive code generation although that is a start. Fractal compression reveals not just a reduced encoding but also a progressive scaling of essential characteristics. Evolutionary genetics reveals encodings which over millions of years have been honed to an incredible degree of compression. The basic size of a DNA strand has not changed much but the complexity of encoding has increased enormously. Universe algorithm acting on computer software will eventually evolve encodings of similar sophistication. What ultimate thresholds might we cross?
Well, machines that really do think might become a reality. A software encoding machine that was able to modify itself recursively in its interactions with space-time parameters ( environmental input/output ) might become truly intelligent. This is the holy grail of AI ( artificial intelligence ). At present researches have focused on modeling logic and intelligence in a hardwired fashion. Second generation attempts have focused on welding kludges of process together to achieve comprehensive ability. Distributive processing is promising but requires evolutionary time to fine-tune. What is needed is a direct plunge into symbolics that interactively recurse with the data directly to form compressed encodings of essential characteristics. Space-time expansive parameterization of encodings will add novelty and analogical process to the mix. Compression codecs are the only way to get there in a finite amount of time I believe. Universe algorithm provides the basic model of what is possible.
A Japanese philosopher Hiru (?) suggests that reasoning by analogy can partially bridge the gaps in logic or Goedel holes that plague strict logical systems*. Universe algorithm and evolution may stumble on these holes, but ultimately life will find a way. These holes may in fact be seen one day as the very enablers of discernment and logic itself. They may even be doorways into consciousness. Children may even understand quantum physics in the future. The third millenium is wide open.
"What good are guns if the AI branch of the local food bank doesn't recognize your retinal scan?" ... rasputin11
Issue 7 of the Universe Papers
3-28-2000
"Rumor has it that there is a conspiracy of memes" ... rasputin11
Previous papers have focused on physical aspects of universe algorithm. Language however operates within the same principles of universe codec. The hardware of a language is the medium of communication i.e. the written and spoken word. The written word is the most concrete or physical level of hardware. The spoken word is more abstract but still wrapped in physical process. Digitally encoded text is more abstract still. The software aspect of language is the meaning encoded by the words and sentences. Strictly speaking, the meaning emerges as the compressed hardware encodings are expanded into semantic responses within a communicating sentience. A single line of poetry or terse text can expanded into thoughts and feelings which are the result of a lifetime of experiences. Similarly a lot of thought and feeling played over and over in the mind may eventually be reduced to a compressed encoding as simple words. This compression-expansion-compression-expansion-.... cycling is the metalevel recursion* process of universe algorithm in action.
The astute reader may notice a conundrum here however. The roles of hardware and software seem to be the reverse of how they operate in the physical domain. Expansion in the physical domain was expansion into hardware. Actually there is both going on. It depends on the context. Within the context of a host of physical communicating entities, the expansion phase can be seen as the dissemination of semantic content from one to one or one to many hardware based semantic engines so to speak. From the context of a single semantic engine, though, the expansion is expansion into the internal software or semantic representations of that hardware based entity. The context or point of view can be from either the hardware or the software. This has not been pointed out in previous issues of the Universe papers.
The essential feature of universe algorithm that has been repeatedly mentioned is that things cycle back and forth between* compressive encodings and expansive expressions or decodings. The short term for code-decoder is codec. The universe codec is usually 'lossy'. Some information is lost in the compression phase. Some information* is added in the expansion phase. The repeated cycling of the codec introduces novelty and evolution into even purely physical* process. The compressed encodings provide the attractor scaffolding for structural organization to emerge in the decoding phases. The cycling passes through different levels of abstraction from hardware* to software* and back. A 'hour glass' is an excellent model of and symbol for this temporal process by the way. The entropy of mass sand in the upper cone of the past is reduced to the pure linear velocity of the nexus grains going through a few at a time. The expansion phase occurs as grains fall into the cone below and critically self organize into a reverse cone or pile which abstractly mirrors the lower cone itself - a simple fractal abstraction.
Ok, back to language. The word expressions or literal elements of language are the nexus in the hour glass model. Multifold fractal semantic content is compressed into linear symbolics (remember this?), squeezed through the nexus of communication and fractally expanded into a similar but different content within another semantic engine (person). If that's all that happens things might not be so interesting however. It turns out that repeated communication cycling polishes the expressions and evolves their form. Words, phrases, languages change over time. Word shortenings, concatenations, and coinages are continually producing new encodings* which express either a shorter more efficient encoding or a richer expansive content. An extra bonus of this process is that replication is made easier. Communication by the way is a process of replication. This is analogous to genetics in a way. Constructs that induce a large semantic response with a minimal encoding are more apt to replicate and evolve. This is of course subject to the space-time parameters factor we have mentioned in other papers. This is why a rosetta stone was needed to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs. A context was needed. Proper context plus rich encoding yields viable replication (communication).
This leads us to memes. Memes are contagious ideas. Within the broader context of language and many people communicating for a long time, memes can develop which have a life of their own. Memes can compete in a kind of Darwinian selection process. Colloquialisms & commercial jingoes can replicate with astounding speed when conditions are right and the encoding flows through the memetic hour glass like quicksilver. Memes can evolve into un-useful distractions or even mental viruses which disturb. Memes can shape social perceptions, biases, and political agenda.
This discussion has been but a brief introduction to the memetic hourglass. If the reader has caught the idea, however, it might become a meme itself.
"Coke is the real thing" ... Coke
Issue 8 of the Universe Papers
S.A.R. April 1, 2000
"Randomness is a function of parameters" ... Col. Kurtz
I had originally planned to discuss philosophical problems associated with the mathematical idea of randomness and its application within universe algorithm. To my delight however I discovered recent evidence that randomness is inherent in the natural number system itself. Below is a quote taken from G. J. Chaitin, IBM Research Division at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/ijbc.html
He has devised true mathematical demonstrations of randomness as opposed to the common pseudo-random number generator sort of algorithms.
begin quote ...First of all, the connection with physics. There was a big controversy when quantum mechanics was developed, because quantum theory is indeterministic. Einstein didn't like that. He said, "God doesn't play dice!'' But as I'm sure you all know, with chaos and nonlinear dynamics we've now realized that even in classical physics we get randomness and unpredictability. My work is in the same spirit. It shows that pure mathematics, in fact even elementary number theory, the arithmetic of the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, is in the same boat. We get randomness there too. So, as a newspaper headline would put it, God not only plays dice in quantum mechanics and in classical physics, but even in pure mathematics, even in elementary number theory. So if a new paradigm is emerging, randomness is at the heart of it. By the way, randomness is also at the heart of quantum* field theory, as virtual particles and Feynman path integrals (sums over all histories) show very clearly. So my work fits in with a lot of work in physics, which is why I often get invited to talk at physics meetings...end quote
The above web document gives me confidence that no qualifications are needed for the randomness aspect of universe algorithm. A few comments might be useful however. At the ultimate level of compression for any encoding*, the bits are random, because compression involves removing any underlying algorithmic patterns such as space, redundancy, periodicity, exponentiation etc. etc. The space-time expansion* values have been removed so to speak leaving only the parameters. A statistical analysis yields a flat line frequency graph for long enough random sequences. This applies to lossless compression mainly. Lossy compression* may have inherent artifacts. I'm not sure. Artifacts are part and parcel of universe algorithm however and not to be dismissed. Accidental but useful artifacts are in fact an essential feature of evolution*.
The essential nature of entropy* is disorder or randomness. Within any real system however there will always be an underlying layer of elements which share a ubiquitous sameness of characteristic. This is true of even an abstract sequence of perfectly random numbers. The underlying unity is the cyclical representation of natural numbers base 10 for example. It is the overlay of interpretation that expresses randomness. Also even within a random system patterns inevitably emerge as latent attractors.
"I stir my coffee into an
oblivion of creamy chaos, yet still I see my face reflected from
above." ... rasputin11
Conclusion of the Universe Papers
S.A.R. April 1, 2000
Thus we come to the end of the foolish Universe papers. Perhaps a few insights have been gained. Perhaps not. The universe is a very big place and the universe algorithm is a rather presumptuous bit of over simplification. How could one principle* apply on all levels at all times? Everyone knows the rules are different everywhere you go. And assuming the universe algorithm* is valid, what good does it do you anyway?
My own answer is that amidst all the chaos and uncertainty of life there is always something which puts the pieces back together again. Once one begins to see this process* in action he can move from mere faith in metaphysical talismans toward an actual communion with life and destiny. Problems, failures, accidents, imperfections, and impurities all contribute to the total. One can never predict when the thorn in one's side might become a key that unlocks the door to the next great room in a universe* full of many mansions. There's room at the bottom and room at the top; room for becoming.
"Life can be a fool's paradise, a saint's downfall, a shaman's toy, or a madman's diary, but you still can't kill me and I won't die. There ain't no disputin', I AM Rasputin" ... rasputin11