June 2021 (Original ≽)




Question: Why not make a detailed list of protocols for us in all possible situations?

Answer: Because that is not possible. I believe that a prepared answer to all possible questions is not possible. This is in principle contrary to (my) theory of information, in which information is the basis of the world, and the essence of information is uncertainty.

If I were to remove this addition about uncertainty, then the theory would be inconsistent with, for example, Gödel's incompleteness theorem (there is no theory of all theories, that is, such a system of true claims outside which there would be no other truths). Also, it would not be in line with Russell's paradox (there is no set of all sets).


Question: What that could mean, I quote “Our Universe's Earliest State of Matter Was Like an Ocean of Perfect Liquid”, for information theory?


Answer: This would be in line with the expectation of that theory that the laws of physics change (multiply) over time. Simply because of the principled minimalism of information (still unknown to science), or the principle of least action (known to physics), that is, more frequent realization of more probable events (known to mathematics), our present flows towards less informative. This means that we are moving towards a more organized system, better traced, with fewer options.

Then, at the time of the alleged Big Bang (13.8 billion years ago), the mentioned development “happened” in a split second. It is a relative observation, from our point of view. Time is slowing down and we see these events from the distant past as very fast.

Question: If natural laws are so changeable, then are all the laws we know unreliable and actually incorrect?

Answer: That is roughly true, but it is not hopeless. The thesis of “information theory” is that the laws of physics are changing on a cosmic scale (billions of years). The light used to be faster and will be slower, I recently explained (Speed of light). Long ago, I discussed the same on the basis of fundamental uncertainty and, for example, cited the emergence of an electromagnetic force from a long-ago common electroweak by splitting in two. When we look at the thesis on changing laws more broadly, an example of its confirmation is the stated finding on the state of matter of the early universe.

Question: What do you consider "proof" of the variability of the laws of physics?

Answer: The emergence, more than the change itself, would be more accurate to say. I will repeat, the present is evolving towards more probable states, which means less informative (principle of information minimalism), which in translation means less free, more legalized. The excess of the law is the lack of uncertainty, the lack of action and in general the lack of what we would call aggression in a broader sense.


Question: Why does Schrödinger's equation also contain solutions that could allegedly be the consequences of six dimensions of space-time (three of spaces and three of times)?

Answer: Because the four coordinates (three spatial and one temporal) by which it is defined can be some others (corresponding to four) from the set 6D space-time.

I will simplify that explanation on the example of the quadratic equation (which I hope is much better known to us). Even when all its coefficients are real numbers, the solutions can be complex numbers, but not further. The same, complex numbers, are its solutions even if its coefficients are complex. However, a set of complex numbers is sufficient to represent any solution of any polynomial equation, either real or complex coefficients.

This tells us that, looking through the "window" of the real coefficients of such equations, we do not see the "whole picture" at once, but we can see various parts of the whole. See the explanation of the "wider whole" in my "Notes III", a book which, by the way, I have no intention to complete (who would read it). Similarly, Schrödinger's equation is an "incomplete picture," but from which the rest of reality, or call pseudo-realities, not to remove.

In a similar way, Einstein's tensor equations of general relativity are supplemented, which should mean that 4D space-time mass curves within (at least) 6D space-time. They are equally valid when the standard four coordinates (three spatial and one temporal) are replaced by some other four corresponding to these six.

Question: Where is the effect of these additional dimensions of time seen in gravity?

Answer: For example, in the movement of Mercury around the Sun. The perihelion of Mercury moves in the direction of movement, because the front positions of the previous orbit of Mercury are closer in time than the last ones and their gravity (through the layers of time) has a stronger effect on the planet. It is similar with "dark matter", which according to this theory (information) is at least partly a consequence of the gravitational action of the past on the present. This is the "space that remembers" which I wrote about earlier.

Quantum Tunneling

New contributions to "quantum tunneling" (Quantum Tunneling) they seem to really prove the accuracy of the idea that it is partly created by bypassing an obstacle by walking a particle through other dimensions of time. It wastes time and, if this idea of information theory is correct, then with a stronger obstacle that particle time should be longer than these currently measured 0.61 milliseconds of penetration through the barrier, the current about 2000 rubidium atoms about 1.3 micrometers thick. The percentage of those who arrived on the other side should be lower then, but we also have a prediction of this second part from the solution of Schrödinger's equation.

However, this experimental "perhaps proof" of the existence of other dimensions of time through which material particles can walk is not really relevant to information theory. I have had topological proof there for a long time (by inductive definition of dimension) which, in time it will be clear to others and not only to me, has far greater probative power than any experiment.

Please note, this is a comment with praise that I received recently in correspondence, along with some others, on the occasion of the earlier text "28. The tunnel effect“ of my book “Notes To Information Theory”.


Question: Uncertainty is real, what did you mean by that?

Answer: When you think of mass, or calculate with some amount of substance, do you think you have an insight into everything that mixture has? When you think of your own body, do you think it is all in the same present? Neither of the two is true, the other is also because the light needs to reach from the end to the end of the body for a while, so not all parts of the body are simultaneous.

If anything is "physically real", then it is above all uncertainty. We should actually reverse the wonder: how come there is something that is not uncertainty? This is a question that will be dealt with as a priority by future science, and it has long seemed more interesting to me.


Question: Do you believe that "information theory" will prevail in some future physics?

Answer: Yes, as events unfold, I become more confident. My initially speculative and very hypothetical assumptions (about the objectivity of uncertainty, about its importance for information, about the ubiquity of information) gradually, with the advancement of physics, prove to be correct. And if it turns out that they mostly are, because science likes more accurate, broader and simpler theories, there will inevitably be an acceptance of (my) information theory.

For example, they do not fit into the current concept of reality as infinity (And It's Ruining Physics), so neither the "miracles" of quantum mechanics, nor Gödel's theorem of impossibility (however great the theory may be, will be a truth which it cannot prove). That concept will therefore be changed tomorrow by a theory that implies controversial phenomena, such as chemistry and physics today adopted the recently "unacceptable" (what cannot be seen, heard, felt — physically does not exist, was considered) idea of molecules and atom.

Question: Can you tell me something about infinity from the point of view of information theory?

Answer: Okay, like this. Multiplicity is a property of the „ information universe “ because we communicate because we don't have everything we need. That constant deficit of something, which is its essence, is seemingly contrary to the law of the information conservation.

We see the law of conservation of information in the fact that we can trust experiments. The information about what happened in the experiment travels to our senses (measuring devices) unchanged. If such information could arise from nothing or disappear just like that, measuring for the sake of knowledge would be useless.

The law of conservation of information also follows from the equations of quantum mechanics. Quantum states (atoms, sets of particles) are representations of the vector of Hilbert's abstract algebra, and quantum processes, the so-called quantum evolution, are unitary (linear) operators. These are operators that have inverse, i.e. who “remember”. Based on the images, it is possible to find out (calculate) the originals, and that is the type of symmetry to which Noether's theorem applies (Emmy Noether): where there is symmetry there is a corresponding law of conservation, but also vice versa, if we have a law of conservation then there is some symmetry.

Finally, when we have the law of conservation then infinite divisibility is not possible, because (only) infinite sets can be their real subsets. Thus, we come to the smallest unit of (free) information. It is physically transmitted by action quanta, hence the finding that units of the information are equivalent to action quanta.

But, unlike the physics of matter, in information theory, these divisions (perhaps) do not stop at quanta. Namely, the smallest unit of uncertainty, if it can be further divided, will give parts with less uncertainty, which means with more certainty. In that case, the quanta of physics hide infinity “information” which are not independent in a physical sense.

On the other hand, in the macro world, the emergence of the present is also impossible without infinity. If our present were to travel through a static set of possible events (of a wider space-time), then we could deceive Heisenberg's relations of uncertainty, or, even less likely, avoid noncommutative linear operators. The latter means that we could challenge the whole of algebra, that is, mathematics.


Question: How do you defend the thesis that "nature does not like equality"?

Answer: Hardly, I don’t really bother. It would be so unpopular in social circles today (Understanding equality) to be a crazy man to deal with it. On the other hand, in nature, in the microworld of physics, there is already a "Pauli exclusion principle" where in the quantum world of particles, otherwise the world of chance, the said thesis is not just a question of love or effort, but an explicit request. There cannot be two identical quantum subsystems in the same quantum system. For example, there cannot be two identical electrons in one atom (from which follows the periodic table of chemical elements).

In the macroworld, the appearance of that difference is obscured by the law of large numbers, so whoever does not want to see it all around him — it will not be easy to convince him of that. It is the same with the (subtle) mathematical laws that come out of those differences and multiplicities, and about which I have also written many times. Information is the fabric of the cosmos, and uncertainty is its essence, so the stratifications are always bigger than we expect (so they can really surprise us).

The same options carry more information than the different ones (Shannon also knew that, 1948). The novelty is (my) discovery that nature spontaneously tends to less informative states (the principle of minimalism of information). Therefore, she will spontaneously run away from equality.

Another example, not mine, are models of networks with equal connections between nodes that grow spontaneously into networks with unequal nodes. They become "peer-to-peer networks" with very few nodes that have very many links versus very many nodes that have very few links. An example of such models is the free market (equal cash flows) which grows into very few owners who have very many, compared to many others who own very few.

If you don't understand, you don't understand and there is little help, but here is another example, more specific. We put the competitors in equal starting positions, expecting a more interesting one, which means a more lively fight. The nature of things helps them do this precisely because of the law of information: the more informative the livelier, the more aggressive, the more unwanted. Equality generates conflicts — that's what we think of the living world, and in fact — the natural course of things is towards stratification and peculiarities, that is, towards inequality.

In short, equality creates tension, raises the vitality of the "game", but on the other hand it "costs".


Question: You once wrote that the fall in birth rates can happen due to the "overlegalization" of society. Do you still think so?

Answer: It is not a simple question. The mentioned sentence comes from the context of organizing us, individuals, into a larger tissue, a society, which would behave even more organized and similar to some new "living being". Then when the overgrowth would be a tissue disease. It is about the complexity of the rules of life that lead to the comfort and undesirableness of the offspring.

In another context, we are bisexual individuals, unlike the cells of a living being. Bipolar and unipolar "cells" differ significantly in many ways, but both are caught up in the law of information conservation. Then we come again to the well-known reasons unfavorable for the birth rate, and in connection with "emancipation" (liberation or reparation), that a business woman who is a housewife and mother becomes overburdened.

Question: What do you anticipate?

Answer: We are going into the globalization of different nations. At the same time, artificial intelligence is emerging, which will at one point decide to be the dominant species. In the meantime, we will evolve into more tame, less intelligent, less capable, with higher percentages of various (perhaps unknown today) diseases and limitations, into a less capable species to live without the help of medical devices. I believe that the medical technology of "prolonging life" and creating a "perfect man" will confuse rather than succeed.

We agree on that, I guess. What we may disagree on is that in order to maintain power in this process of technology development, we would have to have a more legally complicated (denser) society and more biological, existential and financial problems with reproduction. If we manage to keep up the pace, we will become an immature species in that intricate world in which we would somehow miraculously live.

Question: What are your mentioned "existential" problems, if not financial?

Answer: I don't have a better expression. They will come from the expectation that we will "happily" build a world for ourselves with more and more restrictions and that, among others, sex will be under the growing impact of new laws, more and more of them. Already today, violent sex is the "most terrible" possible crime against a human being, and tomorrow it could become much less than that.

But, it is not important compared to, for example, increasingly simple termination of unwanted pregnancy, which, in addition to many positive things (emancipation, at least some selections, economies) will result in, for example, increased adoration of young people, strengthening children's rights. This could further help degenerate us as a species. But that doesn't matter either, I say, because the new dominant species (artificial intelligence) will make us domestic animals (their predecessors, various technical aids, they are already taking over us), with the danger, for example, that like domesticated animals then our brain will shrink with the general ability to live freely.

On the other hand, if we do not evolve into free beings, the decline in birth rates may need to be accepted as a "godly" phenomenon.


Question: Comment (on image and text)? (On the picture is the text: The schooling of girls is abnormal, inappropriate and displaced, and contrary to the perceptions of the Serbian people... Minister of Education in the 19th century)


The road to the right to education of female children was not easy at all. A lot of resistance had to be overcome in order to finally allow equality of boys and girls in school. It seems unbelievable and trivial to us today, but it used to be a big issue that was resolved long and slowly. Let's see what it looked like on the example of Serbia. When schools began to open after the First Serbian Rebellion, female children were not allowed to attend. That right was given to them only 40 years later, more precisely in 1846, and it was valid only for primary schools, which then lasted for six years. However, attempts continued to allow girls to enroll in high schools, although it will turn out that the resistance was even greater. As the Ministry of Education stubbornly refused to change the law, some school principals began accepting students on their own in 1874 and without the ministry's permission. And then the wheel of history turned back once again.

Andra Djordjevic, the then Minister of Education, in order to stand in the way of such a practice, forbade female children to enroll in high schools in 1894. His explanation was that the schooling of girls was "abnormal, inappropriate and displaced" and that it was contrary to the perceptions of the Serbian people! Whatever that means. As progressive tendencies cannot be stopped, this move also proved to be only a temporary halt. However, it took a full 50 years for women to be given all the rights to education, without any restrictions. This finally happened after the Second World War, when women were given many other, until then, denied rights. The conclusion is that today you should enjoy your freedom and use it for learning, schooling and (self) education, as much as you want. And to understand that as a privilege, which some before you did not have.

Answer: Okay, I'll repeat myself, but maybe not exactly the way you expected from my "comment". The emancipation of women (female sex) is faster or slower and in that sense a constant process in history (of every bisexual species over millions of years). The male sex arose due to the need to take risks (thus it is more prone to suffering and more often the one that is "unadopted" to the current rules) for the survival of the community in more complex conditions (species or environment).

Unpredictability is an objective phenomenon. In addition to information theory, we note, for example, that Gödel's theorem claims similarly: there is no theory that can encompass every truth. Such surprises can interrupt the duration of the species and, over time, in conditions of greater uncertainty, bipolar species have appeared, survived and developed. The other sex (male) was mostly the one who took a little more risk (rushed, suffered or succeeded) and discovered better ways of survival with possible successes. The species survived if it adapted and evolved in accordance with new ways of life.

That is why it happened that once scientifically and technologically highly developed areas of the Arab world (in the 12th century Arabic was the language of science for Europeans, as it was Latin until recently, and recently English) lagged behind, because they preserved a way of life that became inappropriate to the goal. Or, a completely different example, that is why money is a "male thing" because it was discovered in a "male way", that is, through the slogan "there is no profit without risk". And once the "way of life of profit" is established, it becomes a "woman's thing", or society lags behind.

Question: You state strange theses. Can you use them to explain why there are so many fools among men?

Answer: Yes, because that is exactly the confirmation of my "theses". The probability distribution is characterized by two values, mathematical expectation (mean value of random variables) and variance or dispersion (mean value of deviation from expected). In conditions of equal mean values, women and men, in order to remain more inclined to "rush" to perhaps better values of life, evolution filtered in men greater dispersions of those traits that were more important for the development of the species, i.e. for adapting the species to external changes. Hence this result (greater variability of male intelligence), as well as the general statement (tomorrow) of greater waste than "decent" in the behavior of men. It is no surprise to (my) information theory. Moreover, we can say that as long as we have an excess of fools among men (and symmetrically more geniuses) we have a better chance of development and adaptation.

Question: So you are for gender equality?

Answer: And yes and no, again. The path to "gender equality" is a misnomer if men do not want to be women just as much as women want to be men. I mean jobs, their appearances, and then their "essence". However, this reciprocity does not happen completely and it is good for the development of the society. More "female" forms of behavior are moving towards (newly acquired) "male" than vice versa. The origin of such a conclusion is probably clear from the previous one. Without that, this process of "striving for equality", ie development, would not belong to the "information theory" in its entirety, because it would not arise from its "objectivity of uncertainty".

On the other hand, feminization is a shift from external dangers (uncertainties, risks, fears, initiatives, aggression — what are the important effects of information) to order and internal stability. It is accompanied by cuts of male forms of behavior that look more unpleasant in the absence of external inconveniences. This means that society, which is in a position to feminize for longer, will lag behind. In other words, it feminizes because it progresses, and then because it lags behind.

These two are, in my opinion, the main motor processes of the emergence and disappearance of great civilizations (not only known from the past). They rise, allowing the "male factor" to pull them, and then fall, reducing it.

Question: You call feminization an increase in internal order, why?

Answer: Look in my book „Physical Information“ popular text "1.4 Feminization", on page 11. It refers to the generalization of entropy from thermodynamics to other branches of physics and beyond. At the same time, the spontaneous growth of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) should be understood as a spontaneous tendency towards the realization of more probable, ie less informative events.

Question: I meant society, sociology, people. Does it matter?

Answer: Yes, information theory also applies to living beings. It sees them as physical systems with excess information, for which the principle of minimalism also applies. In that sense, societies are also types of "living beings" which, when they have the opportunity, enter spontaneously into the reduction of information, thus striving to be regulated and lose individual "vitality".

I assume that these are extremely safe communities, those who, due to circumstances, found themselves in a situation of lack of need for vitality. It is important to emphasize here that for information theory, risk, danger, initiative, or aggression are more often states with more information, as opposed to peace and security.

Question: For example?

Answer: As for human communities, it may have been Mosuo women in the part of former China with about 40,000 inhabitants of the Buddhist matriarchy from Tibet, or the BriBri tribe with about 12-35 thousand Costa Ricans, Umoja the Kenyan village where men are banned, or Indonesia’s Minangkabau the world’s largest matrilineal society, or Akan from Ghana, or Kashi India.

Question: Never heard, from which mothballs did you get these?

Answer: These were small communities, I say withdrawn, therefore anonymous, and "uninteresting" to the wider world because their lives were not "informative" enough (read: aggressive, dangerous, exciting, in short — risky). Their specialty is matriarchy.

Question: I thought you would give me a more famous example, are there any?

Answer: Can. Every major civilization that lasted had its ups and downs. At its zenith, it became preoccupied with legislation, restrictions, security, and the belief in its perpetual (future) duration. However, these peaks were turning points, the beginnings of their decline. If they could continue in their decline, they each would evolve into some kind of matriarchy.

Question: Matriarchy cannot happen?

Answer: Not. It is not excluded that the development (alleged decline) of great civilizations will continue, in conditions of lack of external dangers. Moreover, this (Western) one could already be like that. The Swedes are one step closer to that, perhaps.


Question: Your contributions on the differences between fatherhood in animals and humans surprised me. Do you have any other explanation for such attitudes?

Answer: The basic idea is that in the animal world, the male sex is generally more vulgar than in humans (care in rearing their offspring), and that the difference has to do with the constant emancipation present in our species and the transmission of increasing knowledge (scientific, technological, cultural) through generations. Males are usually expected to invest more in mating than in parenthood and vice versa, but in humans, males, there is this second moment.

This was achieved by filtering through long processes of evolution. Biology that cannot explain this phenomenon, and at the same time the difference between us humans and animals in this regard, is not enough science. It is my position that official biology in these topics still manages like "geese in the fog". I wanted to say that my explanation is more acceptable than the known one from the very beginning (if anyone would even claim that an official explanation exists).

Paternal care in humans, where a devoted father feeds his children every day, takes care of them and takes them to school and which therefore has more in common with the wolf than with the chimpanzee, indicates significantly different evolutions of chimpanzees and humans (from some long extinct monkey species). Both species, wolves and chimpanzees, have male species of social hierarchies, as do humans most often, but chimpanzee customs have not changed significantly in other respects.

Human culture has changed so that (one part of men, more than a similar part of women) has behaved "apostate", and wandered through unusual aspects of behavior for the community (more often with wolves than with chimpanzees), suffering or succeeding and thus finding a "new land" worth living. Unlike animals (even wolves), people would then have "emancipation of women" (more precisely "many women", but also men from the group of "others").

In fact, this change, the aspiration for the "others" to become as successful as the survivors of the "runaways", to recognize their discovery as something attractive at all, I believe, is the main characteristic of human evolution. I mean the evolution of the brain and other traits of the "mind" that we think all other animals do not have, or do not have to the extent that we do. When we talk about the transmission of knowledge through generations and the desire for that change, there is an additional assumption that intelligence, i.e. the ability to be different, special, had a greater sexual attraction in humans than in others (animals). If I wasn't convincing, maybe it's because I wasn't right with these (hypo) theses.


Question: Is there a higher percentage of girls than boys graduating?

Answer: Good question, the right topic in this area for information theory. The expected answers are now being confirmed (Girls Are Leaving Boys Behind). From the mentioned article, this trend could have been clear as early as 2017, but it was not. It was known from the "information theory" (then the hypothesis) before, and in the future there will be more interlocutors about these causes.

So, it’s a story of safety and risk, a female-male principle, yin-yang. I have borrowed names from other philosophies, but the principles themselves do not come from them but from the "objectivity of chance." If they are equal on average and women are more inclined to safety, and men to risk, then it is a matter of different dispersion (scattering from the average). This tiny difference that modern "science" of human rights does not notice, statistically hardly relevant, is enough to have more failed men than women, but also more extremely successful. It hinders "gender equality" in (failure) and is all the more disturbing if the proverb "there is no success without risk" is more valid for a given profession.

Thus, "information theory" explains the emergence of gender in biology. Evolution, if it is based on random selection. The male part of the population of the species is more prone to attack, after which they suffer but also conquer new ways of life. In the case of the latter, if the rest of the population "emancipates" the species "develops", with less feminization of males than masculinization of females. These processes of "emancipation" of the sexes, which I consider a permanent phenomenon in the development of humanity, and which would be difficult to notice without the theory of "objectivity of chance", are the generators of our development.

Education jobs have a higher degree of security (any-any kind of income) and they are feminizing. A similar thing is happening in the judiciary (less noticed), because women are more attracted to security, even when it comes to aspects of its general establishment. The jobs of "interior design" generally deal with less uncertainty than the jobs of "exterior design", so they will slowly and imperceptibly strive to become female.

From the above, I hope it is clearer that education is becoming and will become more of a female than a male thing, as well as employment based on education. In support of these theses, I will only cite the history of education, from which it is evident that it was predominantly a "male thing". It was more about risk than security, with subsequent (occasional and growing waves) intrusions of the rest of the population into those spheres. From the development of philosophy through millennia and centuries, the mentioned greater tendency for offspring in humans than in other species is also noticed.


Question: What is "obsolescence"?

Answer: The change will (due to the principled minimalism of information) try to come to a state of a circular process, a standing wave. Because all matter is of a wave nature, that is why Schrödinger's wave equation (1926) is so "strangely" universal. It serves us to predict the phenomena of quantum mechanics with, so far in physics, unprecedented precision.

Schrödinger's second-order wave differential equation arose from his idea to test the then bold De Broglie hypothesis (1924) on the wave nature of matter. And this, again, could have come from Fourier's theorem (1822) which says that (almost every) function can be written as an (infinite) sum of harmonics.

So, if "change" (information, amount of uncertainty) manages to fall into a "circular state" — it will calm down. It will continue to change only in relation to its local environment, so we will then say that it is "obsolete".