Question: This is a problem?

Answer: It says “This is a problem”, but this is not a problem rather the announcement of the solution. It is (another) step of physics towards (mine) theory of information!

I quote further: physicists have finally managed to test the thought experiment that first proposed the winner of the Nobel Award Eugene Wigner. The experiment is known as "Wigner's friend" and the setting is not too complex. You start with a quantum system that has two states in a superposition, which means that until you measure it, both states exist at the same time. In this example, photon polarization (axes where it revolves) is also horizontal and vertical.

Wigner’s friend is in the laboratory and performs an experiment, and after measurement, the system will collapse and photon will be fixed in one of these two states. But for Wigner, which is unaware of the measurement, the quantum system (which is also important, includes laboratories) is still in superposition. Despite seemingly contradictory results, both are correct. (This is similar to Schrödinger's cat, a thought experiment also about superposition, with imaginary Schrödinger and his cat in a box.) There seems to coexist two objective realities, Wigner's and his friends. And this is a problem.

Testing this idea was not possible for a long time. It is not easy to work out the formula of quantum mechanics for Wigner when he sees his friend to experiment. But thanks to recent discoveries, researchers managed to construct an experiment of quantum mechanics that would play just that. The end of the quotation.

The idea of "many worlds" in quantum mechanics is not Wigner’s, but is Everett's (1957), and even Newton's (who even allowed the possibility of "worlds" existence with different laws of physics) and some other researchers, so back throughout history all to "multiverse" mythology of ancient Greece.

Question: Where is there (new) information theory?

Answer: The idea of "parallel reality" in (at the time very "future") theory of information, is based on a topological evidence of the number of dimensions, which I discovered in the early 1980s, and you can read for example in a later written book Information of Perception on page 68. I consider that evidence today to stronger than the others. I hold it important from this experiment, especially, above all because we would otherwise doubt the accuracy of someone in the laboratory that would "prove" the ratio of circumference and the diameter of the circle is not PI (𝜋 = 3.14159...), but in the theorem of geometry that speaks. Then and because of the importance of theories in general, which integrate ideas and without which the enumeration of facts themselves are pretty useless.

Question: About the "boring" science ..?

Answer: The excitement we experience in anticipation of falling goal, as opposed to indifference when watching the old matches, it talks about the importance of uncertainty. It is the essence of vitality, freedom and information.

Similarly happens to a connoisseur who carefully read old texts of proven science, because he believes in the immense and unpredictable power of truth. And the truth and information equivalents are, because something could not be happened that could be proved that it cannot happen. The truth and physical actions, due to the same, are equivalents, and then the same is with the information and action.

We hereby in line with Gödel’s incomplete theorem,
which says there is no logical system that would contain all the truths, but I actually target something further. With universal
truths, ubiquitous and of all time (as "2 + 2 = 4") we communicate with final perceptions, say "understanding" or "interactions".
Any such clip (final from the infinite) is a kind of free information, and thus the effect it makes the sum of quantitated "changed
energy" and appropriate "lasting time". In other words, universal truths are "information of perception", `S = ax + by + cz + ... `,
with the first factors energies (momentums) and second appropriate times (lengths).

Question: Where did the idea of "space memory" come from?

Answer: The information theory that talks about this can be set on several different groups of principles depending on the priority to be considered first. But in any case, it redefines the notion of "memory", which makes it applicable to space itself. These principles are the comprehensiveness of information in terms of the basic fabric of the cosmos, the essence of unpredictability and multiplicity (we communicate or interact, because we do not have everything), then there are the laws of conservation and minimalism (more likely and less informative are more common outcomes). Some of these features can be derived from the others.

What happened leaves a trace in the world that we call "memory". That past (in part) can influence future events and vice versa, it can be reconstructed from the present. So, if we have three apples in a basket and we add another one to it, there will be four of them. Similarly, based on the state of the Earth's geological plates today, we learn something about its past. The light that flew through space for millions of years tells us about the places where it started. These are all types of (generalized) memory.

The photon (particle of light) leaves a trace of itself during its long journeys through deep space, I assumed, I paraphrase, that it is not a question of "whether", but "how"? The universe is constantly changing (consistent with the principle of unpredictability), and the photon itself is changing in a broader context. In a narrower context, it changes due to the Doppler effect, but also in an even narrower one, in the sense of Heraclitus' saying that you cannot enter the same river twice. The new question is: how is the latter?

In short, the answer to this last question will be that as the space ages, it becomes "thicker", that the "crowd" of events that went through it becomes larger, so that it "remembers". With this, all the above principles, which at first glance may seem strange or incompatible, suddenly fit into the familiar physics.

For example, more probable events are more frequent and there is a higher chance that a substance (more unstable fermions) will turn into space (friendly bosons), than vice versa. This is in accordance with the law of conservation of information, because although there is less and less information of the substance itself, it is equally total including space. That is why the universe is expanding. The second law of thermodynamics now applies only to a substance whose entropy increases spontaneously as its information decreases.

I have already written everything told in the texts with reviews and dates, so quoting these statements should refer to those earlier moments. However, there is a good chance that these theses will look "very new" for a long time to come because they deviate from the "very materialistic" concept of modern physics.

Question: Did you explain the "twin paradox"?

Answer: Yes, on several occasions. In terms of information theory, the point of this "paradox" is to leave one of the brothers' own inertial space in order to return to the other's field. He lacks the "present" as much as he was in a parallel-reality in an abandoned inertial system.

It is a thought experiment of a special theory of relativity, and the resolution of the alleged paradox that is happening has begun itself Einstein in due time. The end of that story, I believe, comes with "information theory" (mine). When the second brother leaves by spaceship, his relative time flows more slowly and he is further and further in the past in relation to the time of the first brother. When the ship turns and heads back, time still flows more slowly, but because the two brothers will meet in the common present, the other is until the meeting — in the future of the first.

How is that — the answer lies in the existence of a parallel reality to which the other brother partly belongs, unlike the first. It is the other way around, the first brother is in a part of the parallel reality that does not belong to the second, but the point is that the second comes out of his own and returns to the first. The loss of time of the second brother in relation to the first is equal to the difference in time of the mentioned shear into the past and future of the other brother. Exactly as much as the other brother is younger than he would have been if he had not moved, as much as he left his present in a parallel reality.

From this explanation, it is actually clear that the theory of relativity lacks additional dimensions of time, an idea that Einstein persistently rejected, in order to complete his story. The beauty of the whole is the continuation (I omit it here) according to which it can be seen that the gravitational (inertial) force is precisely the manifestation of the "principle of minimalism of information". The coincidence of these two accounts is now (will be) the biggest obstacle to the eventual rejection of information theory.

I note that Einstein was, so to speak, aware of this solution, but he did not want to accept it, because he was also aware that he would then have to give up causality in physics. He once spoke with Landau, to the Soviet Nobel laureate. They discussed a similar topic on the occasion of Landau's observation that from gravity, according to the general theory of relativity, energy leaks somewhere outside (and comes from somewhere).

Question: What does Bernoulli's fluid equation have to do with the theory of relativity?

Answer: In my book “Space-Time” (1.3.4 Pressure, p. 76-78) is more detailed about it. There is one paradox of the theory of relativity, an imaginary experiment with two trains passing by that allegedly overthrows that theory. I got that story on one occasion from a colleague who advised me to avoid the theory of relativity, because as can be seen from the paradox, he claimed, that theory is not true.

However, by analyzing the situation as if "everything is ok", the circle of logic closes and it turns out that the "paradoxical story" was a good basis for another proof of Bernoulli's long-known theorem (Daniel Bernoulli, 1700–1782, Swiss mathematician), which, among other things, explains the thrust due to which planes fly: fluid (gas or liquid) that moves faster sucks.

In short, the two wagons pass at equal but opposite speeds in relation to the observer resting on the embankment. The wagons are open on adjacent sides and are so close that air can move freely from the space of one wagon to another. The pressures from both rooms are equal and there is no forced air passage.

Observed from the first of the two wagons, the air of the second moves and sucks. Observed from the second wagon, the air of the first one moves, so the first one sucks air from the second one. Due to the principle of relativity of motion, a paradox arises: which wagon actually sucks in air?

The solution of the paradox is the contraction of lengths in the direction of movement of a relatively moving wagon. It is a contraction proportional to the so-called relativistic coefficient "gamma". At relatively low speeds in relation to the speed of light, it is represented by two sums, one of which corresponds to the potential energy (body in rest), and the other to the kinetic energy. The first addition is a unit factor, and the second is proportional to the square of the (relative) speed, which turns out to be exactly equal to the value of Bernoulli's lateral fluid pressure.

Thus, the moving wagon shrinks in length and compresses the air creating an additional internal pressure to the outside exactly equal to the suction pressure due to the movement of that air relative to the stationary wagon. In the case of observers from the embankment, the air pressures from the wagon to the outside and to the inside are also equal.

Thus, one of the imagined situations that was supposed to overthrow the theory of relativity turned into its triumph. By the way, after those letters, before the publication of the mentioned book (Space-Time, 2017), I no longer saw this "paradox" circulating in the forums of alleged physicists, and I did not see its resolution either. Nowhere in the wider literature has anyone mentioned them, as far as I know.

Question: Gravity has mass — I saw one title you liked. What it is about?

Answer: That is a very old question (Might gravity have mass?), perhaps from Newton's time (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 1687) to this day, there is no valid answer, so I "had to" deal with it from the point of view of "information theory" (mine). In the book “Notes To Information Theory” I have summarized some calculations on the subject. I will paraphrase.

Especially in the sections on "central motion" (8, 9 and 10) it is proved that the central force (Sun, nucleus of atoms and in general) that moves the charge (planet, electron, etc.) on conics (ellipse, parabola, hyperbola) acts on them (by moving bosons) at the speed of light, but also vice versa, if the carriers of the central force move at the speed of light, then the charge paths are conical. In short, the path of charge is conical if and only if the central force propagates at the speed of light.

The mentioned proofs are reduced to differential equations of motion, so that we can also call them the theorems (physics cannot dispute them). It is also a well-known theorem that the action of a central force is transmitted at the speed of light if and only if it decreases with the square of the distance.

In the combination of these two theorems, the movement of Mercury around the Sun is further analyzed, whose perihelion of elliptical trajectory moves a little forward after each revolution. Mercury is specific in the solar system, because it is closest to the Sun — it is in the strongest field of the Sun's gravitational force. Because of these shifts, Mercury's orbit is a coil (helix) rather than an ellipse. In other words, it is not a conic!

Similar anomalies have been observed in the movement of masses around a strong black hole in the center of our galaxy. Hence the conclusion that the speed of light in a strong gravitational field is less than outside the field (both in vacuum)!

Confirmations about the lower speed of light in a strong gravitational field can also be sought on the basis of the space metric defined by such a field, or, for example, Snell's law. (Speed of light). The informatic consequences are numerous, and one that mostly concerns the mentioned is that "space remembers", and that the past has a gravitational effect on the present.

Question: How about this “information has mass” ...? (concerning my theory of information)

Answer: Yes, this is a step towards "information theory". They are still wandering. Mass, or more precisely inertia, grows with the "slowness" (in relation to the speed of light) of the body. The body slowly gained its own time and the ability (inevitability) to penetrate the layers of time. Time, the speed of the flow of the present, which we perceive is a measure (quantity) of events of a given body (system, place). This measure is also a "measure of sticking" of the body for "layers of time", according to which the "principle of minimalism of information" works.

It is a short description, a sketch of an explanation of space, time and matter using information theory. The entropy of a substance increases spontaneously and thus decreases the information of a substance which (due to the law of information conservation) is incorporated into the same amount of space, at the speed dictated by the difference between the probability of transition of "substance into space" and "space into substance". Because the first of these probabilities is higher, the substance melts into space, space is formed and the universe expands. Because something of the "slow" substance remains "trapped in the past" in the form of space, so we have "dark matter", which is at least in part that "trapped" that gravitationally acts on the present from the past.

These theories will go in that direction. Look and be surprised, because somewhere along the way, maybe in five but probably more years, they will notice that I wrote books about it (which almost no one reads for now) much earlier.

Question: Can Gödel's "impossibility theorem" be applied to a set of real numbers?

Answer: This is a question that mathematicians Ralf Schindler and David Asperó) have been dealing with since about 20 years ago. There were supporters of their evidence (so-called forcing and stars), but also of those who considered them wrong, including the authors themselves sometimes (How Many Numbers Exist). I will briefly explain their two procedures and then try to give my opinion as well.

Forcing real numbers is a procedure of noticing a real number on the abscissa (` x `-axis of numbers), which divides
it into two sides, left and right. Thus, it is obtained through an interval which is each divisible by two infinities, because
between each two real numbers there is a real number which divides that interval into two subintervals with an infinite (continuum)
many real numbers.

This division does not have to be consecutive, like some counting, so Schindler wondered what happened to real numbers that are the limits of the interval. There are continuum many of them, so the total number of real numbers in intervals is actually a continuum of continuums, i.e. infinity of a higher order. He would thus prove that there are more real numbers (than a continuum) than the set theory considers.

The star method (*) is Asperó's. He observes the sentence "for all A there is B such that it is C" and applies it to sets. So he says, for every set R of real numbers there are real numbers that are not in that set. Thus, again, Cantor's "conjecture" (axiom of infinity) is challenged, finding that there are more real numbers than set theory holds (continuum).

In short, that's it. My opinion is something else. From the standpoint of "information theory", where the fabric of the world is information and the essence of information is uncertainty, when the cosmos itself (no matter how much you imagine it) is also some information. Such is the uncertainty, in itself and in relation to something, which means that "there is space and beyond space." It is the informatics equivalent of Gödel's theorem of impossibility (however extensive and large a theory may be, it is always incomplete).

However, this "information method" cannot be applied to a "set of real numbers", at least not as we know it — because we know it. For each given number, we know exactly whether it is "real", whether it belongs to a "set of real numbers" or not, and therefore, such does not have the necessary uncertainty.

Otherwise, the question of the infinity of physical reality is still quite open, although information theory must "turn the page" in relation to known physics. That's what it's about, attached , my recent simpler answer about infinity.

Yes, this “How Complex Wholes Emerge From Simple Parts” is an interesting and still "undiscovered theory", which I wrote about in the book “Physical Information” a few years ago. Shannon's information shows a smaller amount of information for the part that is missing for the law of conservation of information to apply (still "debatable" in physics). That missing deficit, which is calculated in the mentioned book, is latent information that appears during the organization. At the same time, individuals add some of their information to the collective.

Entropy is a kind of "reciprocal" value of information; when the former grows the latter declines and vice versa. Why is it so
"unhappily" defined, one should ask the deceased Clausius,
a mathematician who, shortly before 1860, used the abbreviation `S = Q/T` (quotient of heat `Q` and temperature `T`),
which he needed in the calculations of heat engines, so he called it "entropy" (Greek: shyness, turning inward, internal
property), not trying to express some physical meaning.

Question: And how into that fits “Emergence”?

Answer: By making information indestructible, like energy. In fact, the law of conservation of energy can be derived from the law of conservation of information (information is an action: the product of a change in energy and the elapsed time), observing a physical system over a long period of time, in constant units of time.

Hence, the "emergence" is a phenomenon such as the emergence of potential from kinetic energy and vice versa.

I remind you that from my texts, the same "law of probability conservation" can be derived from the same "law of information conservation". For this one, I'm not sure if it has been discovered in physics yet.

Question: Some physicists read little theories off the beaten track?

Answer: That's how it goes in science. Today in school we learn about the works of George Boole (Boolean algebra, Algebra of logic), which is the world of science "discovered" somewhere during the making of the first computers (half of the 20th century), and that happened a century after Boolean death. He lived anonymously in Dublin and worked as a math teacher at a school there.

Question: Whether the Gibbs paradox (in Action of Information p. 21 and 120) is the only "anomaly" of entropy?

Answer: It's not. There are others that I discovered while working on "information theory". For example, if we declare that higher entropy means less information and vice versa (which is almost everywhere in information theory), then we have a paradox with the relativity of motion.

The observed entropy of a moving body (a vessel with gas) would be less for a relative (who observes a vessel in motion) than for the proper observer (who rests next to the vessel). It is not easy to notice, but here are some indications.

Gas molecules increase entropy if they are more evenly distributed. However, in the case of their optimal, uniform distribution for their proper (own) observer, they have an uneven distribution for the relative, because units of length shrink along the direction of motion but not perpendicular to that direction.

Another example would be the calculation of entropy (`S = Q/T`), according to Clausius who discovered and defined it
(early 1850s) as the quotient of heat and temperature. It (`S`) rising, we will notice now, when the gas temperature
(`T`) decreases faster than its thermal energy (`Q`). This is a debatable observation in physics, for now
when the sequel belongs only to "information theory".

The relative thermal energy is not greater than its proper, but only the kinetic energy. Only kinetic energy is what is obtained as excess by increasing the speed of the body. At the same time, the relative body temperature is higher (redshift, Doppler effect), and therefore the entropy is lower. The relative entropy is less than its proper! Hence the law of inertia, because the body will not spontaneously go into a state of less entropy.

Question: Okay, let's say I believe you, but where's the information then?

Answer: As the entropy decreases, the information should increase, which also happens in this case, except that the excess information goes into parallel-reality. The relative observer sees the world of the body in motion as slow as the owner (proper) has entered the pseudo-reality. The relative sees a smaller "amount of events" of the moving body and therefore sees its time as slower.

But it is a long story, extensive, a fairly new theory that explains the known phenomena of physics in slightly different and equally accurate, if not more accurate ways. It's not just about physics.

Question: Where is the error in this program ..., can you help me?

The text of the commands is too long and it is unnecessary to state it, as you will see from the answer. The caller is not available.

Answer: The code is good, but the algorithm doesn't work. A typical mistake was made by "great" programmers who prefer to write miles of commands a day (and have a good "performance" at work), rather than brainstorming slowly (lazily and idly) about algorithms (which is supposedly less paid).

Namely, not all sizes are scalar (some are vectors, or tensors, etc.). The transitivity of the order relation (less than, or
greater than) does not apply to all evaluations. If `A` is "greater" than `B`, and `B` is "greater" than
`C`, it does not have to `A` be "greater " than `C`. I will explain on the example of political
elections, or a chess tournament, and when the problem is understood, then it is easy to add other examples.

Let's say that during a vote we have three coalitions `A`, `B` and `C`, each with three parties.
It can be three chess teams with three boards ("first", "second" and "third" on which their strongest players are in that order)
in a chess team tournament, or matches of different teams. After the competition (voting), let the results be represented by a
"magic square" 3×3 whose numbers (2,7,6; 9,5,1; 4,3,8) are arranged three by three in three rows, in the picture on the right.
The sum of the numbers in each row and each column is 15.

It can be seen that coalition `A` defeats coalition `B` with a score of 2:1 (the leading party of coalition
`A` loses to the corresponding one from `B` with a ratio of 2:7, but her other party beats the other with a
ratio of 9:5, and the third with a third with 4:3). Coalition `B` wins `C` almost 2:1, but also coalition
`C` wins `A` with the same result 2:1. This happens `A > B > C > A`. The program mistakenly assumes
that by comparing two teams and arranging the sizes in "descending order", there must always be an order where the best of the
teams (coalition) is at one end and the worst at the other.

The code of the program is good, but somewhere at the beginning you need to test the variables to check the transitivity of their order relation. In case there is no such relation (as in the example with the magic square), the program should honestly state that there is no best choice, that in that case there is no best team, i.e. solution, or strategy.

I’ve written about it before (в. у прилогу „Information of Perception“, p. 42-43), and I think there is some Nobel Prize in economics for discovering that there is not always the best strategy in investing in stock markets and in some similar businesses.

In my case, in information theory, such non-transitive (non-transferable) relations of order serve as proof that information (whose essence is uncertainty and change) can escape into a "cyclical movement", when it can constantly strive for minimalism (the principle of least action, i.e. least communication) and at the same time, in fact, in a broader picture, it makes standing waves.

Question: Is knowledge of strategies in the mathematical theory of games in politics valid and, if yes, do the local politicians recognize and use them?

Answer: The theory of games is a new branch of mathematics, so therefore unknown. Many who have heard something about will say it is "insufficiently examined" field, despite in fact that theorem was theorem weather it is Thales' (about equal peripheral angles over the same circle tendon) revealed eight centuries before the new era, or it was the new one from yesterday. Therefore, not only politicians, people mostly have no idea about the values of strategies in the theory of games, often and when they claim to know something about it.

In a better case, this "knowledge" is on the level of "Brilliant mind", the film in which Russell Crowe played the mathematician John Nash, the Nobel Awarded for Economy, or similar shallow explanation of the "Nash equilibrium" using the previously known "prisoner's dilemma".

Question: Are there better and worse such policy strategies?

Answer: Of course. Software competitions the strategy of games theory has been held from 1980. The linked “Axelrod's Tournament” had revealed as shock, surprise, that among the most successful strategies was "Tit-for-Tat", which is a variation of "eye for an eye". It was later noticed that this strategy can still be improved by adding occasionally, rarely and unpredictable, violation of rules.

It is evident that the empires in the rise often followed this tactic, and rarely their victims, or the empire in decline. Also, this tactic we can see in establishing the balance of the forces of living beings on Earth, and then as a way to reach a more stable compromise, the better, say, than in advanced, by heart, as often can be seen in a local politics.

Question: Does the theory of information predict something about it?

Answer: Of course, if it is about my discoveries. Already "information of perception" that talks about the conjunction of "ability" and "restrictions", i.e. the competition of two opponents, shows greater value (vitality) when the strong moves are corresponding to strong and at least weaker. In doing so, uncertainty adds value, so the unpredictability of the player raises the game level.

Following the behavior and decisions of various politicians through history, it can be concluded that they did not know much about these tactics. Especially less significant in history overestimated humility, and as far as our local leaders are concerned, affordability that saves them in these flows, for now, is the same value of excessive arrogance of their opponents.

Question: Why are lions so many times less successful in the hunting games, then chimpanzees?

Answer: I don't know, honestly said, but I can guess ... then I was told ok, so I continued, and here is the most interesting part.

Lions as well as Bonobo monkeys do not have dangerous natural enemies and "feminized" are. It was poorly noted in biology, but lions live in packs that are less than formally "male" oriented, which is, consider, long-term (through generations) due to the absence of danger. The fact that they feminized and failed to develop grass and plant digestion organs, but were still referred to survival as hunters, predators and carnivores, could be an evolutionary trap they are, in which they inflamed. Other large cats of Savannah in that sense are in an even harder situation.

The lions in the coming period will continue to evolve into an insufficiently intelligent species to be successful hunters, and the absurdity will be larger "will develop" and in a physically weaker type. It is known that the predators are more intelligent than their prey, but it is known (unfamiliar with lions) and that the prey slowly evolves in the intelligent, faster, stronger type thanks to predators. It's similar, also "weird," appears that domesticated animals lose brain mass. I say allegedly weird, because that's the expected phenomenon why we can take a serious (my) theory information.

Other reasons listed in conversation (extermination of larger copies of lions by people, reducing their habitat, the disappearance of the second larger opponent with which they may compete) are trivial, so I skip them.

Lions and biggest cats don't have a great future.

Question: What type of organization will the future take us?

Answer: Bonobos are graceful monkeys (Chimps & Bonobos). Their long legs, narrow shoulders and little head give a slender material. ... As chimpanzees grow up in a darker face, bonobos are born with a darker face and pink lips. One of the greatest differences between our evolutionary cousins is that in the bonobo company the female are main, and in Chimpanzees males.

Bonobo shows more skilled in social relations, while chimpanzees are in tasks that require the use of tools and understanding physical causality. Chimpanzees are not so stronger than people how much thought (used to be assessed to have a force 6-7 times higher than people), but about 1.5 times in relation to body weight. Bonobo is even weaker. In general, monkeys (Apes) have a similar muscle structure as people.

Although timely very close relatives, Bonobo and Chimpanzees developed evolution differently towards habitat where they lived. Bonobo live in the safety of the Congo great African river environment, in a small territory, but in relative abundance and without serious enemies. Chimpanzees live along the equator in fear of gorilla and other large predators of Africa. Food like herbivores, collectors and carnivores. Unlike Bonobo monkeys that are weak or no hunters, chimpanzees fall into the most efficient hunters among predators in general, except for some insects. For example, chimpanzees are about seven times more efficient in game hunting than lions.

Appropriate to the above question, judging by the development of the closest species of our "relatives", I would say that we will go to development with a similar to bonobo. We will be happier, graceful, minor heads, less intelligent, less physical strength, less inclination towards killing, greater social features and less cognitive. It would be an apology to the question, and in the first approximation according to "information theory".

Question: Where is education going?

Answer: Good theory is like a well-decorated country. We are looking for a decrease in options, reducing uncertainty, requiring more security. That is why those who want more order, disposal of unpleasant risks, less fear and war, invest in education. I'm afraid you’re disappointed by this, because the usual opinion that dictatorships don't want education, and I dropped, I disagree with that.

However, this is consistently attitudes as attached . The difference is what the dictatorship wants from education, and what someone who is eager to be more original. The above explanation agrees with the striving civilizations that, at its peak, after mostly unregulated, aggressive and untidy phases, want to move into a calmer and decorated form of society, when they become more willing to improve wider education and routines of its followers.

This tells us all about the similarities of freedom, special features and liveliness with information, and dictatorships, disciplines and rules with "principle of minimalism". Because "living things" have the surpluses of choice in relation to the "non-living world", and this principle is all quiet, towards the states of the smallest actions, so instead of fear we are seeking safety and, whenever, we strive for order, wanting good theories, solid soil and fitted roads.

The future of learning is in said shrinkage if the world becomes safer, i.e. in creativity if it becomes really freer. That is why these allegedly smart texts (which you send me — I answered the correspondent) I read with the reserve. Writers of these texts are rarely aware of the forces of nature that govern.

Question: You wrote something about equality theorists and unfinished emancipation, and where can I find that? (Allegedly deals with these topics)

Answer: I guess it can be said so. Problem with "unfinished struggle for human rights" (attached: The unfinished human rights struggle of this century) is in "equality theorists" who do not see that it is a "struggle" that has no end. That is, which can be ended, but then society could not have development. The problem with development is that it can never know exactly who and how some allegedly positive shift will do.

As in science and everywhere, it is not any theory of good. Despite the good theory of gold worth it, it is a rarity because the wrong ideas are not easy to give up. The thin thinkers hardly admit they are wrong, and the half-truth is more attractive than the truth and dogmas does not want to surrender easily. I hope it was said enough?

Question: Yes, and can it only be briefly where they could be wrong?

Answer: In short, according to "information theory" (mine), we are in the world of uncertainty in which, in more complex conditions, two-pole species further complicated. The role of the male was a "roar", suffering and winning new territories (ways) to ensure the average representative of the species (much more than 2/3 of the male population and more than that female). Accordingly, the male has a role to take risks, and lower part of their number (much less than a third) has made a disproportionate part of the displacement of our culture and knowledge in general, which we find historically to move towards as better. I'm not saying something that looks "better" now must be like that later.

Emancipation of others (lead as "emancipation of women", but is not only theirs) occurs when the central population values move for that "new country". We consider this movement to the development of society. With these pair of suggestions, in my blog , I have some more "solutions" of these "puzzles" I note, should not be taken as a finished thing.

Question: Are we coming into the world of larger freedoms (How free are we really?), tolerances, human rights?

Answer: Approval only what we want narrows the world of opportunities. If this is the era of "approved", which we consider the priority of legislation, we are then in the age of tolerance limited "inaction against someone else's will". Such leads to reduce "quantity of options".

I'm talking about the average individual, his life, the amount of freedom, personal information. It is difficult to detect can alternative choices (such as LGBT, pedophilia, children's rights, technologies) compensate these losses. And if not, then it means that this civilization lag.

Question: I recognize that story about specializing live tissues from the point of view theory information?

Answer: Yes, indulging in the organization, we hand over her part of personal freedom, something of the personal amount of possibilities. This deficit information (average) individual makes less life, less intelligent, less versatile. So, hence the tissues of the living organism are effective because they are specialized, because they barely have an option in excess to avoid being inanimate.

Question: Does this eventually decline of freedom seen yet?

Answer: Legal systems (courts) are congested by the processes. That this is not just our problem, nor is the current difficulty, confirms and the attachment A New Approach from 1959. It is not mine to deal with solutions to legal ends, but I can say something about their causes. The root of the problem of our overloading by the legal system is the principle of minimalism information that understanding could help in solving, I hope.

Legal systems seek to fix the equality of citizens by doing unconsciously on increasing vitality (information) of society, but standing against spontaneous (many unknown) natural resistance flows. They will easily draw us to excessive legal regulation, so into the world of reduced freedoms and lags.

Question: How to "measure" excess of laws?

Answer: Maybe using excess security. There are some statistical findings that, wider, the world becomes an average of a safer place (The world is becoming a safer place) than it used to be. According to the information, the amount of options, uncertainty, vitality, together with the initiative (sometimes by rush), aggressiveness and fear, the opposites of security, the conclusion is that we enter the world of excess limitations of the average individual. But that may change. Nature can surprise, teach us the theory of information.

Question: I noticed that you comment less about and approve positive regulations in the field of crime than you write about the right. What is it about?

Answer: It's intentionally. I consider the definition of criminal behavior to a very slippery terrain from the point of view of the general interest of society, its development. So, and the policy of punishment. These are processes that do not need to be additionally fueled, because they are spontaneously growing. Their strength springs from the already existing mild but all-communicable "principle of minimalism", which leads all physical conditions towards calming, and "living beings" towards "non-living matter" states.

This is just a "informatic note", but “Crime and Punishment” have many different aspects that can be written in a seemingly different way, as in that link of one of my very popular examples from May two years ago.

Question: Will you clarify me why "information of perception" expresses the principle of the least action of physics?

Answer: As can be seen, there is a form of arrays. When the first factors (`a, b, c`)
are of the moments of the particles (physical system) measured along the appropriate axes, whose uncertainties of the position are
then consisted (`x, y, z`), then `S` expresses the sum of Heisenberg relations of uncertainties. Some summands
(`ax, by, cz`) are quant of actions, order of size Planck constant `h` = 6.626×10^{-34} joule-seconds. They make up least possible free physical information.

When the first factors are the probabilities of some distribution, and the second the corresponding information
(-log `a`, -log `b`, -log `c`), then `S` represents
Shannon's information given probability
distributions. Similar to the previous case, the higher the first factor, the smaller the second, in each item, which in this
case means that the lower the probability, the less information corresponds.

Combining the larger first factors with the smaller second makes `S` minimal, so examples like the above
representations are "principles of minimalism". It was discovered as a universal phenomenon of physics and to this day has been
highly tested by Euler and Lagrange then later. All the movements known today in physics are subject to this principle and the solutions
are equations in the book Minimalism of Information
(2.4 Euler–Lagrange equation, p. 69. and further) which express it. The derivation of Einstein's equations of general relativity
from the same principle is also given in the book (2.5 Einstein’s general equations, p. 74. and further).

Additionally, it can be proved that information is atomized (it has at least its portions of non-zero value) and since it is transmitted by every action, found in every action that is also quantized, we derive the equivalence of information and action.

Question: Does this mean that a person with greater vitality has a greater "amount of options" and greater freedom?

Answer: Yes, we are talking about average values here. This means that an increase in the technological aids of society does not necessarily lead to an increase in the freedom of the individual. On the other hand, the information of perception is a combination of two series, it is the sum of the product of the value of ability and the corresponding limitations. In the extreme case, a being who would not have any restrictions would not be free at all, because the perceptions we are talking about are always final. The reverse is also true, a being who would not have any abilities would not be free at all.

It follows from the above that there are some optimums that make perception information maximum (minimum). There are certain optimal limitations for the given abilities and vice versa, so too much (too little) regulation reduces our freedoms, the amount of options, it reduces our power of action. That is the essence of "development", to be creative in science or art, to deal with the best in the economic race, to fight successfully.

Copyright © 2002 - Rastko Vukovic

Template by OS Templates