
Strife
Question: Why do "Pareto's rule" relationships arise, can you explain it to me from an information theory point of view?
Answer: These are processes of spontaneous striving for less communication, or more likely states, or smaller actions. Information is reduced by increasing the probability of an outcome, and then information is equivalent to physical action (minimalism).
The tension created by the proportional opposition of larger actions with larger reactions is given by the formula "perception information", which is then greater. The two people pulling the rope, in the picture above right, will suffer more if they are of equal strength, while the superiority of one of the opponents over the other would mean the facilitation of the process for both. A fair coin has a higher outcome uncertainty than when the coin is phallic so we expect several times more likely to land "tails" than "heads".
When we insist on the equality of the individuals of the community, it is easier to increase the competitiveness of the participants. It raises the "vitality" of the group, and the mastery of individuals comes to the fore. Organizers of sporting events know this and use it to extol their importance. Top competitions therefore have a relatively small percentage of favorites compared to the number of participants, with fewer and fewer champions the more equal the odds.
Greater freedom and equality of flows of money, goods and services, i.e. free market, creates greater competitiveness and combativeness, and even greater other freedoms and equality. The power of action is found in the probability force which tends to reduce information, to avoid equal opportunities, which gradually lead to greater stratification of society (Promised Land). This is a regularity that is not easy to notice.
Also, for example, despite the great interest in winning at Wimbledon, there are only four tennis players active today who were once its champions. We have the same processes of differentiation, free market and tennis tournaments with the "Pareto rule". On the other hand, the absence of valuing other positions, avoiding the ranking of other participants, which is accompanied by a decrease in motivation, is actually a decline in the vitality of the tournament, again due to the decline of the "equality pressure".
The legal system is rich in similar examples, precisely because of its principle of equality. In order not to spread the story endlessly, let's note the increase in the number of lawyers, advocates, judges, bureaucracy, with greater regulation of state justice. By better weighting regulations through the equality of citizens, the costs of the legal system also increase, and the flow of money around litigation is greater. The "prestige" of the social system is growing, which resembles the image of top competitions, but as there, now the "pressure of freedom" leads to stratification.
Time II
Question: Time is a concept of physics rather than mathematics, so the information theory you do is more physics than mathematics?
Answer: It won't be quite that simple. Time is also a monetary concept. Spacetime relativity treats inertia with 4dim geometry. Several coins thrown at once appear in space, and the same coin thrown consecutively — temporal.
Let's look at this from the point of view of the principle of saving information. If we have a fair coin, then the probability of falling "tail" p = 0.5 is equal to that of falling "head". There is more uncertainty in this outcome than in flipping any unfair coin.
I mentioned this in the previous answer (Strife) as an example to explain spontaneous delamination. Hence, uniform distributions on bounded intervals are maximal information (Extrema). If that abscissa interval is x ∈ (0, 2), with the probability density of the ordinate y(x) = 0.5 then a rectangle of area 2 × 0.5 = 1, which is a welldefined probability distribution. A right triangle with vertices (0, 0), (2, 0) and (2, 1) has the same area. It also defines the now skewed distribution of probabilities.
Integrating the densities of homogeneous (y = 0.5) and skewed (y = 0.5x) distributions
\[ S = \int_0^2 y \ln y \ dx \]we find the Shannon information of the first and second case 0.69 and 0.50. Information decreases the more the skewed distribution is steeper, logically, when an event with a higher abscissa is more certain.
Let us now turn the previous simultaneous situation into a process, turn it into a duration. A homogeneous discrete event would be tossing multiple coins at once, all with the same probability 0 ≤ p ≤ 1 case of "tails". This means that q = 1  p is the probability that it does not fall. Formally, it is equivalent to tossing one coin more times. The probabilities of not getting a "tail" for the first time after n = 1, 2, 3, ... throws are p_{1} = q, p_{2} = pq, p_{3} = p²q, ... and again we have some probability distribution, because p_{1} + p_{2} + ... + p_{n} + ... = 1.
However, due to p^{n} = e^{λn}, where λ = ln p, this distribution is exponential (p_{n+1} = qe^{λn}, with constant λ and q). Therefore, the form of the exponential distribution on the time axis is equivalent to the homogeneous spatial one. Thus, we see that the exponential distribution of the maximum information, among all infinite durations, of the domain x > 0, of the given expectation (with λ). This is just a variation on the theme of the earlier proof (Extremi).
Due to conservation of information, nature will draw from exponential distributions in various ways. For example, microbes do not multiply exponentially, as is still stated in the official literature, because such practice will not tend to. I mentioned in the link, because microbes destroy the host and change the environment. Spontaneous processes of nature, if they had to be exponential, would be memorable. A part of the present will be a memory, preserved as the past in order to reduce the concentration of information in the present, without violating the law of conservation.
We can now add this one to the evidence of the distribution of free networks. These are mathematical models of nodes with equal links, which for efficiency, we now see, have degrees of distribution of links per node. It is a milder version of the exponential distribution, otherwise maximum information. Namely, by forming fewer nodes with more links versus a larger number of nodes with fewer links, efficiency is obtained in terms of less need for communications when transferring data between nodes.
As a contribution to the previous answer (Strife), let's note that the free market, consistent with the model of free networks for "communication" of money, goods and services, will spontaneously develop into a small number of owners of a lot against a large number of poor objects of "equal communication". And the championship titles will have a relatively smaller number of all participants, the smaller the equality of participation is better, more strictly defined.
Grouping
Question: Is there an end to spontaneous delamination?
Answer: Optimums lie between the extremes. On the example of free networks, repeat, forming fewer nodes with more links versus more nodes with fewer links, gains in efficiency, in less need for redundant communication, the other extreme was would be one big node with all links, versus one with one for all the others.
The other extreme, when there are too many small nodes all equally with only one link each, is also met with resistance, because nature avoids such equalities. Then only two steps between any two nodes would be sufficient, but the importance of the inequality outweighs the efficiency.
Another example is with Shannon's definition of information (Logarithm, 1.10). Let we separate the item s' = p log p from the sum S, the probabilities p ∈ (0, 1) of the given event, and decompose it into two outcomes of probabilities x and p  x. It can form the two additions s'' = x log x  (p  x) log (p  x) larger values (s' ≤ s''), if x ∉ {0, p}. This is shown by the graphs above on the right, the first with p_{1} = 0.3 and the second p_{2} = 0.6, the third p_{3} = 0.9 and the fourth p_{4} = 1. By changing the insert, s' → s'', that Shannon information is increasing. It remains in a more detailed distribution of probabilities, but it shows us that: in contrast to dilution, the other extreme is accumulation. The results will not be split just like that!
This is consistent with finding information in packages, and if you will with quantization (due to the equivalence of information and action), but let us pay attention here only to the limitation of spontaneous stratifications: creations from nothing do not just happen. Similar to that, the following result is derived on the example of sum of products (perception information).
When looking at a "superior strategy" (Reciprocity), we calculate its vitality from the sum Q = a_{1}b_{2 } + ... + a_{n}b_{n}, an expression similar to Shannon's information. Here, the strings a and b are the values of the initiatives, actions or reactions of the two opponents, positive members when they contribute to the other party, and negative members when they take away from it. If we assume that one of these terms was zero a_{k} = 2  2 = 0, it will not appear in the sum. Parsed and attached to the answer b_{k} = 1  1, two additions a_{k}b_{k} = 2⋅1 + (2)⋅(1) = 4 will give greater perception information, i.e. greater competition vitality.
As for raising the mastery of the game, this means that controversial, but collectively neutral, subjects should be broken down into individual qualities (into "good" or "bad" elements). However, these uplifts are unnatural and do not happen spontaneously. A dead physical substance does not create such additions to the action (perception) just like that, but on the contrary, they will break down the existing ones of a homogeneous sign so that the "level of play" decreases. For example, 15 = 5⋅3 = (3 + 2)⋅(2 + 1) → 3⋅2 + 2⋅1 = 6 + 2 = 8, when the impacts are positive from less will make more members, additions, reducing the total information of perception.
Slime Mold
Question: Tell me about selftuning from information theory?
Answer: The "Monte Carlo" method is a random trial like throwing a hook in fishing. If a firm allocates part of its investments for completely random projects, in addition to the usual "smart risk", it uses the strategy of the evolution of life on Earth. A minor example of progressing with such a strategy is Slime mold.
The titfortat strategy (Reciprocity) is also selfadjusting. In proportion to its capabilities and the action of the opponent, making positive reactions to positive actions but negative to negative ones, adopting and deepening the former and hindering the latter, it changes the environment, i.e. moves the player to a better environment. Formula sum of products Q = a_{1}b_{1} + ... + a_{n}b_{n} (perception information) will give a higher result when every kth challenge a_{k} is followed by a proportional b_{k} of the same sign, an absolutely greater value of a corresponds with a greater value of b, and the smaller one with a smaller one.
We get greater vitality of the game (greater mastery) when we divide the neutral influences into positive and negative, if the other side has such. You will find (Grouping) in the previous answer (2  2)⋅(1  1) → 2⋅1 + (2)⋅(1), when from 0 you get 4, i.e. "from nothing" increased vitality, game level, at the same cost. How subtle this strategy (titfortat) is, a similar example shows. When the opponent's part contains actions of only one sign, as 5⋅3 = (3 + 2)⋅(2 + 1) → 3⋅2 + 2⋅1, detailing from 15 would rule 8, so a similar decomposition would not work. See also "emergence", when a common goal will give the group more vitality than the sum of the individual ones.
When the opponent's negative inputs are fragmented, such an opponent is shed and weakened in his environment and therefore becomes an easier rival when we then treat him in larger groups, units. In other words (in complex games to win), it is good to separate the potentially negative initiatives of the opponent and attack them as a group. Also, crushed, they and we will draw less effort from our side, and then with a lower vitality of the game itself and a weaker deviation from unfavorable conditions.
Nonvital, dead nature has opposite aspirations, but even there it is possible to find analogous selfadjustments. Array a = (a_{1} + ... + a_{n}) action and array b = (b_{1} + ... + b_{n}) reaction, two objects, then tend to the smaller value scalar product Q, also without violating the conservation laws. They set themselves up so that they wouldn't make 4 out of 0, they wouldn't make "something" out of "nothing", but they would make a small change out of the group, like 5⋅3 → 3⋅2 + 2⋅1. But, fleeing the smaller from the larger perception and the larger from the smaller, they stratify those perceptions. They make minor inputs more insignificant, and by shrinking irrelevant windows, they close themselves deeper and deeper into deadness.
However, the described distancing of vital from dead systems of nature is not deterministic (without other possibilities), so like slime mold tactics, violations occur and, thanks to the objectivity of uncertainty, we live in a world that does not seem to follow itself.
Dispersion II
Question: How can you avoid the Normal distribution?
Answer: I understood the question. Normal distribution (Gaussian), pictured above blue graph, expectations μ = 0 and dispersions σ = 1, extends over the entire abscissa, from ∞ to +∞, closing with it the total area surface 1. Triangular distribution is a red graph with the same expectation and dispersion, closing with abscissa the same area, but nonzero density only for \( x \in (\sqrt{6}, \sqrt{6}) \).
Reducing the Normal to Triangular distribution did not change its two basic parameters, μ and σ, but they are only cut off distant parts, the outcome of impossible events — at the expense of slightly straightening the Gaussian bell to a straight line. The mean scatter remains by 0.5 around the origin to the left or to the right along the abscissa.
In the script Physical Information (Example 2.4.8) you will find the Triangular distribution, where we now include specific parameters \( a = \ sqrt{6} \), \( b = \sqrt{6} \) and c = 0, which we then include and find the expectation μ = (a + b + c)/3 = 0 and the variance σ² = (a² + b² + c²  ab  bc  ca)/18 = 1, for confirmation.
For the Shannon information of this Triangular distribution (Theorem 2.4.15) from the script we find \( S_T = \ln \frac{(ba)\sqrt{e}}{2} = \ln \sqrt{6e} \) ≈ 1.40. A little further you will find the formula for such information of the Normal distribution (Theorem 2.4.16) from which we calculate \( S_N = \ln \sqrt{2\pi e \sigma^2} = \ln \sqrt{2\pi e} \) ≈ 1.42. On the page of this site, in the attachment Extremes (1.7), there is a proof that the Normal distribution has the maximum information of all preset dispersions, which we see that it also applies in this case (S_{T} < S_{N}).
In the question raised, there is a doubt that starting from the Normal distribution, by reducing the outcome, one can get a smaller mean (Shannon) information, while preserving the expectation (μ) and dispersion (σ). As we can see, this is already possible with the Triangular distribution, and similarly with many others.
Action II
Question: How do you connect information and physical action?
Answer: The reduction of physics trajectories to the principle of the least action, among others the formulas of the theory of relativity, Minimalism of Information, 2.5 Einstein's general equations. And that principle is actually a consequence of the principle of saving information, or more frequent, more probable outcomes in realizations.
The picture on the right shows various paths between two events (places at two moments), of which only the real path has the smallest cost of action along the way, δ S = 0. This is the condition from which the equations of physics arise.
Second, which builds on the previous answer and an earlier one (Normal), is the spread of the Normal distribution, the probability density
\[ \rho_N(x) = \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{\frac12(\frac{x}{\sigma})^2}, \quad x \in (\infty, +\infty), \]set so that the expectation, mean μ = 0, and is of arbitrary dispersion σ. Its information is \( S_N = \ln (\sigma \sqrt{2\pi e}) \). Changing the base of the logarithm changes the unit of information, but what is more important, these dispersions (σ), within the numerus of the logarithm, imitate the numbers of possible outcomes Hartley information.
When we carefully look at the density of the Normal distribution (ρ_{N}) we will see that the random variable (x) has the form of speed, and then we see kinetic energy in the exponent (mv²/2). In equal intervals of time (such as are implied in the world of common quantities), the energy of movement is a random variable, it determines the density of the distribution of action (product of energy and time). Hence the strong connection between S_{N} and σ.
As an addition to the second observation, we note the previously described similarity of the Normal and Triangular distributions of equal expectations and dispersions. And, the triangle in the previous image will have a base from x up to x and a height of y, so xy = 1. The abscissas depend on dispersion and information \( S_T = \ln(x\sqrt{e}) \), which is one additional confirmation of the connection with Hartley information. Because of the constancy of the product of the base and height of this triangle, I identify them with energy and time (x, y with E, t). Let's consider the surface itself (xy) as an action (Et), that is, information.
Third, let's pay attention to the force of probability. Here, in particular, the treatment of probabilities as the square of the vector intensity. Consider a normed vector space (V) and a set of orthogonal vectors (B ⊂ V) whose sum is the unit vector. All three axioms of probability are fulfilled:
 For any state \( \vec{v} \in B \) is \( \v\^2 \ge 0 \);
 The sum of all vectors B is of intensity 1;
 If the vectors are orthogonal, it will be \( \u + v\^2 = \u\^2 + \v\^2 \).
This is an interpretation of the Born rule of quantum mechanics, but actually it is about the mathematical theory of probability. Superpositions of quantum physics particles are thus probability distributions, and their collapses are random outcomes.
We are on the threshold of a great new edifice of science and mathematics, so don't expect to understand everything said at first sight.
Probability
Question: What do we get by expanding the probability on the squared norm?
Answer: We get in addition to the application of the same theory of probability in quantum physics and the use of linear algebra for probability, also the application of both in (my) theory of information, communication, Markov chains, as well as easier interpretation of their positions in the real world, this expansion should also be seen as a necessity of scientific development.
Let's remember how much Leonard Euler (1707  1783) was ridiculed by the profession for the discovery of complex numbers, because of the allegedly absurd formula e^{iπ} = 1, which today is considered one of the greatest achievements of mathematics in general.
Complex numbers are indispensable in electronics, electromagnetism, writing roots of polynomial equations, eigenvalues and vectors, in engineering from mechanics to computers, system control, aviation. It is impossible for them to list all the uses, so let us note again that we have no more practical things than the good theories are.
We know that 0.5 is the probability of an even number when we roll a fair die, but it doesn't say that it has to be a 2, 4, or 6. Now let's just add that 0.5 = c² can be seen as the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Then the Pythagorean theorem is true, that the square over the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares over both legs, c² = a² + b², which is proven by the previous picture on the left.
In the picture on the right, we see a way to choose countless pairs of lengths of corresponding legs, a = BC_{k} with b = C_{k}A, where k = 1, 2, 3, ..., but also any point of the circle, because every point of the circle of diameter AB is a rightangle vertex of a right triangle ABC. Each of the thus obtained complex numbers z = a + ib will have the square of the module z² = 0.5.
Again, this supports (my) information theory that unpacking the smallest units of information (packages) leads to infinity. By removing uncertainty from such, we gain greater certainty, but we lose the physical meaning, the reality, of what remains.
Ergodic
Question: What sense do you give to the term "ergodic"?
Answer: You have well noticed that the term "ergodic" in this kind of theory does not have the old familiar forms. Ergodicity is understood by new phenomena and its meaning is expanded. The recognition of "gravity" after Newton's gravitation theory did not retain its meaning, nor did "atom" after Boltzmann.
Physics, statistics and signal treatments, a stochastic process is said to be in the ergodic regime when the observable ensemble average is equal to the time average. The term is taken from physics, it is derived from the Greek words ergon and hodos, meaning work and way, so it is also used in literature, for example for the reader's activity, which is not only cognitive, but also mechanical, by which he can "immediately leave one part of the text and enter another".
In the image above left, in the right circle we see an interpretation of the "ergodicity" of a path (the state of a process, or whatever) that over time passes close enough to each point inside the circle, if the journey lasts long enough. The circle on the left in the central part is inaccessible by paths. The analogy I use is a Markov process, which transmits a message over and over again by copying received to send by mapping M : p' → p'', the steps that make up the "chain links" of transmission M⋅M⋅...⋅M = M^{n} of length n → ∞ mapping.
The message is a probability distribution, array p = (a, b, c, ..., z). After several (n = 1, 2, 3, ...) steps, it is changed into a new message (p_{n} = M^{n}p), or remains unchanged (Av = v) when we say that it is inherent (eigen) to a given copy. Coefficient m_{jk}, jth row and kth column of the Markov matrix, with probability exactly m_{jk} maps the jth signal to the kth. When there are more such nonzero elements (m_{jk} ≠ 0) of the matrix, then the copying is ergodic and further the images become more and more characteristic (eigenvector) of the given channel. The long chain then becomes a "black box", and the output tells us nothing about the input.
The eigenequation in general is Av = λv, where λ is an eigenvalue corresponding to the mapping A, and v is an eigenvector corresponding to λ. The same A can have several eigenvalues, and each of the λ the corresponding eigenvectors v may be different. The sum of all eigenvalues is called trace A, and the product of all is called determinant A. The determinant is equal to unity, more precisely ±1, when the mapping is isometry, and we reduce such to rotations. These are the transformations that make the message "vibrate", ultimately being preserved.
In other words, there are two types of Markov processes. Ergodic, with generator, matrix M with at least one of the eigenvalues absolutely different from one, more precisely λ < 1, which accumulate transmission errors so that the output message converges to an eigenvalue, and the chain to a black box. The second type is nonergodic processes, when the message "oscillates" through the chain so that it essentially remains unchanged. It can be shown that in this second transfer all eigenvalues are roots of unity.
The computing is inexorable. Any square matrix M can be written in the form M = PDP^{1}, where D is a diagonal matrix, which on the diagonal it has all eigenvalues and all other elements zero, and P is a matrix whose columns are the corresponding eigenvalues vectors. By scaling, chaining the process, we then calculate M^{n} = PD^{n}P^{1}, where the diagonal elements of this < var>D^{n} be degrees of eigenvalues, and then λ^{n} → 0, when n → ∞, every λ < 1 and we have a black box if we have at least one λ < 1.
In the second case, when each λ = 1, we are dealing with complex numbers and rotations. The operators characteristic of quantum mechanics are Hermitian (selfadjoint). They have complex coefficients, but real eigenvalues. Absurd at first glance, but logical, because every eigenvalue is an expression of some observable, measurable quantity, which must be real. A physically measurable phenomenon then communicates, exchanges its information.
Accordingly, phenomena that do not communicate and do not have losses (gains) of information and are located between observables. They are described by mappings that do not have real eigenvalues, but complex ones, with which information theory complements quantum physics.
Past II
Question: Where to apply the "ergodic theorem" in information theory?
Answer: The ergodic theorem tells us about interrupts, channel noise, which cumulatively leads to an increasing loss of initial information, and this is something we already know.
No less useful, theoretically, much more recent observation would be the explanation of the formation of ever thicker layers of memory. I'm talking in general, about a special concept of the past. Namely, from the point of view of the spontaneous development of physical systems towards less information, opposed to the law of conservation of information, that ergodic theorem offers a "middle way", a compromise by memorization.
The present is getting thinner and the memories that come to it from the past are getting thicker, so that both principles of minimalism and conservation are respected. What we call "the past" is also changing, from increasing its totality to fading details that remain ever more "distant" from the ongoing present. When we talk like this about the "illusion" that we would like to call "past events", because of the ergodic theorem itself, or rather because of its mathematical certainty, we will not be able to dispute the alleged illusion itself with physical measurements, nor with anything below the strength of mathematical proof. It is neither possible to prove nor disprove, for example, the Pythagorean theorem with an experiment or in general with the facts of reality.
The application of the ergodic theorem is the knowledge that the "Big Bang", which we believe happened 13.8 billion years ago, can be viewed as such an alleged hoax that will not be underestimated. The reality is that there can be such an alleged fiction that cannot be denied by any science and especially not by gathering cosmological insights. The beginning of everything will indeed be an increasingly old event over time, and we now know that this is so that the future present would have less and less information. Exactly as little as she could recover from the everthickening past of the universe.
If it were not for the principled economy of information, minimalism, the past would not have grown, if it had existed at all. In addition to this observation of the "history of the cosmos", through the door opened by the ergodic theorem, we will also glimpse the deceptive power of mathematics, suddenly, in another new way.
Amorphous
Question: How would you explain the development of the ergodic universe?
Answer: I guess the topic is the above ergodic theorem, so here is its "space story". A small introduction is fine, I hope.
A Markov chain is a composition of links, operators, or matrices, let's call it M. Data transfer in n = 1, 2, 3, ... steps by multiplication becomes a matrix N = M^{n}. Matrices have eigenvalues, numbers that we denote by λ ∈ {λ_{1}, λ_{2}, ..., λ_{m}}, and to each of them corresponds to some eigenvector, v ∈ {v_{1}, v_{2}, ..., v_{m}}, so Mv = λv. Those states v are not changed by the process M. However, with increasingly long composition, cascading repetition, each input state transitions to some characteristic state (eigenvector) of the chain.
Adaptation of the state to the process, in other words the message to the transmission channel, partly also the channel to the message, achieves that the long Markov chain becomes a "black box". It deforms each input message into a characteristic of the chain generator, eventually, of some intermediate degenerate initial operator M.
What we see as the "Big Bang" is actually the end of the range of the physical process of data transmission throughout the history of the universe. Therefore, we will look for that initial beginning among the possible eigenstates of the generator of the Markov chain, and we will reach them again with the help of eigenvalues. In their basic form, they are stochastic matrices, with eigenvalues no greater than one, with eigenvectors representing uniform probability distributions. For sufficiently large n, the composition of Markov links N at the output gives an amorphous image, whatever the input was.
This is exactly what we can see as the "Big Bang", whatever "really" happened then, if anything happened. Like the evolution of amorphous carbon over densities, pictured above left, the universe has evolved into a less and less uncertain present with ever thicker deposits of the past. What I have in such a theory of information (with objective uncertainty), is also the evolution of legality. But about that on the time.
Differences II
Question: Can you tell me about the differences that arise through long processes?
Question: This is again a question of the above ergodic theorem; at least that's how I'll translate it. Data transmissions that have errors are ergodic, having a maximum range length, beyond which each message appears to be "eigen" (characteristic, inherent, proper) of the given channel.
The inability of the "sacred information" to have two identical states of substance forces them into "mistakes". The flow of time and the necessity of distinction. The information of perception has the form of functional, processing the state into numbers, i.e. mapping vectors to scalars. The interpreted Riesz proposition of linear algebra proves that the perception of each subject is unique and conversely, that each object is special. The flow of time, simply put, does not allow such a periodicity of changes that could be repeated absolutely exactly. Starting from the substance of the cosmos as a whole, until the discoveries that are already known to us in some isolated parts (Pauli principle) in quantum mechanics.
What is true for fermions, however, is not true for bosons. We will not consider these others as substances, but as phenomena of spacetime. Bosons are special particlewaves that can accumulate in the same place at the same time, thus becoming possible "memory deposits". The past seems deterministic, with the events of a particular present standing frozen, but it is also constantly changing, becoming deeper and permanently losing its older details.
According to Einstein's general theory, space is energy and the energy is space, which when curved has a gravitational effect on masses. This is in accordance with later findings that the carriers of physical fields are bosons, and even later (my information theory) about the gravitational action of mass from the past (dark matter effects). On the other hand, the mere accumulation of the past means the expansion of space (dark energy effects), which is consistent with the "melting of fermions into bosons" (the expression from before), that is, the thinning of the present at the expense of the fattening of the past.
The universe is expanding, its information is decreasing while the entropy of the substance is increasing. It cools down and becomes more and more certain, in the total amount of uncertainty, as well as its density, decreases. The latter is still not official, like some parts before it, but it fits the ergodic theorem so well with the observations we know from cosmology, that I had to mention it. Changes during the development of an individual living being are a different story, although they spring from the same cosmic principles.
Traits
Question: How would you divide the personality traits?
Answer: This question is taken from the discussion of strategies, a part of perception information, significantly formal and distant from the methods of psychology (Block matrix).
The idea is that a person's successes or failures in life dictate the way of looking at that person. Then to submit such a determination under the classification of winning game strategies, based only on information of perception (Win Lose).
It starts from the evaluation of the sum of products, where only the reactions \(\vec{a} = (a_1, . .., a_n)\) of the subject to the corresponding activities \(\vec{b} = (b_1, ..., b_n)\) of the object are relevant. The greater the sum of the products, Q = ∑_{k} a_{k}b_{k}, of all actionreaction pairs, the subject's strategy is closer to the best (Reciprocity), and that is if a more intense action is opposed by a more intense reaction, a smaller one with less, a positive with positive and a negative with negative, in proportion to the other side according to the possibilities of the subject.
The worst Q score will be a passive game that has weaker reactions against stronger actions, and stronger ones against weaker ones, also in proportion to the available forces. Between the best game, let's say I League and the bottom, let's say III League, there is II League, inconsistent in both extreme cases. This medium is the battlefield of sick liars and manipulators who are insufficiently successful in realizations, because reality slips away from them while they wrestle with phenomena that physical reality does not care about.
To make sure there is no confusion, among the "manipulators" (II league) is everyone who is burdened with fictions, so in addition to politicians there are also scientists, writers and musicians, actors and artists in general, as well as villains who have reached the level above the "good guys" (III league) through the art of fraud, but are trapped in that method and remained unfinished.
The middle league, in addition to political or other fraudsters, also includes players ready to sacrifice for the sake of victory (loselose). Those who accept challenges, but easily exaggerate, at a bit of kindness from the other side (the opponent) could "overflowing with kindness" (reaction), or in the initiative with a bit of evil, "be out of the mind" from their own evil. They also need the help of a third party, but to a lesser extent than the "good guys", but in contrast to which the "bad guys" often cover themselves with deception and rule by intimidation, or get support by portraying themselves as victims, often and absurdly trying to generate apathy among subordinates, and directing the audience by abusing the "value of tolerance". Persuading them to stick to the "safer", lower leagues.
Players of the second league know how to be invincible in deceiving other people. But since dead nature does not know how to lie, does not see their tricks and does not look back at deceptions, good manipulators gallop after objectivity, lose the race with physical reality. They therefore regularly lose from the players of the first league, just as they (almost) always beat those from the third league (loselose always beats winwin).
In the lowest (third) league are passives, who, as regular traders, try to combine good with good (winwin) and therefore need, and easily get, all the support of society. Without such support (often from state law enforcement agencies), their way of working would be almost impossible. These goodies and conformists are people of compromise, the kind we want to see in others, because their strategy is weak and nonthreatening. They are expected losers in all contests of winning game strategies (like Axelrod).
Grandmasters of the game with reality, these are the players of the first league, they are often scary to us and then they are not inclined to be exposed in public. When we admire them, we say "they are carried by the fairies", and even then, we imagine that they have the support of some third parties, which actually the players of a superior strategy do not need. First of all, they are persons of great selfcontrol, reacting from good assessments, timely, measured and sufficiently surprising moves to others, both for good and for bad. Such properties are almost impossible to give to "normal" people, they shudder at them, or do not believe in them.
Higher league strategies have greater perception information and are further from the principle of least action of physics. That is why they are "unnatural" (they are a matter of vitality, of living beings), laborious and repulsive as in an excess of freedom, and on the other hand attractive as in a situation of its lack. The strategies of the higher league are for the few, simply in the way that some of our vitality, surplus options and actions are arranged, so that they would be a way of life for them. This initiates the recommendation of the quality of this ranking, when we notice that the division is accompanied by some natural limitations.
In the end, this division is only theoretical for now, like say Riesz's proposition which will establish that the perceptions of each subject are unique. There is also a unique theoretical series of optimal values of actionsreactions to the environment for each subject, as well as dispersions (average deviations from the optimal), which again change in unique ways over time. Nevertheless, a considerable majority of persons will have the maximum of their vitality in the period between youth and old age — consistent with the "order in disorder" nature.
Pinocchio
Question: What is the meaning of the question "is there a wooden boy whose nose grows when he lies" (Pinocchio)?
Answer: The fictional character of the children's novel "The Adventures of Pinocchio" from as far back as 1883, is an interesting topic for algebra block matrix. That Carlo Collodi plot seems to have been written for the ageold philosophical question: how unreal is real? Is a "hollow story" even slightly "material" if it is lucrative, or sets off a physical effect?
Quantum mechanics for science extremely successfully interprets vectors as quantum states, and linear operators as quantum processes, in vector spaces as quantum systems. For the eigenequation Tv = λv to have real eigenvalues λ corresponding eigenvectors v with possibly complex coefficients, operators A which the Hermitian are sufficient. Eigenvalues λ determine the probabilities of "observables", physically measurable quantities of a given state (v) in a given process (A).
More broadly, like atoms and molecules from the macro world, vectors are also state models, and process operators, except that they then become so manycomponent that the same observation, until further notice, has only theoretical significance. And let's add to that the mentioned block matrices with an additional interpretation similar to the previous one (known), that these matrices as processes can be "eigenvalues" with the eigenvalues of observables. Otherwise, matrices and operators satisfy the vector axioms.
That possibility recognized by wellknown algebra will soon be accepted by practice, simply as something that has been there for a long time but that we did not notice enough. For example, the path of a charge in a force field is a kind of process (flow of states) which is a "physically measurable quantity". Evolutions (developments of states) are observable events, and if we think again, many physical changes are obvious to us, which we will say are physical realities. Here we only add that such can be block matrices of other matrices.
Working with measurements over time, we enter the realms of other dimensions, in pseudoreality. This is already the area of my theory of information, physical phenomena of objective choices and striving for less informative states. For such, it is necessary to redefine the algebra of logic (The Truth) and work with the layered realities of the present itself. Then "truths and only truths" remain reserved for dead physical matter, i.e. systems for which the principle of least actions of physics will literally apply.
Halftruths and lies exist in the realm of vital systems, which have excess information compared to the inanimate matter of which they are composed. Among such are all living species as we know them. I have explained the emergence (Emergence Theory) of excess options and effects several times, and also in the aforementioned block matrices (9.1). Living beings try to solve these surpluses against the law of conservation of information and circumstances when everyone wants the same thing, sometimes directly by lower states, or by surrendering their freedoms to the collective, and even by lying.
In this sense, "there is a wooden boy whose nose grows when he lies."
Genesis
Question: What we call "the past" is also changing?
Answer: Yes (Past II), the past changes from an everincreasing total amount to fading details that lag behind when becoming more and more distant from the ongoing present.
The uniqueness of every subject ever in the universe, which derives from the Riesz’s theorem and functions in the interpretation of information of perception, fits perfectly with the knowledge that repeated "news" is no longer news. That is why the past can be added to the "amount of uncertainty" (information) of the present, because it is not constant. Thus, the present can be increasingly poor in information and supplemented by the past in accordance with the law of conservation.
Those two types of changes alone speak of the importance of totality, integrity, for the given information. They, again, say that the "fading" of moments from the increasingly distant past — is objective phenomenon. Let's use it for a different look at the relativity of time of subjects in mutual motion and gravitational fields of different strength, to illuminate forgetting in memory.
The eigenvector of the stochastic matrix, a repeating link strung into the information transmitter, is what such a longer Markov chain (Ergodic) converges to. As a rule, it talks about an amorphous mass, and the state we get as information about the "Big Bang". The development of everything started from that, we believe, and we will not be able to dispute it with anything (exact sciences, experience, observation, etc.) less than mathematical persuasiveness. The universe is a process of increasing past and decreasing information of the present.
However, the processes of the creation of the past are slower depending on the speed and strength of gravity. For a body in relative motion relative to the observer, time flows more slowly, so Δt = Δt_{0}γ, where Δt the time of the observer until the time Δt_{0} of the observed elapses, and
\[ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1  \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \]is the socalled Lorentz coefficient, where v is the relative velocity and c is the speed of light. An analogous previous formula is valid for the gravitational field, however then the "Lorentz coefficient" becomes the field potential.
Slower time is gravitationally attractive, due to the very attraction of less information, and the body is in such a deficit in relation to the observer because the other part of the information of the observed is out of reach. Parts of the body's information in the gravitational field in other (time) dimensions are where they are inaccessible to the perceptions of the observer. Such "unavailability" is then an objective phenomenon like, for example, the unpredictability of the outcome in a coin toss.
Whether such data loss can be explained by physical loss, let's try to find out from the picture on the right. Translation along the closed path of the curved surface of the sphere changes the vector. This means that the initial and final states of, say, an impulse are not the same, even though there is no actual consumption, that is, that the external observer notices losses (energy) invisible to the internal observer.
This anomaly was noticed immediately after the discovery of general relativity, but remained without a good explanation. Here we can also attribute it to the belonging of the body part to other dimensions, invisible to observers outside the field. To the extent that time flows relatively slowly for the body in the field, so much more slowly does the present "melt" to the detriment of the past. So much for the external, faster passage of time, there are discarded, lost data.
Otherwise, the scale of the body's invisible deficit in the field or motion increases as well as the relative increase in the inertia of the body (m = m_{0}γ), with a coefficient (γ) that is proportional to the deceleration of the time. The visible parts are slowed down, because objectively they also drag their invisible parts, and relativistic formulas show us how much more difficult it is to drag them than to move the visible ones.
Bodies moving away inertially uniformly, in the special theory of relativity, move further and further into the past and lose details due to distance as well as due to the past. If they wanted to approach them, they would really remain in the past again obscure. The bodies approaching inertially uniformly come to us from the future, the details of which we again do not understand due to the distance, until the moment of the shared present in passing. Hence the conclusion of a more unclear future similar to an increasingly unclear distant past.
These changes during the "collapse" into other dimensions are gradual, smooth, as well as the changes of the vector of a plane during its rotation through space, fixed at the origin (the center O of the coordinate system). All vectors have the same center of support and, apparently, a common history, but grow at different speeds in different directions. All of them were and became mutually different at all stages. On the other hand, their parts (old segments and places of peaks) seem to remain forever where they were.
The analogies of the past with relativistic phenomena speak withal about the (impossibility) of physical treatment of the additional, parallel dimensions of time that we are talking about here.
Profit
Question: Do you also have your own view on "profit"?
Answer: Yes, economic gain is also part of the "information perception" theory, but you'll be disappointed if you're expecting some good quick money advice. Then again, it will be, there is nothing more practical than a good theory, but in many ways, it is "increment" in the long run.
Economic profit is acquisitions minus expenses. We reduce it to attracting "good" and repelling "evil", so that the whole story becomes a matter of strategy games to win. In addition to what just comes to us, the profit is made up of the values that we create by work, and in total we cannot do without the sum of products, a formula that talks about the scalar multiplication of the vectors of the subject's perception and of the object. For the given components of the contestants, their communication possibilities, the greater product is the greater vitality of the game, the greater mastery of the juggler, but also the greater effort of defiance unknown to dead physical matter.
The further story about the "gainers" asks for a classification of personality traits, so please read that part (Traits). Merging good with good itself is the lowest level of the profit game. In a bigger competition, the player decides to make a sacrifice for the sake of achievement, and in an even bigger one, such a player will do the opposite of what a dead physical substance would do. But timely, measured and at least a little unexpected for the opposite side. Thus, profit also becomes a matter of having "amount of options" (lifetime).
That is why we say that a good theory is practical, because the power of its understanding and application grows with vitality. It grows with "information of perception" which, for example, gives us humans, in terms of the ability to control nature, an advantage over other living species, and us and them over inanimate physical matter. It is a defiance of spontaneity that, when it gets a higher priority, tolerates sacrifice for the sake of success, so those who deal only with "what makes a living" gradually fall behind those who sometimes do "useless things".
That is perhaps why biological species are so often bisexual — that the male gender would have greater dispersion and possibly help jumping from a lower local optimum to a higher one, when the environment evolves leaving the maladapted (Emancipation). An example of a species with only a female is the desert grassland whiptail lizard. But it is possible to change gender, or change some gender roles that we consider normal. The exceptionality of these is support in these (hypo)theses.
Another example. Owners of capital are in a higher league than politicians and, in their game, they will tend to overpower the protective power of state apparatuses lower than themselves. The process is spontaneous, although it seems that a third party is setting up the "deep state" against democratically elected presidents. As if those from the first league need help from a third party, otherwise middle and lower league players need more and more of the support, simply because their strategies (vitality) are getting weaker.
Stronger players will aggregate their power, when their influences are of the same sign than of the more will make fewer members, less summation of perception information, getting a bigger sum 3⋅2 + 2⋅1 < (3 + 2)⋅(2 + 1). On the contrary, for the lower leagues (politicians, workers, citizens), their opponents, there will be fragmentation. And the goal is domination as one body, an organization, almost a living being, which is actually unnatural. It goes against the principle of lesser action and all that "profit transfer" would spontaneously grows, matures, ages and disappears.
Effort
Question: You reduce all efforts to the "amount of uncertainty"?
Answer: Yes, for now, until a state is found where more improbable events have more frequent outcomes than more likely ones. Our reality is such that it is driven by the repulsive "uncertainty force", or let's say the attractive "force of probability".
The great storm on Jupiter lasts more than 300 years, it does not stop even though the principle of least action of physics applies to each of its particles. Trees can live more than a thousand years by resisting that inertia, the spontaneous tendency to less vitality. These possibilities are created, for example, by vortices (Equilibrium, 6.4), types of information traps. And yet, sooner or later, such "anomalies" will subside.
Perception of information is a measure of the amount of uncertainty of subjectobject communication. It increases when opponents respond to stronger actions with stronger reactions, on smaller by smaller ones, or when they group responses of the same sign, and whenever they separate positive from negative. Surpluses of vitality thus achieved, its accumulation, give the object the power of disposal to be a creator and not just an object of choice.
Living beings deal with the exhausting surplus of options by surrendering them, their freedom, to the organization to which they belong, or by striving for inaction and death. Bodies that are physically dead, on the other hand, cannot continue to reduce the action because they are the bottom of the bottom. When we add energy to such times, we fill them with randomness, because the action is the product of the changed energy during the past time, and the action is the equivalent of information, it can escape in the previously (my) described way of the effects of the special theory of relativity (Infinity II).
Subjects A and B can be mutually perceived nonsimultaneously, and let us say that they are mutually real. When both can communicate with C, but not mutually directly, then A and B are indirectly real. Such is the situation with the slowing down of the time of relative observers who are mutually moving. However, the principled striving for less communication protects them from relative surpluses of information, so that they partly go to a parallel reality, visible to them but not to their relative observer. It would take an infinite amount of energy, or at least an infinite duration of acceleration, for the accelerated system to go all the way into a parallel reality.
We are in a similar situation when we observe a distant object. The limited speed of light makes us look at the past of an object, and it gets fainter the further away it is (Genesis). Those details escape us analogously to relativistic effects, because the past of the present is of a similar nature to the parallel reality.
In the same mentioned blog, or a more detailed part in the book "Multiplicities" (Differences, p. 1113) you will find that the discrete world of perception lies in a continuum of possibilities. Countable infinity is squeezed by uncountable infinities. The first one includes a series of events of current reality. Each of those 4dim points of spacetime is, broadly speaking, an incredible choice, a zeroprobability possibility, and going in a vehicle (time machine) to exactly that would require infinite energy consumption. This is again due to the forces of uncertainty.
Here I have given (roughly speaking) only three examples: forcing to increase vitality, to push the body outside the reality of the observer and a fictitious journey into one's own past. You will understand that we have many similar examples and that it is not possible to pay enough attention to all of them.
Unraveling
Question: How do you think effort can reduce uncertainty?
Answer: Acquiring of the knowledge costs us money, energy or time. There is no "free" information, whether for a news agency, science studio, or economy. And it is the act of making certainty out of uncertainty and is mostly a job like shoveling snow.
Ignorance is an objective phenomenon, and as far as practice is concerned, it is mostly hidden under removable covers. I do not mention the impossibility of a "theory of all theories" (Gödel's limitation), and even in the given condition’s unsolvable problems. To reach it means to reach the information, but it is equivalent to a physical action ΔE⋅Δt, i.e. the work of a force on the path in a given time. That is why vitality is a laborious phenomenon, it is against the general tendency of nature towards noncommunicating (Minimalism).
In short, this is the main reason I meant by describing a fantastical journey to a given point in the past, or anyway to a discrete series of such in the continuum. Such a job would require an investment of infinite energy, the work of uncovering something of zero probability. It is "swimming upstream" to infinity, despite the forces of probability.
Perceptions are quantized (Packages) and all the universe we can see, with all its past and future — it is discrete, countably infinite. However, at almost every step of its development there are options, so what we see as a traced path is a sequence of digit positions of the decimal (nary) notation of a real number, an uncountably infinite number of options. The discrete present and the belonging past are found submerged and compressed, by the repulsive forces of uncertainty, in the continuum of possibilities.
Another reason for the immutability of the past is its sufficiency in supplementing the current present with information up to a constant overall value, that is, to satisfy the law of conservation (quantity of perceptions). A too unsteady (uncertain) past would overdose such a present. The actuality would "melt" much faster, the duration of the universe through the phases as we know them — it would have to be shorter.
A body in a gravitational field is partly in another dimension, in uncertainty, for a distant observer. The stronger the field, the more difficult it is for the observer to extract it from such a state. That is why bodies move by inertia. Whether we're talking about physical forces or not, changes in randomness are laborious phenomena.
Fiction
Question: How is it that there is both physical reality and fiction, you say, and the former neither hears nor sees the latter?
Answer: First, there is no contradiction, because every true statement (⊤) can be translated into a false statement (⊥) by bijection. Therefore, the worlds of "pure truths" and "pure lies" have equal elements, are equal in cardinality. Their form is the same, as are their formal correctness.
Second, independence from linear algebra involves such "worlds". Vectors denoting quantum states, and more broadly macro states, will straddle a 2dim plane even though each of the two may be in different m and n dimensional spaces. That is why indirect interactions are possible, let's tell us and the object we are looking at, which is an image from our past due to the limited speed of light. Two bodies A and B can be mutually perceived indirectly, nonsimultaneously, so that we still consider them mutually real.
Similarly, vital (those with excess information) subjects can lie and react to fictions, and then move dead physical matter, which otherwise does not notice falsehoods at all, nor is it able to directly react to them. It is a paradoxical phenomenon that vitality needs a concentration of information of a given living system greater than the separate substance itself, while the power is such that it discerns phenomena of lower information density, at first glance.
Fiction is diluted information, paler reality, paler truth. That is why it is attractive (to the vital) and to the extent that the desire for less information strengthens vitality if there is more of this information. More alive, perhaps more intelligent, therefore they should have a greater thirst for fantasies. The information conservation law interfered with that. All the surrounding substance and fiction would like the same, to have as few options as possible. But alas, since information is ubiquitous, the field is crowded.
This could be the second paradox of the "world of lies", that it is increasingly difficult to penetrate its depths. You need a greater concentration of information to make it easier to perceive its lesser concentration, although it seems that it should appeal to you more strongly by the principle of minimalism. However, with greater vitality we have a greater power to manipulate untruths, and thus more in general that can be manipulated.
Better manipulators are worse realizers, because their world does not see reality as it moves on. They are less and less in reality the more they are in fiction. In that sense, those two worlds are further and further apart; the rarer they are than the opposite ones, they are less demanding, less polluted. Finally, the principle of minimalism defeats us all by reducing us to inanimate physical matter that also goes deader; very slowly the universe is also dying.
Deep State
Question: Can you explain the "deep state" to me again using algebra?
Answer: Yes, but first you need to understand the division into personality traits (Traits), as well as the three levels of competition strategies.
The lowest level are the "goods", the III league (winwin), which anyone can win and they need the most protection (state coercion). They are the most common and the most loved, and they are generally the population that politicians count on the most, to whom they address the most.
League III players are merchants who give goods for money. They tend to combine good with good and avoid evil. They retreat to stronger pressure, but the more successful of them use opportunities to enter where there is no resistance. Such are opportunists, those who easily adapt to capability and turn as the wind blows, and they will say as it suits them — if it doesn't hurt. They are agreement makers.
I call League II players "manipulators", not always in a negative sense. They are fraudsters, politicians, theoreticians, people turned to fantasy at least as much as reality (Fiction). They know how to be cunning and tend to achieve their goal with a sacrifice (loselose), which is why they easily defeat the "good guys". But they take reality (which doesn't care about lies) lightly, underestimate it, run out of time for it, put it aside and it runs away from them. Good manipulators are weak implementers of the reality.
The first league players can be called "evil". They respond to force in accordance with their powers with force, to concessions also with concessions, to positive initiatives with positive responses, and to negative ones with negative ones. That's how they move away from the bad and get closer to the good, so I say they are selfregulating vital systems. Dead nature (nonvital), as the other extreme, also tends to balance (is selfregulating) with its principle of lesser effect, strong on weak and weak on strong, but now we have the invincibility of the game.
These top players, let's say the grandmasters of the game, absorb the other side perhaps like Alexander of Macedon sent with a small army to perish and who conquered the whole world. Uncompromising revolutionaries or generally timely, measured and partly unpredictable conquerors were those who we say had a big idea. In fact, going strong against strong and weak against weak, i.e. good with good and evil with evil, they raised the level of the game (information of perception) to great vitality thus breaking the opponent, or turning it into an ally.
The grandmasters of these (multidimensional) games are more often found among the owners of companies and corporations, which is why the free market and capitalism will spontaneously create a state within a state, popularly we will say "deep state". Due to its vitality, it is more prone to "death" than dead nature itself, but it will be born again in the new world order. Players of the second league (manipulators) still need protection (not as much as the good guys), but for the grandmasters (the bad guys) such support is not so important. They themselves win, subjugate states.
Strategies and other divisions from them were derived almost exclusively based on the ideas of "Information of Perception" (2016), in order to sum of products based on "amounts of possibilities" (information) could measure vitality, and that higher vitality means higher level of play. This (purely theoretical) concept can be further simulated by computers. Then the method of linear programming and some other algorithms that enhance position estimation and response scheduling upgrade.
Software, a program package, if it is made for one level of play (I, II, or III league) is usually very difficult to modify for another. When we transfer this to "living things" it will mean weight of character. It is difficult to change a "good guy" into a master "manipulator", and not every one of them will easily become a "bad", that is the grandmaster. It is about different levels of players' vitality, about systems that are reluctant to change the "amount of options".
Practicality
Question: Does "perception information" seem impractical to you?
Answer: Thoughts stand at the beginning of actions. They direct us not to shoot in vain. Someone would tell us, preparation is the key to success, and then we would already be stepping into the importance of theory. We would only scratch the surface of the differences between the lifestyles of humans and other living species on earth.
On the other hand, the product addition method is really impractical without elementary knowledge of algebra. That's why I try so hard to improvise. Again, a superior knowledge of algebra was not sufficient in interpreting block matrices in the processes of quantum mechanics, nor in applying the like with vector spaces in general in the processes of macroworld. This is because theories are also needed to learn new theories.
When they lose their state, "good" people (Deep State, III League) lose the most, because they lose the protection, they need the most. However, it is absurd that they are the group that will be the hardest to personally engage in preventing such processes. We agree that these two remarks are not really seen from the standpoint of quantum physics, although it makes extensive use of the scalar product of vectors and the interpretation of vectors as quantum states. Although we know that atoms and molecules are parts of the micro world, so we believe that they exist when we are in the macro world (because of thermodynamics we consider it necessary), the mechanics of small sizes did not transfer their states (vectors) to the world of large ones.
Here we make that transfer, the formula for the observable into the measurement of perception, which is formally equal to that of our distant ancestor who noticed that he could draw on the cave wall with a dirty piece of stone. Concepts starting from the "yielding" of dead nature, the principle of least action remains as the body of physics, to "defying" in the way of vitality. Tendencies to less are general, as well as falling into vortices (Equilibrium, 6.4) and stagnation.
Scaling of all communications (interactions), from yielding to resisting, is also possible beyond the scalar product, for example by the graph method. If we imagine the tissues of the subject and the object as spatially distributed "positive" and "negative" places, the first of which would magnify the subject and the second would reduce it, then by releasing the first and disturbing the others, the subject changes both, the environment and himself, making them more "positive". In this way, the vitality of the game rises, which is supported by the attitude that nothing is only positive or only negative, but not the principled striving for a smaller action.
The other extreme is dead matter that simply gives in under pressure without caring at all about "good" or "evil" to itself. Without such surrender to dismantling, as well as "good guys" in the state, changes would be difficult. In this way, we see the fickleness of those who need support the most as a consistent phenomenon, no longer as an absurdity. We see another important consequence, perhaps still absurd in the simulations, that defiant behavior leads to a draw faster than compliant behavior. Great masters of competition, of equal strength, fall into compromises and stronger alliances more easily than nongreat ones.
Now imagine how practical it might be to know these subtleties of information theory of perception in dominance over other practical things of the environment, or simply over other subjects. In order for "artificial intelligence" to really become intelligent, it will need the art of winning, but the universality of such will first come from a good theory. It is very practical knowledge in the hands of reason.
