Sustentation » srb

Question: What lasts is real, you say. Isn't that a strange definition of reality? Why would we opt for it?

Answer: The persistence of reality is special, not ordinary. A unique way defines the measure of appearance in a subtle language (mathematics), and only by knowing it do we discover the harmony and practicality of such a determination. Many forms of the phenomenon change, but one constant will define its reality.

Roughly speaking, "everything flows and everything changes," as taught by Heraclitus (535–475), yet "there is no movement," as Zeno would "establish" in detail (Expanse) from the Elean school, the birthplace of Parmenides (around the 5th century BC). And centuries later, physics crystallized such differences and established the foundations of the conservation laws with which we continue.

When we hold on to a quality or quantity of a phenomenon that is otherwise unchanging, it exists and lasts concerning the others. They leave their past in this environment and build their history. However, their totality does not change, which means that the unchanging part of their body becomes longer and thinner while the intensity of their present becomes thinner. Therefore, what is real is what existed in the past, with a longer and longer history, but there is less and less of it in the present.

The concept of reality based on duration starts with immutability and, including the concept of time, arrives at the constant changes of the present. That thus achieves uniqueness; implies it; that does not include it as an extra supposition. Duration, therefore, is at the core of information theory.

There is no physical interaction without the transfer of information, and there is no physical communication without action. So that we know physical information as action, that action and information can be considered equivalent. From the action that is the product of changed energy and time, and in the case of otherwise constant smallest quanta ΔE⋅Δt ≈ h, it follows that the law of conservation applies to this kind of information. So, with action, information is reality.

It will never be what it was, so we conclude that the present is moving into uncertainty. When there is a model, a way, or some sketch of the future, the development will be that much more certain, and the certainty will be that much more realistic. Copying the same images from the past, through the present, to the future, ossifies the present and makes it less real. Therefore, if reality is real, its future is also objectively uncertain. The future is never entirely predictable, based on the present and its past.

Do these conclusions sound like a thin foundation for information theory?

Bygones » srb

Question: Does the past form part of a closed system for which the law of conservation applies?

Answer: The previous answer indicates that it is true. The past is part of a closed system for which the law of conservation applies, because from the recognition of the past comes duration. When we calculate the actions of past events on current events, only then does reality become a complete, closed, and canned system.

Therefore, the past affects the present and determines the future. The older the element of that show is, the weaker it is, but the stronger its totality. This confirms the possibility of knowing the past. Second, since actions do not go backward and the past is not replenished, it wears out and fades. The constancy of past events is a sign of their duration and reality. However, the loss of its information diminishes the mentioned constancy and classifies the past as a pseudo-reality.

This is a paradox that points us to a deeper problem with reality, which I especially checked using analysis (Conjugated). If we have a p-norm space as an object, then there is a unique subject that could perceive it from a conjugate q-norm, where 1/p + 1/q = 1. Uniqueness extinguishes authenticity, and by choosing other metrics, copies either lose detail or convey other originals. This is also known intuitively: what "is" through the senses of the subject, even through transmission itself, is no longer what it is.

A picture of a hill is not the same as a hill. From the impossibility of perceiving the "essence" as well as the uniqueness of the information of perception (functional) of the subjects, the conclusion follows that these "essences" do not exist in nature. Indeed, when the communication, that is, the interaction of each object with the environment, is unique, which of those should we take as absolute? Does it even make sense to say that one of them is authentic and declare all the others to be fake?

The concept of "reality" is so multifaceted that it cannot be unique. It is so repetitive that it is theoretical. We invoke Skolem's theorem (Actual vs Ideal). However, such a concept is the object of perception of thinking beings, and if it is true, it is eternal. Therefore, it is also realistic. We can see from everything that reality should be treated as layered, and moreover, multiple in various ways, and the past is only one of its manifestations.

Individual » srb

Question: What's wrong with taking some average value for "reality"?

Answer: You sound like an educational supervisor in mathematics who, for a class filled with all the students from those who have no idea to the best, asked to keep the instructions at the average level.

This led to bad teaching for everyone, because the best were bored and disruptive, and the worst were the same, but because the presentation was too difficult for them, and there was no "average" real student in that class. Similarly, we destroy the quality of the collective by supplementing "key basis" (equal filling) in politics and increasingly in companies, and let's at least wait for those trends to limit the mathematics. For now, I still appreciate the differences in the phenomena I study, from the largest to the most subtle. But average situations are also possible.

For example, the inherent (proper) time of an arbitrary subject flows uniformly, so its equal time intervals, say Δt = const, can be defined. But then it is possible to transfer the constancy of action, ΔE⋅Δt = const, to the equality of the amount of energy, ΔE = const, that is, to the law of conservation of energy. As it applies to every subject, this legality means the same again in the middle, so the law of conservation of energy applies universally.

On the other hand, individual (animate or inanimate) perception is always discrete, quantized, and in packages. However, if the other participants of the universe are added to that, no more than a countable infinity, a multiplicity of continuums is obtained. The mean of countable (ℵ₀) and uncountable (𝔠) infinity would be like a "half-pregnant woman," certainly an inauthentic representation of those two multitudes.

The space we communicate in is mostly divided. The dominant discrete structure is the instruction to not take average values lightly. It tells us that "realities" also lie in individuals, in the cells of structures, which should not be underestimated as the center of gravity of the system itself.

Concatenation » srb

Question: As the past, you say, "fades," does "reality" also fade?

Answer: It looks like it, but it's not. I have considered various concepts in the transfer of information through a Markov chain process. The disappearance of the initial information through many links leads to the characteristic message of the channel generator and, most importantly, to the "black box." Unless the channel is generated by unit roots. And behind this banal explanation are layers of subtle arguments that I will try partly to clarify.

Adapting the message to the information carrier is a phenomenon known to us from sayings such as "you are who you are with." If the message is more intense, the more it will affect the channel, but observing the light from distant stars, we do not expect that its photons alone would significantly change the vast universe. Then the generator of the Markov chain, the stochastic matrix M, can be considered constant. According to what was said above, it represents a "real" process in its domain.

The message we transmit is a vector x = (ξ₁, ξ₂,...., ξ_n), the state of a system with n ∈ ℕ components. For "transmitter," we can take the duration over time Δt, simply to indicate applications of the Markov chain outside of computers. Neither of them are perfectly flawless copies, but, when we look at them a little more closely, they are concatenations of the old through new developments.

However, these components ξ_j ∈ [0, 1] respectively for j = 1, 2,..., n, are the probabilities of some distribution (∑_j ξ_j = 1). A given state, natural phenomenon x, after time Δt becomes state x' = M x, with an equal number of possible other components. After new Δt the following state x'' = M x' = M(M x) = M²x. M is a linear operator. Below, the general chain link is x^(k) = M^k x, where the upper index and exponent of the value k = 1, 2, 3,... .

It shows that:

M^k → N,   k → ∞,

where N is the "black box" matrix. If M is not a unit matrix, nor is it some degree of it, then N consists of n identical columns. For example:

Here n = 3, and each distribution x is mapped by matrix N into the same column (0.25, 0.54, 0.21), and that is why it is a "black box" because the input cannot be determined based on the output. The N matrix consists of a uniform distribution of columns.

Interference occurs during transmission. It is the noise of the channel that accumulates and saturates the initial information, misinforming it, so that the initial message becomes unrecognizable. What we can see after a long time of the universe's development may be the Big Bang, without it happening at all. Moreover, no amount of reasoning or experimentation could consistently disprove such a mathematical "hoax" if its assumption turns out to be correct.

Regarding the question posed, the same account indicates that our present, together with its increasingly long past, fades and "floats" in a completely unknown "environment" to us. The phenomena of physics stretch and fade into questionability as "reality" seems to disappear as if it becomes limited and apparent, but in fact its totality remains the same. It lasts in constantly new forms.

Dark Matter II » srb

Question: I have never seen such "craziness" anywhere like the above coupling of past and present. Does it have any confirmation or application?

Answer: It's amazing how anonymous I manage to be, because I've been writing for a long time about such an emerging past and its impact on the present. This influence, above all, occurs in limiting and directing the future. Second, here's something about dark matter. In the picture on the right is a link about the finding of a lack of dark matter in distant galaxies. I will talk about that.

The past acts on the present, among other things, through gravity. Therefore, smaller galaxies have a deficit of dark matter (AGC 114905), because they leave a smaller trace in the past. It's the same with galaxies that form quickly. Also, these are the galaxies of the early universe (see picture) that do not have a thick trace of the past. Whatever the "beginning of the universe" is, what we see from 13.8 billion years ago as the Big Bang is a mathematical "hoax" irrefutable by observation and experiment.

The interesting thing is that the equations of general relativity contain such solutions as dark matter, and they only lack an explanation like the one mentioned above. In short, space and time in Einstein's geometric interpretation of the field are formally equal. Time length is the path x₀ = ct that light travels at speed c ≈ 300 000 km/s in time t in seconds. Because of this very high speed c and especially its large square, and considering that the gravitational force (mostly) decreases with the square of the distance, it decreases very quickly with the past.

The fact that there is no similar "craziness" in official science does not mean anything about its veracity. Unlike dogma, science is a matter of questioning, not belief. Doubt in science is a feature of it, not a bug (Science). That's why I don't rush, I question in peace, I like privacy, and as you can see in my other texts, I consider truth to be a permanent category and perhaps more permanent than the law of conservation, let's say energy. They will survive.

In Trend » srb

Question: Do you see all the reality in the laws of conservation?

Answer: No, not at all. What then about "trendy" phenomena, be they fashion phenomena, political currents, or commercial products? And they all come like storms, pass, and are forgotten. We don't count on them later, although, in their own ways, they change the course of reality. The trend for and against is often the voice or drive. It is unreal in terms of peaks and valleys in general.

Just as we distinguish phase or phase speed from the wave itself and the speed of the wave, I consider "trends," as tumultuous occurrences now and never again, to be a type of "reality." Their permanence is the measure of their inevitability. The phenomenon with "a dose of inevitability," according to the above, has an abstract but equal amount of reality in it, so we must treat it as more real than the additional dimensions of time and more real than Pinocchio. After all, bare uncertainty is like that—a dose of inevitability.

The most successful fashion designers are those who better guess the wants and needs of the target market. Just as most people would not really want to know the truth but only want confirmation of the lies they believe, successful fashion trends are those that feed the same visions, say, of their own exceptionality, or are simply a uniform for a similar society in confirmation of their lies. Such a part of the trend is like the aforementioned fictional character of a children's novel that continues to "live" in us.

On the other hand, a good trendsetter has a good assessment of the reality in which it exists and the possibilities it could produce in the fiction market. In this sense, the trend is a reflection of reality, almost equal to a conjugated image and so realistic that it could not be more realistic. Reality is so deceptive and multifaceted that we would miss the mark if we counted only on that one, harder version of it.

Phenomena that are produced by reality but do not belong to reality—let's call them pseudo-reality. For example, such is the past, a parallel reality (of additional dimensions of time), or a trend. The first is both; in reality, phallic is superfluous for pseudo-reality; the second is inherent reality and irrelevant to the outside; and the third, like the first, can be a factor in the history of the world, but it is very fictitious. The first and second are independent of vitals, while trends are characteristics of living beings, especially humans.

What we need is an expansion of the concept of "reality" in order to be able to justify the importance of mathematics in physical reality, that is, to give space to the development of experimental knowledge. Consistently, according to a pseudo-reality that exceeds the importance of fiction itself.

Truth Power » srb

Question: What does "truth" mean to you and why do you consider it "real"?

Answer: I do not go beyond the concept of a mathematical statement that can be either true (⊤) or false (⊥), i.e., accurate or inaccurate. Applied, say, in physics, only "truths" are what natural phenomena can take place. The proof that some phenomenon is impossible is the guarantee that it does not happen.

The "guarantee" expressed in this way indicates the incredible closeness of physical laws and, on the one hand, abstract mathematical truths, but also, on the other hand, physical reality. However, they are connected in an inseparable whole of originality from which only our imagination can abstract "truth" and "reality." Both are non-contradictory, consistent, and permanent categories of the same credibility.

You must make a correct assumption when you start from an accurate assumption and use deduction. In conclusion, if you get conflicting statements, you will have a sure indication that the assumption is incorrect. Namely, implication and deduction are incorrect if and only if ⊤ ⇒ ⊥. Only from an incorrect assumption can you get both correct and incorrect consequences, i.e., ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ and ⊥ ⇒ ⊤ are the correct implications. The latter is an excellent base for manipulations, substituting them for true ⊤ ⇒ ⊤. For example, spinning statements and skillfully clinging to obscure causes produce the desired convictions. The ability to overcome this unreliability is successfully explained by the new theory of information.

The truth is that a lie exists. Namely, there is evidence of contradiction. Also, there is evidence that some outcomes are not possible. Therefore, untruths, like truths, are objective phenomena, but the former are distinguished from the latter by their absence in physical reality. Lies play a part in our proofs of the laws of physical reality (Not really), resulting in another emergence of differences between what we can prove and what is. Especially, hence the necessity of vitality in knowing, therefore in discovering, and to a lesser extent in creating mathematics.

The lie is found in those parts of fiction that are without "a touch of inevitability," which are like trends, extra dimensions of time, or Pinocchio. Untruth is inconsistent and impermanent; the law of conservation does not apply to it. We often notice that conflicts between good and evil are actually conflicts between truth and lies. But the trust of the innocent, the dull belief of the naive in truth, is a good tool for liars. That's why I called League III strategy players "good guys" (Traits) and those from the league above "manipulators." Playing with more vitality wins over players with less vitality.

Physical material cannot lie; it does not notice a lie; it ignores it until it interacts with it in some, say, incomprehensible way and, moreover, forms a living being. Here we are not dealing with the "incomprehensible," but we are only stating that living beings exist and that they too are part of nature. Therefore, lies also exist as integral parts of vital creatures.

Whether a much-repeated lie can really become the truth, as con artists would have us believe, is irrelevant here. What we can notice is that the truth lasts and lasts, that this is its strength against the lie, which is perhaps its diluted form, and therefore more attractive as it tumultuously arises before it erupts. This follows from the principle of minimalism. Understanding the language of lies requires at least a little vitality, an extra option against dead physical matter. This tells us that the lie gives life to the dead, to complement physics and its otherwise ubiquitous principle of least action.

The initial attraction of the lie and the permanence of the truth (The Truth) are a combination for the instability of a living being, that is, for its ability to have an excess of options. The power of a lie is in the present, not in the future, while the opposite is true with the truth. At the moment, truth is so weak against lies that from what we look around, only perspectives remain, very rarely truths, and from others we hear only opinions, not facts. That's why the truth "sets us free" by first making us miserable, despised, or lonely in front of others, and only eventually making us smart, valued, charismatic, or genius.

According to what has been said, it is logical that the truth has more importance than a lie because of its long persistence. It is the backbone of vitality. We see that truth should be considered more "real" than lies, and lies are also a type of "reality," so then the truth in that sandwich is also "real" in its own way.

Development » srb

Question: Do all "real" concepts of nature have some "development"?

Answer: Yes. I will analyze three main examples of "reality": in the appearance of truth, then the physical body, and in the case of a living being. These are, each in their own way, statements of "duration" (Sustentation), as well as of "development.".

The real is that which endures, which has a growing past that also belongs to that closed conservation system. In such a case, the past affects the present, which can therefore "fade" or become more definite, orderly, and less uncertain. Each of the three cases (truth, body, and life) can somehow be brought under these expectations.

The assumption is that infinities objectively exist (Vaccum). However, we view them from a frog's perspective and are bound by finite physical interactions (Expanse), but we can still count on them. That "strange" possibility also concerns the Skolem theorem, according to which every first order theory with an infinite model also has a countably infinite model. This smallest infinite cardinal, the ℵ₀ mark, is met by enumerating the natural numbers. Their set (ℕ) is discrete and has countably infinitely many elements {1, 2, 3,...}.

Greater than ℵ₀ is the cardinal number of the set of real numbers (ℝ) which we call the continuum and denote by 𝔠. It can be shown that 𝔠 = 2^ℵ₀, and in the same way further get an even larger cardinal number 𝔠₁ = 2^𝔠, and even greater than this 𝔠₂ = 2^𝔠₁, and so on. Optionally, one can postulate that between any two adjacent cardinals, there is another, different from both, such that the set of cardinals inexorably resembles the real numbers. This "resemblance" can also be explained by means of the aforementioned Scholem's theorem, as well as its consequences. Abstraction is everyone's, and concreteness is always someone's, unique.

At the same time, truths as abstractions are timeless. They are permanent, and in our world of finite perceptions, they are always the same. We have small perspectives, and in that range, they do not change at all. Since, according to this theory of information, certainty has a probability of one, it is in principle that it can sometimes (in long infinities) be absent; moreover, it can change or evolve. A change in the present towards greater certainty is expected, and this is the answer to the second part of the question concerning truths.

Regarding physical bodies and still life, I have answered this question on several occasions, and among the most common was the invocation of minimalism. In principle, the more frequent realization of more probable events leads to the principle of least action, or the spontaneous tendency of the system towards less informative states. Hence, the present spontaneously loses information but leaves an increasingly long past with which it is supplemented so that the law of its preservation applies. Note that this is the same result in another way (Sustentation) which was then derived from conservation without mentioning minimalism.

The third case is the excess of information (the amount of options) that is added to the physical body as vitality. To the dead material is added diluted information, or, let's call it a lie, with a personal, fickle destiny. It is always present in one form or another; it is a potential possibility, so we can consider it a type of "reality" with "a touch of inevitability." From ancient times until today, examples of truths have been invented, such as that people are mortal, many things change in life, and 71% of the Earth's surface is water, so that the negations of these would be examples of falsehoods.

Aristotle believed that statements about the future state of affairs were neither true nor false. Such a statement becomes true or false in the future. He cited as an example the statement about tomorrow's sea battle. A similar statement would be a relative statement, which would be true in one context and false in another. For example, "It's raining today." On a rainy day, it is true; otherwise, it is not. Here's a special case: "This sentence is a good example of what you're talking about because it's not." But there are also absolute and pure lies.

When a lie joins the truth, it becomes perfidious, seductive, even attractive (minimalism), and vital. We know that a liar will not be believed even when he is telling the truth, but now we know that this is because of the impermanence of each individual lie. We are attracted by its lightness, but we want stability. A lie is seductive; it leads a man "from the grove to the jungle." A lie is convenient for those who would believe it, and we are better at lying about what is expected of us. Also, lying to ourselves is often more deeply rooted than lying to others.

Life also contains another material side, so it should not be forgotten. It overcomes dying by reproduction, extending the lives of cells with the lives of tissues and the larger organism. Biographies continue with family histories and with state communities and civilizations. I have explained many times that we exchange personal freedom for security and efficiency because we strive to release excess information, but the remaining substance would be the same, so the alternative is to limit ourselves through social regulation.

Transition » srb

Question: Do you have an alternative explanation for the evolution of life on Earth?

Answer: Just as messages and information change carried by a Markov chain, life on Earth also evolves. But unlike all the same links of the Markov chain, the earth's environment is constantly changing, so there is no flow into the "black box" as well as the degeneration of the initial message into the characteristic of the same link of the chain. I remind you that life strives to survive (Development), to be a reality.

It is not difficult to imagine simulating the "evolution of life on earth" using the variable links of the Markov chain, but the complexity of such functions and their compositions will make the task difficult to realize. We will not go into such details here, but we will note that the broken clock shows the correct time twice a day. That, not only relative, untruths can be truths in some circumstances. Such inspires us to observe the evolution of matter-related fiction as a substrate for the evolution of life.

If we say that fiction feverishly strives to be a real phenomenon and last by attaching itself to matter, we are referring to the process of the falling away of impermanent lies and the survival of those attached to matter who were more fortunate in that "sticking." We also mean the spontaneous tendency of matter towards less informative and more probable states. It is a general tendency to inaction, present here in the withdrawal of matter more saturated with information towards a disjointed relative lie. The attractive force of lies-lies is as fickle as the participants.

As you can see, these explanations are not quite "alternative" to Darwin's evolution of living species to better fit into the environment, but they clarify some gaps in that theory. For example, not all coincidences in changing life are equally likely because there is a constant tendency towards minimalism that makes simple forms of life more complex (cells give their freedoms to the community), nor would a substance easily miss the opportunity to attach itself to fiction when it gets lucky.

Fictions » srb

Question: Could it be that "realities" are actually "fictions" themselves?

Answer: Yes, but not in the way you think (based on the conversation). We do not live in the Matrix or any fiction that even the best artist, be it a director or writer, could come up with. Because reality surpasses any image we can imagine. Remember Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

Mark Twain said the only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible. But it is no longer fiction when it is credible, believable, convincing, or physically verifiable. With that, we are one step closer to answering the question. In the following, we recall the above-mentioned that a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day (1). I will also tell you one of my experiences from teaching (2), then an example from mathematical logic that justifies that experience (3).

1. Let's mathematize the question of the reality of the world of fiction to reduce it to the question: is there such a perfect system of lies that cannot be contradicted. It would be a deductively perfectly coherent system with always correct implications. Every con artist's dream, which they would stop dreaming if they realized how difficult it is to achieve. However, it is possible.

We consider a half-truth to be a lie, but there are also relative lies, such as "it's raining today," which is some days a true statement, so it is also a relative truth. Now let's imagine such a structure of relative truths and falsehoods that will touch each other at points of accuracy. This is always possible, starting from the elements of half-truths and building them up with half-truths, because the latter can simply be invented as needed. Lies are optional, not permanent, and can be created at will. In fact, the assembly of such half-lies and truths, mathematically speaking, is a task with many solutions.

Formally, such creations exist all around us. Let's just take the ripple of light from the previous image on the left. We say that in the horizontal plane, the magnetic phase of the wave while disappearing induces a vertical electric phase. Thus, oscillating magnetic and electric fields travel through spacetime as events that do not require an additional medium for propagation. The structure is the universe, its space, time, and matter, so wavy (Louis de Broglie, 1924) and equally "unreal."

As impossible as it is to prove that such a model is not real, it is equally difficult to dispute it. So the answer to the question is: yes, it may be that "realities" are actually "fictions" themselves. Let's move on to the example of teaching.

2. Some years ago, when I was working with first-year high school students, to soften the algebra of logic for the students, joking and creating an atmosphere among them confused, I would tell how lies are everywhere in this world. There is a lot of professional lying, and in order not to find them in the unpicked grapes, we will now practice lying a little. One of you will, voluntarily, tell us what he did yesterday and that by making everything in each of the sentences untrue, someone else will decipher the text revealing the truth.

After the initial reluctance, the students became so enthusiastic about the teaching that I barely managed to move on to Boolean algebra in the following classes. However, a parent asked one of them, "What did you do in math class?" and after receiving the answer, "The professor taught us to lie," the practice soon stopped. The lesson is that it is possible to tell the truth with a lie.

3. In "Information Stories" (3.7 Dualism Lies) I mentioned one of the examples of my colleagues from Valjevo. It is the next tale of three cities.

The citizens of city A always tell the truth, the citizens of city B always lie, and every citizen of city C alternately tells the truth and a lie. The on-duty fireman received a message by phone from one of these towns: "We have a fire!" reported a citizen. "Where?" asked the fireman on duty. "In town C," answered the same citizen. Which city should the fire brigade go to?

Said citizen could not be from A because they always tell the truth, and the two statements received by the fireman cannot both be true. He could be from city B, citizens who just lie because he could say, "There was a fire at our place!" and then again lie that he was "in city C," because the fire could have been in A! Citizen C, who alternately tells the truth and a lie, could not say the first and then the second statement in the same order. Also, it is not possible for the first statement to be false (because the fire is not in C) and the second true (the fire is in C). Therefore, the fire brigade should go to town A.

The lesson of this "assignment" is that the world of lies can somehow be as consistent as the world of truths. The anti-logic of that world already follows from the algebra of George Boole (1854), which I have written about several times. The only variable values there are true (⊤) and false (⊥). In applications, we represent them with the digits 1 and 0, or in computer processors with the states "there is electricity" or "no electricity." By swapping the places of these two, the world of truth becomes the world of lies, and vice versa.

Another lesson of this is that it is possible to tell the truth through lies. The third is that a consistent structure is possible consisting of falsehoods themselves, which could be translated into a structure of truths themselves in the appropriate language.

The present II » srb

Question: How does the "present" come about?

Answer: That's a good question. I returned to it often (The present), I'm sure, with equally good answers. I'm not saying that valid ones are definitive or exclusive, so here are some more like that. They are not in the previous ones but are an extension of the last model (1).

News disappears as soon as it is created. In this sense, separate information behaves like impermanent fiction, but only the law of conservation their impersonal multitude gives us the reality of the present. As an example of light, in the image link of the previous answer (Fictions), which oscillates between electric and magnetic phases, and other information of the present can be periodic, so that in such a package it could last.

Individual half-truths are also unstable. But they are always in the same quantity around us because otherwise we would not be able to last and would not be real. Independently of us, or of vital beings in general, they still exist unattached to matter. Let's further imagine that they are the ones who create the same substances again and again. How? Well, in the same way described by model (1) of the previous answer: thus building a perfect system of lies that cannot be contradicted!

Let's imagine abstract truths (⊤) and falsehoods (⊥) Boolean algebra, like "matter" made up of waves of "nothing." In this way, we build an abstract space of accuracy and inaccuracy. We see the spaces of such elements as points and their more complex structures as an application of Boolean logic. Thus, say the implication ⊥ ⇒ A and disjunction A ∨ ¬A, true statements for each A ∈ {⊤, ⊥}, would be elements of this space, as well as countless other sentences of the algebra of logic, whether they are correct statements or not.

In that abstract space of logic, only accuracy survives and inaccuracies perish, consistent with our definition of "reality" with the law of conservation (Sustentation), and on the other hand, truthfulness as the basic nature of that state. In such a "present," it behaves like a wave of truths or as a vehicle to which truths stick while falsehoods fall away. The process of clinging truths, like threads of dirt to the things we know, will not keep piling up thicker and thicker layers. That formwork stabilizes around an optimum.

We prove that the world of truth is equivalent to the world of falsehoods by replacing ⊤ and ⊥. Tautology (always correct formulas) has as much as a contradiction (always incorrect). Therefore, however many accuracies the present collects, it is equal to the remaining inaccuracies. This balance is possible, first of all, from the impermanence of inaccuracy — when the presence of accuracy conditions their creation. However, the present is increasingly rare, so accuracy and inaccuracy are less and less present in it.

This about the thinning of the present, for the sake of the growing past, is known to us from different approaches to this topic. Now we discover that the ongoing march of the "now" towards certainty does not mean a mere increase in the amount of regularity so much as a reduction of the laws of nature one to the other. Also, the same can result in binding more matter with fewer laws.

In short, the emergence of the "present" comes from the loss of stale information and the induction of new ones by the pressure of the law of conservation. Moreover, more creation would mean more events, a higher frequency of occurrences, and a faster flow of time, which would mean that in reality time is slowing down. A unit of time lasts until the required amount of events is met.

Logic Space » srb

Question: Is there any metric of such a "logic space" of the previous answer (The present II)?

Answer: Yes, there are several ways to give the "space of logical statements" some metric. For example, Hemming's (Distances II) is said.

The assumption is that there are too many possibilities, but following the Borel–Cantelli lemma only a finite number of them (n) are relevant. Thus we arrive at the arrays x = ξ₁ξ₂... ξ_n of "digits" ξ_k ∈ {⊤, ⊥}, or real numbers ξ_k ∈ {1, 0}.

With fixed natural number n ∈ ℕ we define a set X of binary strings (digits 0 or 1) of length n. For two such strings, the distance d(x, y) is the number of positions at which these strings differ. For example, for n = 3, there will be d(101, 110) = 2 and d(011, 001) = 1. This is a Hamming metric. Let's add to that the expansion of the set of these digits, ones, and zeros, as well as their meaning.

Only true phenomena are real. When at the k-th position, index order k = 1, 2,..., n, an occurrence with a feature from the set S = {A, B, C,...} then ξ_k takes the value of the element of that set. It is still the Hamming metric. However, we are now working with "ordinary" metric spaces, not caring about their origin based on the statement of the algebra of logic. This is a metric of dead nature, without vitality. Due to the law of conservation, time should be added to it, and as the present becomes thinner, the volume of untruths decreases. In that sense, the maintenance law does not apply to them.

Over time, the present is "thinned out" so that the distribution of features in order ξ_k ceases to be uniform in ways that lose information (Extremes). Let's say the probability Pr(ξ_k) decreased with increasing index k, it would never reach the exponential distribution because such would again be extreme for the given mean μ. They are not events like a blind (no memory) coin toss where each subsequent one has half-and-half probabilities for the heads-tails outcomes. The past changes the chances of the future.

When the world is more certain and better regulated, with fewer redundant options, there is less room for vitality and fewer lies. The reasons for reproduction, historical trends, and the evolution of biological species, in general, are directed, reduced, or lost. The number of events is smaller, relative time flows more slowly, and, one can say, that is why this direction is attractive to the present. In the extreme case, if all the present disappeared and melted into history, then there would be no more vitality or lies. There would be no Boolean algebra.

Rough Texture » srb

Question: Is the mentioned "space of logic" too rough a picture of reality for you?

Answer: Of course it is. The universe itself would be a subtle image. The space of logic will be a "correct" deductive theory, Deduction II when it contains no falsehoods, but it is then "incomplete" because it contains statements (i.e., Gödel's propositions) that are true even though they are not provable to that theory. That would be a (rough image) of the real space of logic without vitality. Lies and fictions add something of completeness to that space while at the same time taking away so much of its correctness.

The space of logic opens our view to vector and metric spaces and physics from the point of view of Gödel's theorems. We notice nuances of truth that are not mentioned in Boolean algebra. It is just as true to say "water is wet" as the density of water is about 1 gram per milliliter (which changes with temperature or with solutes), but the two are not the same "truth about truth." It is also subtle to note that physical truths are not equal to mathematical truths in themselves, known through the use of vitality and unrealizable without lies, otherwise unknown to the former.

The "space of logic" method reveals another interesting detail, which could have gone unnoticed by previous methods. We know that the present is being thinned by the amount of information and matter, which is one of this theory's characteristics. However, we now learn that the amount of truths of the present is also decreasing. We are talking about processes lasting billions of years in which the present spontaneously develops towards greater certainty, that is, less informativeness.

Reducing the "quantity of truths" now reveals that greater certainty of the data system means better binding and reduction of some truths to others, or viewed from the other side, capturing more elements of the system with a smaller scope of legality.

Less is More » srb

Question: What do we get from abstracting things?

Answer: Sometimes less gives us more. We are better off with less debt and too many bills, or no bad relationships. Having less stuff to focus on and fewer tasks to have more meaning, time, and freedom in life is not small.

Kids are less creative with more toys (fewer toys). By reducing the colorfulness, the point of the image comes to the fore, and by eliminating interference and channel noise, the transmission of the message becomes better. Less is not always better, but information overload misinforms us. A simple calculation of letter frequency (Letter Frequency), similar to words in texts, says that more content is less informative. This unexpected, absurd, and only at first glance unacceptable conclusion is a consequence of orderliness, commitment to the topic, and style of the text of a better writer with less excess.

Abstract truths, not only those directly drawn from concrete phenomena, show their practical advantages. Practical concrete things are unique physical states; however, abstractions form model theories of first-order logic (Skolem), found in many applications. That's why we save by dealing with theories. In addition to simplicity and ease of work, by extracting otherwise multiple repeated structures, we get a substrate, or cubes, for building a picture of the world (if we are good at abstraction).

Unlike the truth, which can be renewed periodically, changing in content but not in quantity, a lie has no such possibility of spontaneous duration. Because the isolated truth has a longer value abstracted from things, it is the goal of science, mathematics, and philosophy. The lure of lies is a manipulator's tool.

Boredom » srb

Question: Can you talk about boredom from the point of view of your theory?

Answer: A strange question, but only apparently, because "boredom" is described as the lower limit of the comfort zone of living beings with an upper limit of fear of the unknown (Dissonance).

It is the lower zone of conformity, below which is the desire for freedom. Fear of the unknown, where anxiety about unpredictable situations or events begins, is above the comfort zone of all living beings, i.e. systems with vitality. The lower obstacle is the law of conservation, and the upper one is the force of uncertainty (The force of probability).

It is logical that such "boredom" is always present throughout history, but also that it is becoming a typical phenomenon of modernity. Its predecessors were generally reserved for small groups, such as the nobility or the clergy, whereas boredom strikes far and wide, and it must be said that it is a relevant phenomenon for almost everyone in the modern, Western world. I'm paraphrasing the philosophers of boredom.

It is possible to be bored without being aware of it, and it is possible to be bored when we are unable to give a reason or cause for that boredom. This is evident because we lack the challenge that the excess of options requires, the information that we have as a vital physical system, and the cause of boredom lies below the power of our immediate understanding. Men get bored more often than women, I suspect, as a result of centuries of legislation that addresses male "problematic" behaviors more. And that trend will continue, I believe, as the male sex loses its roles.

Søren Kiekegaard (1923) wrote that boredom is the source of all evil, even originality, I would add because it can move us towards "news" that we would create ourselves. That's why it may be that wars start partly out of boredom, due to the outpouring of enthusiasm and euphoria, then as if we are celebrating the break of monotony, for which examples: World War I and the war for the Falkland Islands, says Jon Hellesnes (På grensa). However, a war without creativity, with the lack of freedom of the participants, becomes boring itself over time.

The development of comfort with technologies and legislation promises to increase the boredom of the population. Park walks, toy simulations, or the "challenges" of new jobs do not necessarily increase the difficulty and danger of everyday life. On the contrary, we will strive for greater comfort in everything. Likewise, and with adaptation, we are threatened with a general decline in vitality. Widespread boredom will decrease our cognitive, physical, and even health abilities, which we will be able to attribute for a long time (naively, exclusively) to bad food, water, air, or, look at the absurdity, also to stress due to the new lifestyle.

Stagnation » srb

Question: You wrote that nature would like to be without uncertainty, but it cannot because it is woven from uncertainty. How is that?

Answer: Yes, I wrote about it, for example, many times in Information Stories of physics, biology, law: "Nature seems not to want information even though it is all woven from her." and on other occasions.

Uncertainty is when you only know someone's name once you hear it. Information about the name bridges and extinguishes the suspense. As a transmitter, it is both a fabric of uncertainty and a structure of space, time, and matter. On the other hand, there is less information in more probable outcomes, so nature's tendency towards more probable outcomes is also a spontaneous tendency towards less informative states. This is equivalent to striving for less action.

Objectivity uncertainty is like the linear independence of vectors. First the quantum states, and then the more complex vector representations. Their interaction is the interpretation of the scalar product of vectors, which I call information of perception. When the vectors are mutually perpendicular, the scalar product is zero, and this is the mutual information of perception, i.e., there is no knowledge of each other or such communication between them. We will say that there is maximum uncertainty between them.

On the contrary, the smaller the angle between the vectors, the smaller the uncertainty between the corresponding states, the greater the possibility of mutual communication between the two, the greater the interaction, and the greater the information of the perception of their coupling. Thereby they unify greater uncertainty and conserve it like the actions of smaller particles into atoms, which is a process of hiding uncertainty that was particularly pronounced at the very beginning of the Big Bang, about 13.8 billion years ago. Such processes of "sweeping under the rug" unwanted uncertainty, or analogs, continue all the time.

Coupled states are better informed about each other; there is less uncertainty between them, so there is a general tendency in nature to attract, like gravity. Contrary to it, there is also a wider tendency to stretch out, to dilute information, and thus uncertainty, due to which the universe is expanding. Between those two extremes is also a desirable state of rest, which I described in the case of two parallel conductors (Current). Electrons moving in the same direction become information-deficient (magnetically attracted), but their mutual rest is impossible (due to oscillations) when they move in different directions and become information-sufficient to each other (magnetically repel each other).

The enumerated situations also offer ways of evaluating the "stagnation pressure," which is present in different ways in all three (attraction, repulsion, and rest). Among these, the stagnation pressure on the wing of the plane is even more interesting to us in the previous picture on the left, at the point where the air currents diverge. The link takes us to the formula:

\[ p_0 = p_s + \frac12\rho v^2 \]

and explanations. Briefly, p₀ is the total pressure at the "stagnation point," p_s is the static pressure, ρ is the density of the fluid (liquid or gas), and v is the velocity of the fluid flow. When you look a little closer, this total pressure is precisely the "stagnation pressure," without the internal movements of the atoms, a reaction equal to the action of the incoming fluid.

Looking individually at, say, a single photon, the stagnation pressure comes from its momentum or energy. The action (product of energy and time) that the photon carries is equal to nature's "desire" that it not happen. Expanding into multitudes, we perceive how diversity, the first assumption of uncertainty, also becomes nature's tool for avoiding it. Nature is the master of such distortions, we say dualisms, with which it makes the "enemy" an "ally". By escaping into diversity, it reduces its information (Extremes).

Synchronization » srb

Question: Isn't it pretentious to talk about the "pressure of stagnation" in general in the attraction, repulsion, and rest of the state of nature?

Answer: No, because we are talking roughly about the world of information theory. She is new and given the breadth; breadth is the first thing I test her with these answers. The very idea of information that makes up this world, a universe whose essence is uncertainty, was pretentious, but now it has become interesting.. Before that, when I started developing the idea of the "objectivity of chance," the idea of determinism was unsuspected by most. Einstein himself, like many pioneers of quantum mechanics, would never give up on determinism. That is why there is never enough doubt about the assumptions of this theory and their wider consequences.

Our topic is not physics itself in its current scope, and testing and laying the foundations for its expansion based on these principles would be too short-lived if we were to stick too much to details. That's why even for special physical phenomena, like the link in the picture on the right, we also ask for agreement with "stagnation pressure." This is about the spontaneous synchronization of the five metronomes shown, placed on a common slippery surface. Their wave motions interfere because the phases can be brought to mutual rest. Those states are attractive due to the effect of the "force" of stagnation.

Of course, this phenomenon, explained by the attraction of the metronome into superposition, can also be explained by the classical physics of impulses. But the reason for conservation of the momentum of classical physics is again the principle of minimalism of the new theory, which, in its broader form, was previously unknown. From this, we now find that such and similar momentums do not cause analogies to these synchronizations.

We know that children learn imitating. It is also known that the brain reactions of adults follow similar ones in other active people just by observing their physical actions. That discovery began with recent observations in the 1990s of “mirror neurons” that fire whether monkeys are performing a task themselves or watching others actually do it (Rizzolatti & Fabbri-Destro, 2010). Let's add to that the connection of such a finding with the previous superposition via information perception.

Formally, the information of perception is the scalar product of vectors, two states of natural systems. Then it holds (5. Example) Schwartz's inequality \( |\langle u, v \rangle|^2 \le \langle u, u \rangle \langle v, v \rangle \), i.e. |⟨u, v⟩| ≤ ∥v∥ ∥u∥, where the equality holds if and only if the vectors u, v are linearly dependent. The states of different directions are not dependent, which means that such information of perception is less than the product of their special information (vector intensity). That is why they are attracted because they strive for a smaller amount.

Here is the answer to how music, dance, and rhythm unite us. Good concerts are often more attended than many political gatherings or meetings of people interested in life. A minority with pulsating sound slogans on the street will often make a stronger impression than an argumentative, complicated story and a dissonant majority.