|
If we could have asked Darwin back then (1859) to dictate the DNA of man, he would have been powerless to answer. But this does not necessarily mean that his concept of random selection in the evolution of species is very wrong, nor that it is truncated because science is a process of spreading knowledge. We are in a similar situation with information theory when we ask how life originates. From this point of view, it is enough that we have stepped beyond dead physical matter, its rigid position of least action, into a far broader form of principled minimalism.
Freedom II » srb
Question: What is the difference between a "living" and a "non-living" being?

Answer: A specific amount of freedom is the shortest answer. It cannot always be said that a larger body is freer than a smaller one, and I set the amount of freedom per unit of volume, per unit of mass, or depending on the task. In addition, we are expanding the definition of "amount of options.".
Every spontaneous process has at its root the principle of minimalism, so let's look at the growth of entropy as the decline of information. When fluid molecules cool, their oscillations and options weaken; they lose thermal energy and uncertainty. Such thermodynamic regularity stops with some external action, an external force that will overcome the found "force of spontaneity," with which molecules would avoid uncertainties when they are allowed to do so (Opposites).
In this way, we see that at the root of physical choices is actually choosing less force, less resistance in the continuation of the behavior of the given object. Excess choice comes with having greater powers, additional strength, or energy to advocate for that freedom. It is known that this applies to all phenomena of physics, from the smallest to the largest. Now let's note that it will be the same when it comes to systems with freedoms greater than simple physical ones.
The link to the image above on the left leads to an interesting article about power structures and freedom of speech. The author says “Freedom of speech is no longer about rights; it's about power," but I would add that freedom is neither when it was nor could be only a matter of "rights" (legislative or executive power based on equality). Even the most "equal" students in the class, like sports competitors or identical twins at the beginning of their lives, are so different that there are no "equal circumstances" for them. By pretending not to see it, we tacitly give preference to the stronger and fall into even greater lies by defending the fruits of the "right of choice.".
Therefore, physical reality spontaneously chooses its paths following the least resistance, and we, with excess options, defy those choices with our additional forces. To be a system with a surplus of possibilities (e.g., a living being) relative to the physical substance of which it consists means to have surplus energy, or force, for acting on additional choices. That is the meaning of excess freedom — defiance. The basic difference between "living" and "inanimate" is the ability to disregard the principle of least action.
Realism » srb
Question: What did you use that weird definition of "reality" for?

Answer: The term "reality" to me is an idiom for the kind of "existence" that concerns physical reality in terms of perception, duration, and accuracy. It is not "augmented reality," which is clarified by the attachment of the link from this image, nor is it, say, fictitious like Pinocchio. It served me to distinguish the inanimate matter of physics from everything else. Therefore, the working concept of "reality" was for me everything that is inconsistent in one of perceptibility, conservation, or accuracy.
The mentioned "augmented reality," otherwise a new technology that develops and allows users to experience a world enhanced by digital content such as visual images, graphics, and other information, can say "I'm lying" and be in contradiction. However, in physical reality, something that would be demonstrably impossible is not possible, so that computer reality is just fiction in my theory. Centuries of the past without computers testify that their addition to our reality does not have the kind of durability we need here. There were no such observations, so "augmented reality" does not meet any of the three necessary criteria. It's the same with the characters from the novel, because they can lie too.
However, the forms of energy are not "reality" in the sense we need, and together with the previous two examples, they are not even in the known philosophical sense, the objectively existing on which we cannot influence. Energy can change these fictitious forms, but its quantity is "real." Feelings of hot or cold will therefore go into the "fiction" category. Objectively existing things that we cannot influence, on the other hand, can also be someone else's lie, so that classic definition of reality also does not suit me.
When we think about it, the law of conservation is always related to some variable properties characteristic of it. For example, conservation of angular momentum for rotating bodies is analogous to conservation of linear momentum. Each particle of a body has an angular momentum that is the product of its mass, its distance from the axis of rotation, and the component of its velocity perpendicular to the axis. The amount of electric charge in a given system does not change with time, while at the subatomic level charged particles are created or destroyed. They are always in pairs with equal positive and negative charge, so the total amount of charge always remains the same.
With a new definition of reality as immutability and fiction as changeability, we discover that every physical body combines them. We are one step away from understanding "life" in general as a fuse of reality and its opposite. In that combination, for example, it is possible to lie, and because of that, one gains freedom. The coupling of reality and fiction does not have the obligation to follow the principle of least action perfectly. That is the purpose of that strange definition of reality.
Truthfulness comes as a consistent condition of reality (Truth Power). Namely, that he can lie is not reality. However, listing every "truth" as "real," every correct mathematical statement becomes physical information, so we begin to look at things themselves, physical bodies, and objects of scientific study as bulbs of truth. There is no such thing as real matter without laws to which it obeys, and none of them are untrue. Moreover, it lasts, and we perceive it.
Gain » srb
Question: How is it possible to link such "fiction" to "reality"?

Answer: We have already seen that various forms of energy are associated with such "realities", and in that sense they are "fictions". All living things are examples of possible such connections. Examples in linear algebra are (ladder) operators of vector zero-spaces that vanish with immediate successive application (Diversification), but in other combinations there will be isometries. We use the isometry operators to simulate conservation laws, as can be seen with the explanation of the Hamiltonian in the Sprega informacija script.
An interesting way of getting "something out of nothing" is Parrondo's Paradox. In that from my attachment, or a similar example via the link in the picture on the right. The contribution from the figure (SHU, JJ., WANG, QW. Beyond Parrondo's Paradox. Sci Rep 4, 4244 (2014)) is an equal combination of two losing games, A and B, into a winning one. It is particularly interesting because by "understanding" probabilities, it becomes particularly incomprehensible how a random half-half combination of two games can become a winner. However, a computer simulation (I checked it) inexorably confirms the authors.
In the first game A, in each move the player with probability p1 < 0.5 gets per token, which means he loses more often than he wins. In the second game B, if the player has a number of chips that is divisible by the number m = 3, then with probability p2, he gets one chip, and if his number of tokens is not divisible by 3, then he gets a token with probability p3. In this second game, the probability of winning is:
\[ \frac13 p_2 + \frac23 p_3 \gt \frac12, \]because only every third number is divisible by three. Therefore, the gain is more certain with the condition p2 + 2p3 > 1.5. For example, if p3 = 0.7 the game (B) will be a winner when p2 > 0.1; otherwise it is a loser. It seems that it doesn't matter that we mix these games, step one and step another, because with each step, the chances of losing will be higher. However, the calculation as well as computer simulations show that with (random) shuffling, the chances of winning are slightly but definitely higher.
For example, we code game A in Python 3.11.0 as a module like this:
def igra_a(chip = 100): p1 = 0.495 r = random.random() if r ≤ p1: chip = chip + 1 else: chip = chip - 1 return chip
We code game B like this:
def igra_b(chip = 100): m = 3 p2 = 0.095 p3 = 0.745 r = random.random() if chip % m == 0: # divisible by m if r ≤ p2: chip = chip + 1 else: chip = chip - 1 else: # is not divisible if r ≤ p3: chip = chip + 1 else: chip = chip - 1 return chip
We call these modules from a program that calls them equally:
c = 100 for j in range(5): n = 1000 * (j+1) for i in range(n): x = random.random() if x ≤ 0.5: c = igra_a(c) else: c = igra_b(c) print(j+1, n, c)
The result is:
1 1000 134 2 2000 246 3 3000 356 4 4000 372 5 5000 436
The number of initial tokens is c = 100, and the number of repetitions n is increased by 1000. You can change it at will, but it is good that the number of trials (steps of the game) n be even larger, because the gain (loss) is very slow. Otherwise, the authors of the article generated 10,000 steps in 200 games and presented the results graphically.
For example, when we put x = 1 instead of x = random.random(), then only game B is executed and output is obtained:
1 1000 90 2 2000 72 3 3000 20 4 4000 2 5 5000 -68
This proves that game B itself is indeed a losing game. If we put x = 0, we will get the outcomes of the first game itself:
1 1000 98 2 2000 18 3 3000 0 4 4000 2 5 5000 -70
That was probably obvious, but here is the simulation proof that game A itself is also a loser.
What we imagine here by generalizing is the certain disappearance of a certain phenomenon, fiction in situation A, as well as in situation B. They are both such convenient realities that the creation, or at least the maintenance, of the same phenomenon occurs in the combination of AB.
Beginning » srb
Question: Are there no chances for the origin of life?

Answer: Yes, there would be little chance for completely random ingredients to appear as just equally probable patterns from non-living matter in living form. However, these expectations are changed by the principle of minimalism.
Equally probable outcomes (Extremes) have greater information, so differences arise spontaneously. Opposites attract (Opposites), to join together in subsystems of greater information capacity. Because of the same, the chances of the creation of living forms are greater than non-living ones, because they deposit more information. The newly created excess of uncertainty can become a new balance for them, a comfort zone prevented from above by the force of probability and below by the law of conservation of information.
It is more likely that the achieved state of vitality will tend to remain in that state than to immediately pass to another because otherwise, it would immediately be another. However, with time, things change. There is an imperative, some "force of spontaneity," which constantly pushes us into states of less information in an environment where everyone strives for the same. It would easily lead us to states of eternal balance if it were not for the impermanence of information itself. Stale news is no longer the initial news, and new news becomes old already after time Δt, i.e., the duration of the energy change ΔE that brought it with the quantum of action ΔE⋅Δt = h.
In addition to the extreme information of the uniform distribution in relation to all others of the given interval of values (a, b), the extreme is exponential in relation to all others of the given expectation μ. These are, for example, repetition distributions without memory. When we have only two outcomes, the first with probability p ∈ (0, 1) that the given event will happen and another with probability q = 1 - p that it will not happen, such an exponential distribution is in probability questions affirmative for the first time in exactly the k-th try (k = 1, 2, 3, ...)? It is:
qk-1p = eλk-1p, λ = ln q,
and it is an exponential distribution, because:
\[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty e^{\lambda(k-1)} p = p(1 + e^\lambda + e^{2\lambda} + ...) = \frac{p}{1 - e^\lambda} = \frac{p}{1 - q} = 1. \]Exponential distributions are maximally informative (with a given mean value μ) analogously to homogeneous ones because they represent the same repetition over and over again. However, nature escapes from those maxima into diversity, and with that, the chances of the emergence of complex forms in general increase.
In this case (exponential distributions), nature also escapes from the state of forgetting into "remembering," even if it is apparent. For example, bacteria would multiply exponentially, but as they spread, they kill the hosts and, or make them immune, causing their epidemic to weaken. Every exponential distribution is actually due to principled minimalism, and we find that for one reason or another, it changes to a less informative one. That's why fictions are snatched up to have any duration at all, which increases their chances of merging with reality.
Contrary to the aforementioned spontaneous avoidance of maximum information, in a homogeneous state and process, is the tendency to maintain it. Information doesn't seem to want to exist, and each one disappears as soon as it is created. However, in reality governed by the laws of conservation, instead of the old one, a new one appears with the same amount of uncertainty but perhaps with a different content. Thus, in the particle-wave of light (photon), the electric and magnetic fields change, alternately inducing each other. Inside the molecule, the positions of the atoms, in the atom of the electrons, change, and all together are never in the same place and in relation to the environment. But in some ways they always last and remain the same.
They have the same "forces" that drive their "spontaneity," and their overall energies and overall actions are the same. Hence the inertia, or laziness, of bodies in general, whether animate or inanimate. The brain likes to think about the same thing; we stabilize ourselves with the routines we strive for, first in physiological functioning, then in moral, social, or cultural. Avoidance of change, fear of uncertainty, or preference for more likely outcomes have the same root in principled minimalism.
All these "strivings for the same" are pressed from above by the striving for less information. In the impossibility of possibly transferring such excess somewhere into bare substance, because information is omnipresent and everywhere unwanted, smaller forms of life unite into larger ones. Hence the individual's desire to submit to authority, or to be superior, also to surrender his liberties to a team or society for security or efficiency. That's how states are created, and that's why they disintegrate.
Uprising » srb
Question: When "life" is already phased out, how does it survive and develop?

Answer: The subtleties of life's survival are much more complex than, say, some complex tensor equation that we would equally fail to understand. Life alone is more difficult to survive and even more difficult to ascend. However, it is obvious that there are also reliefs, some of which we can describe with this theory.
The fact that living things eat to replenish energy is consistent with the ways described here for the formation of the real and the unreal. They do this even to a greater extent than if they feed on completely inanimate substances, because it is easier to get directly to the compound they need than from far away.
We also notice that the saturation of microbes is greater, and we expect more crowding around the transfer of excess information on a simpler level. The shrinking world of physics will have more and more elementary particles with less complexity of shape, we believe. Because of the bigger crowds, but also the constant compulsions of principled minimalism, they have greater needs, and hence greater chances of jumping into other types. That's why viruses and bacteria mutate faster than, say, ants.
In the book Information of Perception (2016) I called "intelligence" the ability to survive the combination of real and unreal, living beings (not only by the number of IQ test scores). In a world of uncertainty, it is one thing to emerge as some combination of truth and falsehood but quite another to remain so. Well, sign I, there is that intelligence of the creature, which is greater if it possesses a greater "amount of options" (information) compared to the inanimate matter of which it would consist. The assumption is that it then has a greater need for freedom.
The information possessed by a living being with the ability to survive I is directly proportional to the required freedoms S and inversely proportional to the constraints H in the book called "Hierarchy.". Therefore, we have I = S/H, i.e., S = IH. We further assume that this applies to every single one of n = 1, 2, 3, ... kinds of perceptions, so we have the sum of "freedoms":
s = i1h1 + i2h2 + ... + inhn,
which I call "information of perception.".
Based on that sum of products:
Q = a1⋅b1 + ... + an⋅bn,
therefore, more freely written information of perception as a coupling of two states, a series of abilities, the interpretation of the vectors a = (a1, ..., an) and b = (b1, ..., b n) that can communicate (interact), but they don't have to; the vitality of the coupling is calculated. It is an excess of the "amount of options" (information) in the participant's bond compared to inanimate substances. Moreover, I tested the idea in some simulations of simpler game forms.
In cases of constant intensities of the given vectors, |a| and |b|, the capacity of the state of the subjects, the association of pairs, and the factor of the sum of the products can be changed, and it will change the result of Q. The smallest such result would belong to the least vital connection, and it is easy to prove that it will be when we multiply the smaller coefficients of the first series by the larger ones of the second. On the contrary, Q will be larger when we multiply the smaller coefficients of the first by the smaller ones of the second, and, which is then understood, we multiply the larger by the larger.
Namely, 1⋅3 + 2⋅1 < 1⋅1 + 2⋅3. Inanimate nature has the least vitality, but it does not need additional choices because it is certainly indestructible (the laws of conservation apply to it). Such subjects a, characters (Traits) that express greater vitality in Q when facing circumstances b are superior in a given situation. They have greater game skill in contests, which otherwise are not inherent in dead matter. Reciprocity, defiance, resistance, but also support with which the first subject addresses the other, can be reduced to "good for good and bad for bad," measured, timely, and as less predictable as possible (equal to quantity, not type of response).
There is no such treatment of competition in game theory, which is why I dwell on it longer. If we take mean values as zeros, we will also get negative coefficients. They are convenient to show us the intensity of evil, harm, that is, negative interaction for the amount of coupling and then for a worse level of play, less overall mastery of competition, and a lower league of competition.
With such notations, plus for "good" and minus for "evil," for the parts of the strings (3, 2) instead of 5 and (2, 1) instead of 3, by combining we find:
3⋅2 + 2⋅1 < 5⋅3,
which means that breaking identical ones lowers the Q total, or combining related ones boosts the game. It is the effect of teamwork (on a related task). A counterexample is disassociation of unrelated ones, which enhances the game:
7⋅4 + (-2)⋅(-1) > 5⋅3,
where 5 of the first subject is separated in (7, -2), and 3 of the second in (4, -1), to have a higher level of play. In other words, when you have a person who is partly good and partly evil (which is almost a regular occurrence) or a system that behaves in such a complex manner (in war, politics, commerce, and gaming), don't "paint them the same," but try to be subtle and "separate the wheat from the chaff" of that mixture. Then you become a master of the game, not a dull loser. Observing, not rushing, and knowing how to surprise are the characteristics of the games of the highest league, but they are not given to everyone. Namely, the vitality you have is what you have, and it cannot be stretched indefinitely.
Similar findings are found in other metrics of abstract spaces, except that the calculation can be much more complicated than the above ℓ1 metric (Manhattan norm) belonging to 1-norm spaces.
Simulation » srb
Question: How do you make the same contents of these pages, because there are no traces of PHP programs, JavaScript, or similar?

Answer: The question was extracted from a longer discussion about computer simulations and strategies of my above claims, which cannot be presented lightly here, nor would I want to.
You have noticed it well that the pages contain a lot of PHP applications and JavaScript, but I use them mostly where it is not common. For example, Vigenère code was made in PHP in three versions, and Cyrilizator in JavaScript extensively, although I also have equivalents with "Latinizer" in a few lines of Python. This is my private gaming site after all, so I also write repeated texts in ways that are "not normal." I write programs that change programs. This is done, for example, by modifications of the replacement program. I will list a few short and easy ones.
I keep modules like this process() in separate files. On the header is its address, the sys-path, so that Python knows where they are. That same module is called multiple times from the bottom part that starts with a list of whatever files to search, here simple names that the for loop assembles into the HTML.
import sys sys.path.append('D:rvukovic.rs\blogen') def obrada(teka): f = open(teka, "r", encoding='utf-8-sig') y = f.read() f.close() ulaz = '<li><a href="2501c.html"> Life «</a> Jan III 2025</li>' pocetak = '<ul>\n ' ulaz1 = pocetak + ulaz dodat = '<li><a href="2502.html"> Trajectories «</a> February 2025</li>' izlaz = pocetak + dodat + '\n ' + ulaz z = y.replace(ulaz1, izlaz) if ulaz1 in y: print(teka, dodat) f = open(teka, "w", encoding='utf-8-sig') f.write(z) f.close() return god = [2501, "2501b", "2501c"] for x in god: teka = str(x) + ".html" obrada(teka)
It won't, it won't— the interlocutor tells me—because of the special characters "<" or "\n" which Python treats as executable statements and not as text to be processed. And that's the reason why I package them in separate names, "ulaz" (input) and "izlaz" (output). In order for the inputs to be the beginning of the list, after the <ul> mark, I look for ulaz1 = '<ul>\n\t\t\t' + ulaz and take into account the formatting of that paragraph in the HTML program. So "\n" for a new line followed by four tab jumps "\t". Another way is to insert a new line and ten spaces, as done here. You get a neat printout like in this picture, in all "Sites" of the listed programs.

Notice that output = '<ul>\n\t\t\t' + dodat + '\n\t\t\t' + input is formed to be the new start of that list (Serb "dodat" means added). By repeating the same, the program will not add a new row of the same list. This takes advantage of Python to manipulate programs like regular TXT files. After all, that's why it was a leader in the so-called machine learning.
Now here is another similar program that searches my blogs, looking for given words:
def naslov(txt,url): # Reads the title of the given site from urllib.request import urlopen page = urlopen(url) html = page.read().decode("utf-8") start_naziv = html.find("") + len(" ") end_naziv = html.find(" ") naziv = html[start_naziv:end_naziv] s_telo = html.find("<body") + len("<body") e_telo = html.find("