What do you think of universal algorithms for solving similar problems in its essence? In particular, is it possible to set up a universal methodology or algorithm to be used for the maintenance of technical systems. And this versatile approach to takes into account all the peculiarities in each case.
I feel nature is always the best place to look for answers to questions such as this...and well..many other questions. It is as if it has already had to figure them out and that the "information" is just there waiting for us to recognize it.
Case in point:
Degeneracy
And my favorite triangle...either appearing here or as an attachment you have to click on.
This has already been represented in many algorithms and design principles (sometimes without the engineers even being aware of it), but I feel it should be focused on more.
At the core of everything , I believe the idea of degeneracy is center principle for a universal algorithm.
Whitacre, James M. 2010. “Degeneracy: A Link between Evolvability, Robustness and Complexity in Biological Systems.” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling 7 (February): 6. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-7-6.
The thing is, for the triangle of degeneracy to "spin," one thing that is expressed in many different ways is required. All of these relate to Buckley's answer
"The problem with neural networks is representation; how finely (number of bits are used to represent) is the solution space mapped. So, Gabriele, how detailed is the representation space that models the observed phenomena? "
Bold claim on my part but:
A) Time = Information = Decoherence/Entanglement = Energy
Some means of relativistic comparison between states of a system or a system or systems or just "things" in at least one of the three dimensions. If only 1 thing exists, you have no information. It's like having a coin will always land on heads. Imagine staring at a box in blackness. You have no thoughts or memories. How can the box move or change size, whatever...without an order to doing so? And that order is time. Because you now have more than 1 state, you now have information.
Something RELATIVE :) - and for a relation to exist, there must be more than 1 thing/state/whatever.
If you flip a coin 5 times, there is an order to your flipping....is that order not time? We can't assume you already know both possible states of the system...really...until you flip the coin to see enough. That would take the example out of isolation. Did you learn the alphabet simultaneously?
If you freeze time, what happens?
Nothing can happen involving your brain as it can't function. There are no thoughts or means you can compare things to. In fact, there is no memory or past/future of anything for anything at a frozen time, the act of using previous information to make a relative comparison requires the passage of time...thus everything exists in only 1 state. No information.
However, information can be associated with other information and maximized via balancing integration and differentiation (see Koch's 2014 30 page book for a simple explanation or Tononi, et al. Integration Information Theory 3.0). What happens then? You get more information.
This process requires the use of energy though. Your brain needs glucose for some reason...and as the bonds break you get energy but then some of it leaks out into the universe and "increases"...."entropy" at least universally doesn't it? The uncertainty of where that energy spread out to becomes more uncertain as it's degrees of freedom just get higher and higher. However, by means of "using" the energy, you locally also increased your certainty about things....or your information. You decreased your "uncertainty" about something.
I would argue that perhaps the universe may already be in "equilibrium." Einstein did fancy that phrase space-time too and especially the dynamics of it didn't he, which I established, basically, as information.
I want to point out, have you heard of the saying "time flies when you're having fun?" While, when you're bored it feels really slow? Ever wondered why flies just might have the upper hand when you try to smash them...same thing with spiders? How many eyes do flies have?....and spiders?...other small insects? Would that potentially equate to more information for that stimuli? Of course their responses are linked directly to their bodies without complex processing, but a below paper also mentions some interesting things (albeit with a misleading paper title about how the ability to collect more information visually and integrate it, the greater the temporal resolution perceived).
Well, I'm going to quote this paper which is much more about visual stimuli, information processing, and temporal resolution....the ability to perceive time at a greater resolution with finer detail:
" that the response dynamics of the retina should be shaped by the organism’s particular ecology, predicts that organisms that demand fast visual systems will acquire adaptations increasing CFF (CFF = critical flicker frequency, they basically put a stobe light in front of what they were measuring and increased the frequency of said strobe until the animal could not longer perceive it as "flashing" or I prefer.. "strobing") values, and hence temporal resolution. For instance, given the strong effect of metabolic rate on CFF, one obvious adaptation is to alter the physiology and metabolism associated with the visual processing systems as seen in the localized heating of tissues in the heads of blowflies (Tatler et al. 2000) and the eyes of predatory swordfish (Fritsches et al. 2005). These tissues increase the temperature around the sensory tissues associated with the blowfly’s or swordfish’s visual system, which allows for an upregulation of CFF. Similar adaptations are also seen across species of large, fast-swimming predatory billfish (Carey 1982) and Lamnidae sharks (Block & Carey 1985). Physiological adaptations for high-resolution motion detection are also found within specific areas of the retina in some flies, commonly referred to as the ‘love spot’, which allow them to identify female flight patterns accurately and thus detect mates (Land & Collett 1974). Alterations to the rate of neuron firing, a fundamental limit to the rate of information transfer, through the provision of energy (Laughlin 2001) or changes in the physiological environment, as described above, would also allow for selection on temporal resolution abilities on a neurological level. "
Healy, Kevin, Luke McNally, Graeme D. Ruxton, Natalie Cooper, and Andrew L. Jackson. 2013. “Metabolic Rate and Body Size Are Linked with Perception of Temporal Information.” Animal Behaviour 86 (4): 685–96. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.06.018.
C) The Dynamics of Entanglement & Decoherence...or space-time...geometry?
Although some of the citations I found seem possess several blindspots by the authors, many of them get at the general gist of the idea.
Fortunately, and you can look at few of the references I provided, although they are kind of shotty.
Let us consider a few things though.
Entanglement.
The fidelity or degree of entanglement is vital here. It needs to be represented by a number, I'll use "Efid".
If two particles are entangled, A or B, or at least as entangled as some scientists could get them (usually by means of what seems to be extreme proximity), and then separated at long distances. We'll assume Efid is 100%, even though that's actually impossible. We'll go with 99%.
If I measure something on Particle A (there are many things to measure too with many different outcomes)....but let's just say...I ask it for 100% certainty its spin & spin in binary.
Upon measuring the spin of the system of Particles A & B, we'll choose A this time Particle A will take one, of two "seemingly" randomly spins, clockwise or counterclockwise. "
A takes on clockwise.
Also, decoherence has occurred from the measurement and entanglement if asked for via 100% certainty would be lost from particle B....as that information...but actually ENTANGLEMENT radiates throughout the the environment...aka measuring device, but not before the system is acted upon...
Particle B is on Mars with William R. Buckley who is coincidentally growing potatoes with Matt Damon. Matt Damon is in the process of costing Earth tons of money, basically dying, screwing things up as usual just like he did in Interstellar but did perform directed panspermia on Mars :)
I assume everyone knows B will take on...and this is the most important part...an anticorrelinary spin to particle A instantaneously. The Magic of Entanglement! The spookiness of it! Faster than light transmission of information? But how?
Now, we can tell Buckley and Damon which spin rotation it took so they know in advance, but that requires transmitting information to them via...electromagnetic waves at the speed of light, the fastest possible way we know...interestingly....
They measure particle B, it's counterclockwise. They already knew that though....if we didn't tell them beforehand and they measured it would appear to take on either a random counter or clockwise spin (it would be counterclockwise...but they didn't know that)....and if they didn't know which one it was beforehand then there's no transmission of information...it just seemed random....due to when you measure property of the particle/wave at "superposition" it takes on one of n "random" variables.
Particle B has decoherence from it's original entanglement and then it entangles into the environment....into the measuring device first and actually whatever else in the environment that could measure spin.
A very important side note about the anticorrelinary nature of this: what if hypothetically one property was for particle A to go "Up" and Particle B to then go "Down." Let's repeat the entire experiment like 500 times. What pattern would likely emerge?
A=UP
B-Down
A-Down
B-Up
A=Down
B=Up
Or.... Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down....hmm that reminds me of a wave..like the kind I'd produce if I threw a rock into a pond.
Luckily it does this too, cause otherwise if it took the same measured state, then there'd be no "context of values when one is chosen fundamentally revealed" - the system would appear to just be in one state....and everything would be like this.
Decoherence to the Environment:
Actually occurs as once the particle is no longer being measured, it needs to go back to equilibrium (hence why I say perhaps the universe is already in this state), it needs to regain all that uncertainty it just lost...aka information you or your measuring thingy got.
Thus, it begins entangling with the environment, taking away the uncertainty of nearby waves that temporarily turn into a probabilistic particle with decreasing fidelity as the degrees of freedom of this spooky "ripple of decoherence into everywhere as its entanglement with the environment increases." It wants to go back to equilibrium as fast as possible too! So it's going to do so via the shortest paths...
If you measure it again or somehow had supervision and could see it, then those become the shortest paths for it to hit equilibrium again as you're asking for 100% certainty.
Ok, so your measurement device transfers it's entanglement to your device
If we used our up down up down example...and the fact that it entangles with the closest particles unless you observe it again, then it entangles with as both you and your measuring device since you usually demand 100% certainty....then it should transfer its entanglement into the measuring device into you as information right? No, that was in the past.....you got all its information at only the moment you measured it ...like copper or gold or platinum or whatever wire, you were the best conductor. Your measuring device will eventually decohere like everything, including your memory, but it's made in such a way that it doesn't decohere to the environment as easily, but in fact integrates within the device. Like a cup does to a cup of coffee.
Does this remind you, in a way, of a wave of updownupdownupdown from a pond that slowly has its waves lower in amplitude? Decoherence occurs just like how your hot cup of coffee radiates outward the thermodynamic energy in it. Such that eventually it decoheres and thus entangles perfectly with it's environment....it's just all the particles in the environment are entangled to some degree. Could the entire universe be entangled on average across all particles/energy then?.... Or perhaps it's moving towards it?
Back to that cup of coffee, that sounds like thermodynamic entropy doesn't it?
Well it also sounds like information entropy as well...as all that heat is information really...travelling throughout some medium. It's seeking an equilibrium in both terms of information and thermodynamic energy.
It's not just its heat though, it's ALL POSSIBLE superposition measures that ONLY relate to heat and that's it. Eventually, the coffee would evaporate though, due to decoherence and entangling into the air environment. The transfer of entanglement like a wave happens just like how light changes depending upon the medium it's going through. It just depends upon what's the best conductor.
In the view of gravitational space-time waves....don't these sound like the spread of entanglement to an environment as decoherence occurs? Remember how I defined information? A change in at least one dimension...implying there was a different one before...implying time.
I think gravitational space time waves are just "information" waves.
For gravitational lensing, let's try an experiment. Fill a pan (like a square one) full of water. Place a big big candle in the middle of it. Like a Yankee candle. Make a wave at one end. Notice how the wave bends around the candle but eventually meets up just like what I perceive gravitational lensing does (I make be wrong).
You decreased your certainty about which way around (either left or right) how that wave is going to pass through. You should get an interference pattern on the other side of your pan reflecting a probability distribution balanced to the probability of the water wave as it passes by the candle ...like the double slit experiment....or light waves. Nature is just going back to equilibrium for information just like it does for heat.
You can also try this with some food coloring. Although it's a more biit more random in it's paths, it will still bend around the candle and meet up. The propagation of entanglement and degrees of freedom allowed.
-----
Let's think about a black hole for a second. Suppose it's sucking and hoarding all of that energy (accretion disk of light that doesn't ever go in actually, and then the rest of everything)....and all of those things it sucks into its singularity....how certain are we then that all of that stuff is in a very small space (the singularity)? Pretty certain. Exposed to it, you would be somehow exposed to an immense amount of information, or really, heavily heavily entangled by it. Time should be dramatically altered, but I think any form of exposure to it even far away would entangle so much with you that you'd just die.
Also, certainty or information is likely related to the collection of stuff in one place, which could connect gravity to quantum gravity.
So, none of this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as the universe truly is moving towards equilibrium, but the definition of equilibrium I think is skewed. The universe doesn't move towards equilibrium as in a cold heat death, it is simply at play with quantum entanglement and decoherence interactions, which, inevitably should continue on forever or explode into another one or....something much cooler...as at the moment time ceases, all things would cease to have any information. No dimensions would exist. It would just be infinity, which, has no relativistic measurement. An infinitely big universe is the same size as an infinitely small one due to the fact measurements only arise or become established
when relativistic measurements can be made.
And this bring me back to degeneracy, what would be the most functionally overlapping things in the universe? Particles/waves...and then what particles are made out of...and then as deep as you can go.
According to the triangle, the universe would be ever adapting, increase in error robustness (this could mean many things), "evolve" (who knows what that means), and become more "complex."
---------------
I got really off topic there, but to answer your question, at its core to be universally applicable it would need to have almost unlimited energy, unlimited information, (ie basically all the information in the universe), or unlimited time to solve ANYTHING.
That already exists I think though, perhaps its called the universe.
Additionally, variable selection without penalization is invalid.
If you look how life applied degeneracy Earth, it differentiated itself into as many different forms as possible. Each form has a different function...in fact there's an ecosystem. A flamingo is better at being pink than I am (unless I had some whisky). Just like every species or form of life is suited best to its environment, each algorithm is the same way.
Now, you COULD make an algorithm that decides on the "best" algorithm to use somehow....or just run your data through them all, ha.
References:
Mason, Paul H. (2 January 2015). "Degeneracy: Demystifying and destigmatizing a core concept in systems biology". Complexity. 20 (3): 12–21. doi:10.1002/cplx.21534
Tononi; Sporns, O.; Edelman, G. M.; et al. (1999). "Measures of degeneracy and redundancy in biological networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 96 (6): 3257–3262. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.6.3257.
Aharonov, Yakir, Eliahu Cohen, and Tomer Landsberger. 2017. “The Two-Time Interpretation and Macroscopic Time-Reversibility.” Entropy 19 (3). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 111. doi:10.3390/e19030111.
Cotsaftis, Michel. 2009. “What Makes a System Complex? - An Approach to Self Organization and Emergence.” In From System Complexity to Emergent Properties, 49–99. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02199-2_3.
Dong, Xin Luna, and Wang-Chiew Tan. 2015. “A Time Machine for Information: Looking Back to Look Forward.” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment International Conference on Very Large Data Bases 8 (12). VLDB Endowment: 2044–45. doi:10.14778/2824032.2824134.
Maccone, Lorenzo. 2011. “The Thermodynamic Arrow-of-Time and Quantum Mechanics.” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 270 (1): 75–79. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2011.01.007.
Maor, Roi, Tamar Dayan, Henry Ferguson-Gow, and Kate Jones. 2017. “Temporal Niche Expansion In Mammals From A Nocturnal Ancestor After Dinosaur Extinction.” bioRxiv. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/123273.
Treumann, Rudolf A. 1992. “Complexity, Information and Time.” World Futures, IASSNS/HEP‐90/41, 33 (4): 213–37. doi:10.1080/02604027.1992.9972284.
Ostoja-Starzewski, Martin. 2017. “Admitting Spontaneous Violations of the Second Law in Continuum Thermomechanics.” Entropy 19 (2). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 78. doi:10.3390/e19020078.
Turner, Leaf. 2004. “Time, Quantum and Information.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37 (14). IOP Publishing: 4301. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/37/14/B01.
Beijnon, Bjorn. 2017. “Consciousness without Bodies: Rethinking the Power of the Visualised Brain.” World Futures 73 (2). Routledge: 78–88. doi:10.1080/02604027.2017.1319664.
Fainman, Y., Daniel M. Marom, Kazutaka Oba, Dmitriy Panasenko, Yuri T. Mazurenko, and P. C. Sun. 1999. “Nonlinear Space-Time Information Processing.” In 1999 Euro-American Workshop
Optoelectronic Information Processing: A Critical Review, 10296:1029604. International Society for Optics and Photonics. doi:10.1117/12.365914.
Santos, Lea F., and Aditi Mitra. 2011. “Domain Wall Dynamics in Integrable and Chaotic Spin-1/2 Chains.” Physical Review E 84 (1). American Physical Society: 016206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.84.016206.
Short, Anthony J., and Terence C. Farrelly. 2012. “Quantum Equilibration in Finite Time.” New Journal of Physics 14 (1). IOP Publishing: 013063. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/1/013063.
Whitacre and Bender; Bender, Axel (2010). "Networked buffering: a basic mechanism for distributed robustness in complex adaptive systems". Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. 7 (20): 20. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-7-20. PMC 2901314 Freely accessible. PMID 20550663. Retrieved 2011-03-11
Within computing there is concern for notions of universality, and that will apply to algorithms. Yet, one suspects that a universal algorithm will of nature be rather large. Programs consist largely of two components, one being case selection and amounts typically to the largest portion of source code within any typical application, and the other amount of code is devoted to specific functionality. Hence, programs really amount to a lot of little routines that serve very specific function (like comparing two genomes, or computing the factorial of an integer, or the inversion of a black and white image, or ...) and a large body of code that decides which of these functions is to next be performed. The point is that there seems to not be an intrinsic way to merge these two functions, selection of operator and application of operator. Hence, one expects that only in rather rare cases will problems of similar nature be addressable with a single piece of code.
Professor William R. Buckley, Thanks for the extremely competent answer. It was a real pleasure for me to meet your expert opinion. With respect A. Georgiev
Hi,
I agree with Prof. William R. Buckley .
with my best regards!
Adel OUESLATI
I should like to add to this discussion an example, that in part addresses the original question, of generality in computation. A well known example of fundamental operation is sorting, such as the ordering of records according to an alphabet. There are many different sorting algorithms, with some five to seven having strongly similar performance characteristics. So, Merge Sort, and Insertion Sort, and Selection Sort, and Heap Sort, and QuickSort all have similar performance, yet they each have particular specific cases of data sorting for which each is more performant than another. Generally, QuickSort is the preferred algorithm, save where some specific and generally observed ordering yields better performance with an alternative of the five. The other two are BubbleSort (hopelessly inefficient) and the RadixSort, which is a rather special case that tends to be applied to purposes other than the strict ordering of data.
There is a goal in computing, to find a Holy Grail called Algebra of Algorithms, and it would perhaps show best why the different versions of sorting algorithms perform so well in a differential sense, and how to inter-convert the code of the algorithms, dependent upon the character of examined data.
The problem with neural networks is representation; how finely (number of bits are used to represent) is the solution space mapped. So, Gabriele, how detailed is the representation space that models the observed phenomena?
I feel nature is always the best place to look for answers to questions such as this...and well..many other questions. It is as if it has already had to figure them out and that the "information" is just there waiting for us to recognize it.
Case in point:
Degeneracy
And my favorite triangle...either appearing here or as an attachment you have to click on.
This has already been represented in many algorithms and design principles (sometimes without the engineers even being aware of it), but I feel it should be focused on more.
At the core of everything , I believe the idea of degeneracy is center principle for a universal algorithm.
Whitacre, James M. 2010. “Degeneracy: A Link between Evolvability, Robustness and Complexity in Biological Systems.” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling 7 (February): 6. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-7-6.
The thing is, for the triangle of degeneracy to "spin," one thing that is expressed in many different ways is required. All of these relate to Buckley's answer
"The problem with neural networks is representation; how finely (number of bits are used to represent) is the solution space mapped. So, Gabriele, how detailed is the representation space that models the observed phenomena? "
Bold claim on my part but:
A) Time = Information = Decoherence/Entanglement = Energy
Some means of relativistic comparison between states of a system or a system or systems or just "things" in at least one of the three dimensions. If only 1 thing exists, you have no information. It's like having a coin will always land on heads. Imagine staring at a box in blackness. You have no thoughts or memories. How can the box move or change size, whatever...without an order to doing so? And that order is time. Because you now have more than 1 state, you now have information.
Something RELATIVE :) - and for a relation to exist, there must be more than 1 thing/state/whatever.
If you flip a coin 5 times, there is an order to your flipping....is that order not time? We can't assume you already know both possible states of the system...really...until you flip the coin to see enough. That would take the example out of isolation. Did you learn the alphabet simultaneously?
If you freeze time, what happens?
Nothing can happen involving your brain as it can't function. There are no thoughts or means you can compare things to. In fact, there is no memory or past/future of anything for anything at a frozen time, the act of using previous information to make a relative comparison requires the passage of time...thus everything exists in only 1 state. No information.
However, information can be associated with other information and maximized via balancing integration and differentiation (see Koch's 2014 30 page book for a simple explanation or Tononi, et al. Integration Information Theory 3.0). What happens then? You get more information.
This process requires the use of energy though. Your brain needs glucose for some reason...and as the bonds break you get energy but then some of it leaks out into the universe and "increases"...."entropy" at least universally doesn't it? The uncertainty of where that energy spread out to becomes more uncertain as it's degrees of freedom just get higher and higher. However, by means of "using" the energy, you locally also increased your certainty about things....or your information. You decreased your "uncertainty" about something.
I would argue that perhaps the universe may already be in "equilibrium." Einstein did fancy that phrase space-time too and especially the dynamics of it didn't he, which I established, basically, as information.
I want to point out, have you heard of the saying "time flies when you're having fun?" While, when you're bored it feels really slow? Ever wondered why flies just might have the upper hand when you try to smash them...same thing with spiders? How many eyes do flies have?....and spiders?...other small insects? Would that potentially equate to more information for that stimuli? Of course their responses are linked directly to their bodies without complex processing, but a below paper also mentions some interesting things (albeit with a misleading paper title about how the ability to collect more information visually and integrate it, the greater the temporal resolution perceived).
Well, I'm going to quote this paper which is much more about visual stimuli, information processing, and temporal resolution....the ability to perceive time at a greater resolution with finer detail:
" that the response dynamics of the retina should be shaped by the organism’s particular ecology, predicts that organisms that demand fast visual systems will acquire adaptations increasing CFF (CFF = critical flicker frequency, they basically put a stobe light in front of what they were measuring and increased the frequency of said strobe until the animal could not longer perceive it as "flashing" or I prefer.. "strobing") values, and hence temporal resolution. For instance, given the strong effect of metabolic rate on CFF, one obvious adaptation is to alter the physiology and metabolism associated with the visual processing systems as seen in the localized heating of tissues in the heads of blowflies (Tatler et al. 2000) and the eyes of predatory swordfish (Fritsches et al. 2005). These tissues increase the temperature around the sensory tissues associated with the blowfly’s or swordfish’s visual system, which allows for an upregulation of CFF. Similar adaptations are also seen across species of large, fast-swimming predatory billfish (Carey 1982) and Lamnidae sharks (Block & Carey 1985). Physiological adaptations for high-resolution motion detection are also found within specific areas of the retina in some flies, commonly referred to as the ‘love spot’, which allow them to identify female flight patterns accurately and thus detect mates (Land & Collett 1974). Alterations to the rate of neuron firing, a fundamental limit to the rate of information transfer, through the provision of energy (Laughlin 2001) or changes in the physiological environment, as described above, would also allow for selection on temporal resolution abilities on a neurological level. "
Healy, Kevin, Luke McNally, Graeme D. Ruxton, Natalie Cooper, and Andrew L. Jackson. 2013. “Metabolic Rate and Body Size Are Linked with Perception of Temporal Information.” Animal Behaviour 86 (4): 685–96. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.06.018.
C) The Dynamics of Entanglement & Decoherence...or space-time...geometry?
Although some of the citations I found seem possess several blindspots by the authors, many of them get at the general gist of the idea.
Fortunately, and you can look at few of the references I provided, although they are kind of shotty.
Let us consider a few things though.
Entanglement.
The fidelity or degree of entanglement is vital here. It needs to be represented by a number, I'll use "Efid".
If two particles are entangled, A or B, or at least as entangled as some scientists could get them (usually by means of what seems to be extreme proximity), and then separated at long distances. We'll assume Efid is 100%, even though that's actually impossible. We'll go with 99%.
If I measure something on Particle A (there are many things to measure too with many different outcomes)....but let's just say...I ask it for 100% certainty its spin & spin in binary.
Upon measuring the spin of the system of Particles A & B, we'll choose A this time Particle A will take one, of two "seemingly" randomly spins, clockwise or counterclockwise. "
A takes on clockwise.
Also, decoherence has occurred from the measurement and entanglement if asked for via 100% certainty would be lost from particle B....as that information...but actually ENTANGLEMENT radiates throughout the the environment...aka measuring device, but not before the system is acted upon...
Particle B is on Mars with William R. Buckley who is coincidentally growing potatoes with Matt Damon. Matt Damon is in the process of costing Earth tons of money, basically dying, screwing things up as usual just like he did in Interstellar but did perform directed panspermia on Mars :)
I assume everyone knows B will take on...and this is the most important part...an anticorrelinary spin to particle A instantaneously. The Magic of Entanglement! The spookiness of it! Faster than light transmission of information? But how?
Now, we can tell Buckley and Damon which spin rotation it took so they know in advance, but that requires transmitting information to them via...electromagnetic waves at the speed of light, the fastest possible way we know...interestingly....
They measure particle B, it's counterclockwise. They already knew that though....if we didn't tell them beforehand and they measured it would appear to take on either a random counter or clockwise spin (it would be counterclockwise...but they didn't know that)....and if they didn't know which one it was beforehand then there's no transmission of information...it just seemed random....due to when you measure property of the particle/wave at "superposition" it takes on one of n "random" variables.
Particle B has decoherence from it's original entanglement and then it entangles into the environment....into the measuring device first and actually whatever else in the environment that could measure spin.
A very important side note about the anticorrelinary nature of this: what if hypothetically one property was for particle A to go "Up" and Particle B to then go "Down." Let's repeat the entire experiment like 500 times. What pattern would likely emerge?
A=UP
B-Down
A-Down
B-Up
A=Down
B=Up
Or.... Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down....hmm that reminds me of a wave..like the kind I'd produce if I threw a rock into a pond.
Luckily it does this too, cause otherwise if it took the same measured state, then there'd be no "context of values when one is chosen fundamentally revealed" - the system would appear to just be in one state....and everything would be like this.
Decoherence to the Environment:
Actually occurs as once the particle is no longer being measured, it needs to go back to equilibrium (hence why I say perhaps the universe is already in this state), it needs to regain all that uncertainty it just lost...aka information you or your measuring thingy got.
Thus, it begins entangling with the environment, taking away the uncertainty of nearby waves that temporarily turn into a probabilistic particle with decreasing fidelity as the degrees of freedom of this spooky "ripple of decoherence into everywhere as its entanglement with the environment increases." It wants to go back to equilibrium as fast as possible too! So it's going to do so via the shortest paths...
If you measure it again or somehow had supervision and could see it, then those become the shortest paths for it to hit equilibrium again as you're asking for 100% certainty.
Ok, so your measurement device transfers it's entanglement to your device
If we used our up down up down example...and the fact that it entangles with the closest particles unless you observe it again, then it entangles with as both you and your measuring device since you usually demand 100% certainty....then it should transfer its entanglement into the measuring device into you as information right? No, that was in the past.....you got all its information at only the moment you measured it ...like copper or gold or platinum or whatever wire, you were the best conductor. Your measuring device will eventually decohere like everything, including your memory, but it's made in such a way that it doesn't decohere to the environment as easily, but in fact integrates within the device. Like a cup does to a cup of coffee.
Does this remind you, in a way, of a wave of updownupdownupdown from a pond that slowly has its waves lower in amplitude? Decoherence occurs just like how your hot cup of coffee radiates outward the thermodynamic energy in it. Such that eventually it decoheres and thus entangles perfectly with it's environment....it's just all the particles in the environment are entangled to some degree. Could the entire universe be entangled on average across all particles/energy then?.... Or perhaps it's moving towards it?
Back to that cup of coffee, that sounds like thermodynamic entropy doesn't it?
Well it also sounds like information entropy as well...as all that heat is information really...travelling throughout some medium. It's seeking an equilibrium in both terms of information and thermodynamic energy.
It's not just its heat though, it's ALL POSSIBLE superposition measures that ONLY relate to heat and that's it. Eventually, the coffee would evaporate though, due to decoherence and entangling into the air environment. The transfer of entanglement like a wave happens just like how light changes depending upon the medium it's going through. It just depends upon what's the best conductor.
In the view of gravitational space-time waves....don't these sound like the spread of entanglement to an environment as decoherence occurs? Remember how I defined information? A change in at least one dimension...implying there was a different one before...implying time.
I think gravitational space time waves are just "information" waves.
For gravitational lensing, let's try an experiment. Fill a pan (like a square one) full of water. Place a big big candle in the middle of it. Like a Yankee candle. Make a wave at one end. Notice how the wave bends around the candle but eventually meets up just like what I perceive gravitational lensing does (I make be wrong).
You decreased your certainty about which way around (either left or right) how that wave is going to pass through. You should get an interference pattern on the other side of your pan reflecting a probability distribution balanced to the probability of the water wave as it passes by the candle ...like the double slit experiment....or light waves. Nature is just going back to equilibrium for information just like it does for heat.
You can also try this with some food coloring. Although it's a more biit more random in it's paths, it will still bend around the candle and meet up. The propagation of entanglement and degrees of freedom allowed.
-----
Let's think about a black hole for a second. Suppose it's sucking and hoarding all of that energy (accretion disk of light that doesn't ever go in actually, and then the rest of everything)....and all of those things it sucks into its singularity....how certain are we then that all of that stuff is in a very small space (the singularity)? Pretty certain. Exposed to it, you would be somehow exposed to an immense amount of information, or really, heavily heavily entangled by it. Time should be dramatically altered, but I think any form of exposure to it even far away would entangle so much with you that you'd just die.
Also, certainty or information is likely related to the collection of stuff in one place, which could connect gravity to quantum gravity.
So, none of this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as the universe truly is moving towards equilibrium, but the definition of equilibrium I think is skewed. The universe doesn't move towards equilibrium as in a cold heat death, it is simply at play with quantum entanglement and decoherence interactions, which, inevitably should continue on forever or explode into another one or....something much cooler...as at the moment time ceases, all things would cease to have any information. No dimensions would exist. It would just be infinity, which, has no relativistic measurement. An infinitely big universe is the same size as an infinitely small one due to the fact measurements only arise or become established
when relativistic measurements can be made.
And this bring me back to degeneracy, what would be the most functionally overlapping things in the universe? Particles/waves...and then what particles are made out of...and then as deep as you can go.
According to the triangle, the universe would be ever adapting, increase in error robustness (this could mean many things), "evolve" (who knows what that means), and become more "complex."
---------------
I got really off topic there, but to answer your question, at its core to be universally applicable it would need to have almost unlimited energy, unlimited information, (ie basically all the information in the universe), or unlimited time to solve ANYTHING.
That already exists I think though, perhaps its called the universe.
Additionally, variable selection without penalization is invalid.
If you look how life applied degeneracy Earth, it differentiated itself into as many different forms as possible. Each form has a different function...in fact there's an ecosystem. A flamingo is better at being pink than I am (unless I had some whisky). Just like every species or form of life is suited best to its environment, each algorithm is the same way.
Now, you COULD make an algorithm that decides on the "best" algorithm to use somehow....or just run your data through them all, ha.
References:
Mason, Paul H. (2 January 2015). "Degeneracy: Demystifying and destigmatizing a core concept in systems biology". Complexity. 20 (3): 12–21. doi:10.1002/cplx.21534
Tononi; Sporns, O.; Edelman, G. M.; et al. (1999). "Measures of degeneracy and redundancy in biological networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 96 (6): 3257–3262. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.6.3257.
Aharonov, Yakir, Eliahu Cohen, and Tomer Landsberger. 2017. “The Two-Time Interpretation and Macroscopic Time-Reversibility.” Entropy 19 (3). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 111. doi:10.3390/e19030111.
Cotsaftis, Michel. 2009. “What Makes a System Complex? - An Approach to Self Organization and Emergence.” In From System Complexity to Emergent Properties, 49–99. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02199-2_3.
Dong, Xin Luna, and Wang-Chiew Tan. 2015. “A Time Machine for Information: Looking Back to Look Forward.” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment International Conference on Very Large Data Bases 8 (12). VLDB Endowment: 2044–45. doi:10.14778/2824032.2824134.
Maccone, Lorenzo. 2011. “The Thermodynamic Arrow-of-Time and Quantum Mechanics.” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 270 (1): 75–79. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2011.01.007.
Maor, Roi, Tamar Dayan, Henry Ferguson-Gow, and Kate Jones. 2017. “Temporal Niche Expansion In Mammals From A Nocturnal Ancestor After Dinosaur Extinction.” bioRxiv. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/123273.
Treumann, Rudolf A. 1992. “Complexity, Information and Time.” World Futures, IASSNS/HEP‐90/41, 33 (4): 213–37. doi:10.1080/02604027.1992.9972284.
Ostoja-Starzewski, Martin. 2017. “Admitting Spontaneous Violations of the Second Law in Continuum Thermomechanics.” Entropy 19 (2). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 78. doi:10.3390/e19020078.
Turner, Leaf. 2004. “Time, Quantum and Information.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37 (14). IOP Publishing: 4301. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/37/14/B01.
Beijnon, Bjorn. 2017. “Consciousness without Bodies: Rethinking the Power of the Visualised Brain.” World Futures 73 (2). Routledge: 78–88. doi:10.1080/02604027.2017.1319664.
Fainman, Y., Daniel M. Marom, Kazutaka Oba, Dmitriy Panasenko, Yuri T. Mazurenko, and P. C. Sun. 1999. “Nonlinear Space-Time Information Processing.” In 1999 Euro-American Workshop
Optoelectronic Information Processing: A Critical Review, 10296:1029604. International Society for Optics and Photonics. doi:10.1117/12.365914.
Santos, Lea F., and Aditi Mitra. 2011. “Domain Wall Dynamics in Integrable and Chaotic Spin-1/2 Chains.” Physical Review E 84 (1). American Physical Society: 016206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.84.016206.
Short, Anthony J., and Terence C. Farrelly. 2012. “Quantum Equilibration in Finite Time.” New Journal of Physics 14 (1). IOP Publishing: 013063. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/1/013063.
Whitacre and Bender; Bender, Axel (2010). "Networked buffering: a basic mechanism for distributed robustness in complex adaptive systems". Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. 7 (20): 20. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-7-20. PMC 2901314 Freely accessible. PMID 20550663. Retrieved 2011-03-11
Dear Nathan Latvaitis, William R. Buckley, Gabriele Scheler and Adel Oueslati,
Thanks for the extremely competent answer and for your interesting look at this theme. It was a real pleasure for me to meet your expert opinion. Especially valuable is the Algebra algorithm idea. I will look for useful sources of information on algebra algorithms. If you can identify appropriate sources for Algebra of Algorithms, I would be very grateful to you.
With respect A. Georgiev
I think that the algorithm should have the capability of learning how the whole system interacts with the situations that happenduring along the life time of the system. Neural Networks can be trained to do that. To help this kind of universal algorithm the different systems of all kind, could have some kind of characteristics, such some kind of digital DNA that could be identified by the universal algorithm in order make possible the data acquisitaion, analysis and interactive solution in case a problem is detected. It is a very interresting reaserach field.
To this comment: " If only 1 thing exists, you have no information. "
The reply is, wrong. The fact of existence means you have information. Try again.
William R. Buckley you are absolutely correct. I forgot to put that detail in. I'll go ahead and correct that. However, you perceive that my use of the term "isolation" does not eliminate existence. It does. It's ISOLATED.
However, I think I shoved so much information into my answer I forgot about further defining certain things - trust me, heh I thought about existence as a context. Existence is most certainly a context.
I don't know if I made the post here, wrote it down somewhere, or what, but it's essentially called:
PINK
It's difficult to describe because you literally can't imagine it due to it's constraints, but essentially try (somehow) to imagine somehow PINK (notice how I contextually use it even), but you arn't there, you don't exist, there is no time, there are no dimensions, there is no universe, there is no existence. I can't even say "JUST PINK" because that means there could have been other things in a way. I can only say PINK.
How can PINK exist without existence though? Look at the verb following PINK, it precludes the necessity for the requirement.
There is no information. Try again. :)
And by the way, friendly debates such as this is how we as humans derive more insight into what we want to understand, so in a way I try to be purposefully "professionally hostile"...if that makes sense.
What if just existence existed?....and that's it?
Hmmm.
Would it exist? "Existence" is once again another signpost that points to the true meaning of what we are trying to communicate but never actually can.
Ivson Ferreira Dos Anjos
Then the algorithm should be modeled after DNA nearly verbatim shouldn't it?
I thought about this before and one very special thing DNA does is it has the ability to transfer "recessive" genes without them affecting the actual phenotype of the organism...there's some interesting stuff on wikipedia about it...or at least ideas with poor/biased citations. Actually, from what I could find, no one has figured out how to copy that ability to transfer, horizontally these recessive traits...so figuring that question out may be the real key here.
Professor Ivson Ferreira Dos Anjos thank you for your interesting opinion! Neural networks are something that can be taught, but the algorithm that you have created and they are working to somewhat limits their universality. The idea of the DNA of the machine and the algorithm on which the machine is working is very interesting.
Professor William R. Buckley and Professor Nathan Latvaitis, thank you for the valuable philosophical debate. My opinion is that "the thing" exists only in time and space. It can not "exist in principle" separated from them. Or at least it's hard for us to imagine how this could happen. Something like the question of the infinity of the universe - the term infinite - we simply can not imagine it because everything that people know is "limited" - it always has a beginning and an end!
Dear Dr Anton,
Seems to be a great idea. Indeed, we already use some algorithms to decide everything in everyday life, most of them unconsciously. But, no doubt that it would be great to have them used clearly by deciding behavior, especially some cases of paradoxes, when we stuck, some dillemas, etc
It´s a great idea.
Best regards.
Professor Aurelio Hess, Thanks for the extremely competent answer.
It was a real pleasure for me to meet your expert opinion.
With respect
A. Georgiev
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology