This is a snippet from a conversation I had concerning the paradigm I operate in: My constructs are beautiful because they are elegant, though, it is really just an implementation of abelian fields… …The basis of my paradigm is a semantic ontology – domains of knowledge and tacit experience. The networks of the semantic ontology have linear transformations and is a differential of intentionality – I can show how experience and intentional objects change along with their corresponding waves and harmonics because it is orthogonally diagonalizable. It’s an abstraction of how concepts exists in a network and it currently compliments Read More
This is a snippet of a conversation from Reddit: I wrote: Gaffluence wrote: Does the first law of Thermodynamics apply to magical energies too? The law being that, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed (simplified version). The answer is no. Conservation of energy is due a temporal translation invariance as described in Noether’s theorem and the Lagrangian. Energy conservation is a consequence of invariance under time translations. Something more abstract than time would not be beholden to that invariance and thus would not be conserved. Basically, if it is not physical, it would not be temporal, and Read More
Several philosophical problems arising from the physics of consciousness, including identity, duplication, teleportation, simulation, self-location, and the Boltzmann Brain problem, hinge on one of the most deeply held but unnecessary convictions of physicalism: the assumption that brain states and their corresponding conscious states can in principle be copied. In this paper I will argue against this assumption by attempting to prove the Unique History Theorem, which states, essentially, that conscious correlations to underlying quantum mechanical measurement events must increase with time and that every conscious state uniquely determines its history from an earlier conscious state.
Imagine a universe in which the most elementary components are stripped of all properties besides some binary notion of existence or non-existence. Like, if the tiniest chunks of spacetime, or chunks of quantum fields, or elements in the abstract space of quantum-mechanical states can either be full or empty. These elements interact with their neighbors by a simple set of rules, leading to oscillations, elementary particles, atoms, and ultimately to all of the emergent laws of physics, physical structure, and ultimately the universe.
But… is the universe actually made of stuff? An increasing number of physicists view the universe – view reality as informational at its most fundamental level. But how big a memory bank would you even need to compute a universe? Seriously, let’s figure it out.