Born to do Math 58 – Hows, then Whys (Part 2)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
May 4, 2017
[Beginning of recorded material]
Rick Rosner: We have the principle that you can only
be in one world at a time, or that at least macro objects that you
interact with are unitary and not shapeshifting. They are consistent and
not shapeshifting from being—your phone isn’t shapeshifting as if it
changing places with phones across alternate worlds. Macro objects
embedded in history don’t behave that way, embedded in our worldline.
There are processes going on that keep us confined to a world that is
shifting and non-existent, except for the natural processes of physics,
biology, and chemistry, and everything. The only allowed changes among
the allowed things in our environment are based on physics and causality
and random shifting among many worlds is precluded. That’s a good first
step for talking about the whys.
[End of recorded material]
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
RickRosner@Hotmail.Com
Rick Rosner
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com
In-Sight Publishing
Endnotes
[1] Four format points for the session article:
- Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or
“Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
- Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
- Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
- This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.
For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
- Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.
[2] Some corresponded around this topic below:
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: IC
questions: Why make light elements without stars? Why make heavy
elements only in stars? Why stop at heavy element formation at Iron in
stars? Why make heavier than Iron elements in super- and hyper-novae
explosions? Why end in neutron stars, white dwarfs, or blackish holes?
Why these progressions informationally?
These amount to developmental
stages in information processing. Organisms are born, develop, mature,
decay, and die. Same with the development of complex elements in the
universe’s apparent life history.
Light elements form, then
heavy elements in the guts of stars, and then stop at Iron, and then
form heavier elements in the spatio-temporal shock waves from supernovae
and hypernovae explosions, and then further decay into their embers as
white dwarfs, neutron stars, and blackish holes.
Maybe, these represent information phase changes.
Or maybe, these represent
information processing or storage peaks, and then the new mechanisms
circumvent the 10^85th information limitations of the bland universe, if
averaged, by localizing – heliosphere, heliopause, and so on –
information processing and then turning light elements into heavy
elements, and the Iron limits of this segmentation requires complete
shedding of the fiery skin of the star for a big spatiotemporal shock
wave, and then this create heavier elements, where needed – because
these heaviest elements only form when up to Iron is no longer good
enough and the super heavy elements can be used by all parts of the
universe through super spreading.
The last remnants that don’t
need active processing anymore, dense data processing, can be stored in
the neutron stars and the blackish holes.
The neutron stars and the blackish holes as if big lock-downs like electrons in orbits around nuclei.
Maybe, there’s the transition from magnitude to magnitude, information processing load to information processing load.
That’s funny.
It could match a comedian’s set: setup, punchline, setup, punchline, setup bigger punchline…
Information locked down in
atoms and electron orbits. Information processing until light elements,
and then lock down, and then information processing in stars into heavy
elements, and then lock down, and then supernovae and hypernovae, and
then short-term creation of heaviest elements, and the lock down into
massive structures such as neutron stars and blackish holes.
It seems clean.
There is 4-dimensionality, but there’s also the dimension or the factor of scale.
Scale might be the dimension of information load, and so relevance to the larger-scale information processing in the universe.
Up-down, left-right,
forward-backward as the what – “here’s a bunch of room to do stuff.”
Time as stuff taking place in the what, so the how – “here’s a stuff
doing stuff in the bunch of room.” The information load or the relevance
metric as the why – “here’s the importance of this stuff relative to
other smaller stuff based on what this stuff is doing in the bunch of
room and its bigness.”
Perhaps, that is the bridge to
the why from the how, which is the indication of relevance. No direct
translation, but a measurement for hinting at importance.
Then, we can ask the whys.
We can ask those whys with more precision.
I do not know if this can be
considered an additional dimension because the standard 4 dimensions
translate into space and time in Minkowskian Space. I feel as though the
hows lead to the whys, but does not have a bridge. The hows amount to
the new set theory and the informational physics as reality. The ethics,
from within the universe and derived from the basic premises of logic –
so math and set theory, new or old, especially new, give the basis for
action from one information processor to another, but come from the
logic, or the new set theory and the informational cosmology/physics.
The facts of existence lead to inevitable oughts. Probable is – or seems – derives probable oughts – or might as well.
Hume was right in a cosmos of
classical mechanics, of Cartesian coordinate systems, and absolute,
linear, and infinitely defined time and space. The facts of existence
evolve in an absolute manner, the universe and organisms. No ‘rhyme or
reason’ for ought.
In an Einsteinian,
Minkowskian, curved, finite, universe with a beginning, and evolved
organisms and a universe, it seems better, but much the same. You get,
at the limit, deism or a Spinoza pantheism, as did Einstein – as you
well know, simply laying the reasoning out as clear and thoroughly as
possible.
Deism and pantheism hint at non-random directionality to the universe, but stay without grounded ethics.
I suspect Einstein selected
deism/pantheism and secular humanist values based on these reasons.
Humanism does not have basic beliefs. It has, as with other belief
systems, asserted positions. It rejects gods, God, and the supernatural,
though no by necessity rejecting gods or God.
In this interpretation, and
seemingly rooted and valid, even sound, humanism becomes another faith
system minus pervasive faith, selective faith in humanity and asserted
‘human values.’
IC creates ethics from the
bottom-up, following from the logic. The Minkowskian, curved, finite
universe with an apparent beginning rooted in information, with scales
of emergence – increasing solidity in material or physical reality based
on more information to self-define and actualize itself. We have both
mentioned these, at disparate times, of the “might as well” ethic the
“good enough” organism evolution, and “as if” universe.
The bridge to the bridge to
the bridge, and so on, is the no physics and supernatural & absolute
ethic (pre-science and religious institutions) to the infinite physics
and natural & partial ethic (early science and humanistic
institutions) to the finite physics and inevitable ethics.
The finite and inevitable ethics, or ethic, really, as IC in its early development.
The whys of the universe, the
purpose to the universe relative to the armature world becomes the
metaphysical whys for the universe, or category 1 whys/primary whys. The
relevance of structures of the universe relative to the reality in the
armature world, as noted earlier, as the category 2 whys/secondary whys.
The third whys, or category 3 whys/tertiary whys, are the relevance –
without explicit knowledge and representation of its manifestation in
the mind of the armature – of structures, via their magnitude, in the
universe, one to the other – one filament to another, and one atom
exchanging photons with another in a probabilistically defined space
over a relatively defined time. The probabilistic space, or volume, and
the time associated with the volume, amount to the information capture,
and these can be redefined in the ICST language too. To develop category
2 and category 1 whys, primary and secondary whys, we best explain as
best as we can category 3 whys. As near as I can tell, category 3 make
the foundation for category 2, and category 3, then 2, build the bases
for category 1.
These relate the physics, the
set theory, the ethics, the hows, and differentiate whys and set us,
potentially, on a course to answering them.
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing and
In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at
www.in-sightjournal.com and
www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and
In-Sight Publishing and
In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without
express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is
strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full
and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and
In-Sight Publishing and
In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
