Born to do Math 88 - Noodles in Molasses and Pencil in Polymer
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
September 15, 2018
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Filaments are large-scale objects in the universe. They are comprised of galaxies.
Rick Rosner: They are strings of galaxies, basically. It turns out if you map the universe. I guess, most galaxies lie along these strings and planes that are enormous. Generally, more than 100 million lightyears in lengths.
If the structure of the universe incorporates memory, then you're going to be able to activate galaxies associationally. I don't know what other models you would use for memory except that if you think of enough things associated with a memory then the memory will light up, via association.
Jacobsen: In your mind, certain networks activate. Other ones de-activate. So, it amounts to a selective activation dependent upon activity.
Rosner: But it is associational.
Jacobsen: But it is not willy-nilly associational. It is associational based on more established structures as people get older.
Rosner: If you can trigger a memory through a string of words like "second-grade teacher," you will remember her/him once you remember what that word is. Same with a smell and other sensory triggers. A memory pops up once there are enough associational triggers.
The time frame in your brain is generally less than a second. Unless you are struggling to find the memory. You root around and try to find out what you're trying to remember via association. For instance, sometimes, I have trouble remembering something, particularly if the name of the thing starts with a "b" or a "w."
I can narrow down to starting with a "b" or a "w." If I think about it for a while, the thing may pop up. Or I may have to give up and try again in a few minutes, once I have cleared the clutter I created trying to dredge up the memory. It is generally associational and happens in less than a second.
We don't know. But if the universe is an information processor, that associational thing is on a scale of many billions of years. Pulling up a galaxy or a string that incorporates the memory, that thing would take, at least, a good chunk of the time of the apparent age of the universe.
But the mechanics of it, I have to read more on the filaments. But I would assume this much mass tends to gravitationally focus radiation. There's gravitational lensing. Where if you have a massive body between you and a star, or a galaxy, that massive object will bend more light from that star or galaxy towards you, than you would get otherwise.
In a perfect lens situation, you would see a ring in the sky centered on the massive object with that ring being bent light from the distant star or galaxy. I assume if you have a whole string of galaxies, then those would tend to focus radiation.
It would mean neutrinos and photons for the most part. As they travel close to the string over a length or across 100 million lightyears or more, that string of massive galaxies would tend to act like not just one lens but a whole string of lenses that would tend to pull more and more radiation in, and focus it on various different points on that filament.
If you have that going on, I saw a picture or a map of the filaments along the Milky Way. There are 4, 5, or more. If you have lit up filaments, 2, 3, or more of those feeding into a galaxy. I would assume that would be enough to light up an old galaxy.
By feeding into, I mean, you have a bunch of galaxies along these filaments. Due to gravitational lensing, though it should be called something else because it is a string of them, you could call it gravitational filamenting, but that is terrible. Anyway!
All those areas would tend to be focused on a non-lit up galaxy and, maybe, would light it up again. The question then becomes, "Why isn't everything lighting up all the time?" My guess, the filaments are linked by what was lit up when that galaxy was first precipitated into existence, associationally.
That is, as the universe progresses, we have talked about how the universe is both expansive and decelerative if energy lost from photons is adding to the information in the universe, where the universe gets apparently bigger and bigger but related galaxies, while growing somewhat more distant from each other, grow closer to each other in terms of the Hubble Shift.
As the galaxies cluster in terms of the Hubble Shift, that leaves room at high Hubble velocities, or apparent velocities, for the new matter to be pulled in at the edge of the universe around T=0. It is not pulled in willy-nilly. It is pulled in response to which galaxies or parts of the universe are lit up and doing the jobs of expanding space and expanding information at the time.
New matter precipitates out of the mess, at the beginning of time.
Jacobsen: If you look at the decelerative nature of the universe as well as its expansion, if you were to look at it in the Big Bang structure, you would see a slow, steady formation of new types of large-scale objects, very large-scale objects, over time.
That could amount to certain types of information processing coming online. It matches the story in development of minds. More systems begin to interact, come online, and produce novelty with prior similarity.
Rosner: I mostly agree with that. That is a fractal kind of phenomenon.
Jacobsen: There would be repetition but more distinct novelty, though.
Rosner: As you have room for larger and larger clusters or spatially associated structures to form, you will form, as you said, bigger and bigger ones. A universe with 2 atoms can't form any clusters, really, because there is not enough stuff.
A universe with 20 atoms might be able to form a couple level 1 clusters. Those with 2,000 atoms might be able to have level 2 clustering. But when we get into larger levels, in our universe, there are various levels of clusters. You have solar systems, galaxies, superclusters, and filaments.
I don't know if there is stuff in-between.
Jacobsen: There are.
Rosner: So, there are different levels, which are associational clusters and relate to what is active in the universe at the time the new matter is pulled from the edge of the universe. It means not everything is connected to everything else. Instead, you have a loose weave.
Jacobsen: I notice different processes relevant to different types of information processing at different time scales. Small things happen at shorter time scales. Large things happen at longer time scales.
Rosner: At the largest scales with these filaments, I would guess there would be various, multiple braided but not strongly interactive filament structures.
Jacobsen: They could act as anchors. I see them as noodles in molasses.
Rosner: There is this deal. When you have a bunch of liquid polymers, and you dip a pencil in, you can pull out a bunch of gunk because the filaments line up as you pull this snotty stuff out of your liquid. But I would guess that it is not all one filament.
There are sets of filaments strongly connected to each other, interwoven among other sets of filaments that are strongly connected to each other with only weak filamentary connections among various sets of very strongly filaments.
With that, I got to break.
If the structure of the universe incorporates memory, then you're going to be able to activate galaxies associationally. I don't know what other models you would use for memory except that if you think of enough things associated with a memory then the memory will light up, via association.
Jacobsen: In your mind, certain networks activate. Other ones de-activate. So, it amounts to a selective activation dependent upon activity.
Rosner: But it is associational.
Jacobsen: But it is not willy-nilly associational. It is associational based on more established structures as people get older.
Rosner: If you can trigger a memory through a string of words like "second-grade teacher," you will remember her/him once you remember what that word is. Same with a smell and other sensory triggers. A memory pops up once there are enough associational triggers.
The time frame in your brain is generally less than a second. Unless you are struggling to find the memory. You root around and try to find out what you're trying to remember via association. For instance, sometimes, I have trouble remembering something, particularly if the name of the thing starts with a "b" or a "w."
I can narrow down to starting with a "b" or a "w." If I think about it for a while, the thing may pop up. Or I may have to give up and try again in a few minutes, once I have cleared the clutter I created trying to dredge up the memory. It is generally associational and happens in less than a second.
We don't know. But if the universe is an information processor, that associational thing is on a scale of many billions of years. Pulling up a galaxy or a string that incorporates the memory, that thing would take, at least, a good chunk of the time of the apparent age of the universe.
But the mechanics of it, I have to read more on the filaments. But I would assume this much mass tends to gravitationally focus radiation. There's gravitational lensing. Where if you have a massive body between you and a star, or a galaxy, that massive object will bend more light from that star or galaxy towards you, than you would get otherwise.
In a perfect lens situation, you would see a ring in the sky centered on the massive object with that ring being bent light from the distant star or galaxy. I assume if you have a whole string of galaxies, then those would tend to focus radiation.
It would mean neutrinos and photons for the most part. As they travel close to the string over a length or across 100 million lightyears or more, that string of massive galaxies would tend to act like not just one lens but a whole string of lenses that would tend to pull more and more radiation in, and focus it on various different points on that filament.
If you have that going on, I saw a picture or a map of the filaments along the Milky Way. There are 4, 5, or more. If you have lit up filaments, 2, 3, or more of those feeding into a galaxy. I would assume that would be enough to light up an old galaxy.
By feeding into, I mean, you have a bunch of galaxies along these filaments. Due to gravitational lensing, though it should be called something else because it is a string of them, you could call it gravitational filamenting, but that is terrible. Anyway!
All those areas would tend to be focused on a non-lit up galaxy and, maybe, would light it up again. The question then becomes, "Why isn't everything lighting up all the time?" My guess, the filaments are linked by what was lit up when that galaxy was first precipitated into existence, associationally.
That is, as the universe progresses, we have talked about how the universe is both expansive and decelerative if energy lost from photons is adding to the information in the universe, where the universe gets apparently bigger and bigger but related galaxies, while growing somewhat more distant from each other, grow closer to each other in terms of the Hubble Shift.
As the galaxies cluster in terms of the Hubble Shift, that leaves room at high Hubble velocities, or apparent velocities, for the new matter to be pulled in at the edge of the universe around T=0. It is not pulled in willy-nilly. It is pulled in response to which galaxies or parts of the universe are lit up and doing the jobs of expanding space and expanding information at the time.
New matter precipitates out of the mess, at the beginning of time.
Jacobsen: If you look at the decelerative nature of the universe as well as its expansion, if you were to look at it in the Big Bang structure, you would see a slow, steady formation of new types of large-scale objects, very large-scale objects, over time.
That could amount to certain types of information processing coming online. It matches the story in development of minds. More systems begin to interact, come online, and produce novelty with prior similarity.
Rosner: I mostly agree with that. That is a fractal kind of phenomenon.
Jacobsen: There would be repetition but more distinct novelty, though.
Rosner: As you have room for larger and larger clusters or spatially associated structures to form, you will form, as you said, bigger and bigger ones. A universe with 2 atoms can't form any clusters, really, because there is not enough stuff.
A universe with 20 atoms might be able to form a couple level 1 clusters. Those with 2,000 atoms might be able to have level 2 clustering. But when we get into larger levels, in our universe, there are various levels of clusters. You have solar systems, galaxies, superclusters, and filaments.
I don't know if there is stuff in-between.
Jacobsen: There are.
Rosner: So, there are different levels, which are associational clusters and relate to what is active in the universe at the time the new matter is pulled from the edge of the universe. It means not everything is connected to everything else. Instead, you have a loose weave.
Jacobsen: I notice different processes relevant to different types of information processing at different time scales. Small things happen at shorter time scales. Large things happen at longer time scales.
Rosner: At the largest scales with these filaments, I would guess there would be various, multiple braided but not strongly interactive filament structures.
Jacobsen: They could act as anchors. I see them as noodles in molasses.
Rosner: There is this deal. When you have a bunch of liquid polymers, and you dip a pencil in, you can pull out a bunch of gunk because the filaments line up as you pull this snotty stuff out of your liquid. But I would guess that it is not all one filament.
There are sets of filaments strongly connected to each other, interwoven among other sets of filaments that are strongly connected to each other with only weak filamentary connections among various sets of very strongly filaments.
With that, I got to break.
[End of recorded material]
Authors[1]
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
RickRosner@Hotmail.Com
According to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writer’s Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmy Awards, The Grammy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He has also worked as a stripper, a bouncer, a roller-skating waiter, and a nude model. In a TV commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the World’s Smartest Man. He was also named Best Bouncer in the Denver Area by Westwood Magazine.
He spent the disco era as an undercover high school student. 25 years as a bar bouncer, American fake ID-catcher, 25+ years as a stripper, and nude art model, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. He lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a bad question, and lost the lawsuit. He spent 35+ years on a modified version of Big Bang Theory. Now, he mostly sits around tweeting in a towel. He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife and daughter.
You can send an email or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com
(Updated September 28, 2016)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com, Scott.Jacobsen@TrustedClothes.Com, Scott@ConatusNews.Com, scott.jacobsen@probc.ca, Scott@Karmik.Ca, or SJacobsen@AlmasJiwaniFoundation.Org.
He is a Moral Courage Webmaster and Outreach Specialist (Fall, 2016) at the UCI Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality (Ethics Center), Interview Columnist for Conatus News, Writer and Executive Administrator for Trusted Clothes, Interview Columnist for Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Chair of Social Media for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, Councillor for the Athabasca University Student Union, Member of the Learning Analytics Research Group, writer for The Voice Magazine, Your Political Party of BC, ProBC, Marijuana Party of Canada, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Harvest House Ministries, and Little Footprints Big Steps International Development Organization, Editor and Proofreader for Alfred Yi Zhang Photography, Community Journalist/Blogger for Gordon Neighbourhood House, Member-at-Large, Member of the Outreach Committee, the Finance & Fundraising Committee, and the Special Projects & Political Advocacy Committee, and Writer for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Member of the Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab and IMAGe Psychology Lab, Collaborator with Dr. Farhad Dastur in creation of the CriticalThinkingWiki, Board Member, and Foundation Volunteer Committee Member for the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, and Independent Landscaper.
He was a Francisco Ayala Scholar at the UCI Ethics Center, Member of the Psychometric Society Graduate Student Committee, Special Advisor and Writer for ECOSOC at NWMUN, Writer for TransplantFirstAcademy and ProActive Path, Member of AT-CURA Psychology Lab, Contributor for a student policy review, Vice President of Outreach for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, worked with Manahel Thabet on numerous initiatives, Student Member of the Ad–Hoc Executive Compensation Review Committee for the Athabasca University Student Union, Volunteer and Writer for British Columbia Psychological Association, Community Member of the KPU Choir (even performed with them alongside the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra), Delegate at Harvard World MUN, NWMUN, UBC MUN, and Long Beach Intercollegiate MUN, and Writer and Member of the Communications Committee for The PIPE UP Network.
He published in American Enterprise Institute, Annaborgia, Conatus News, Earth Skin & Eden, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Gordon Neighbourhood House, Huffington Post, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Jolly Dragons, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Psychology Department, La Petite Mort, Learning Analytics Research Group, Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab, Lost in Samara, Marijuana Party of Canada, MomMandy, Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society, Piece of Mind, Production Mode, Synapse, TeenFinancial, The Peak, The Ubyssey, The Voice Magazine, Transformative Dialogues, Treasure Box Kids, Trusted Clothes.
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.
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 2012-2018. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment