Born to do Math 141 - Taking the Universe at Face Value (3)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
October 22, 2019
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What does this have to do with reincarnation?
Rosner: It has nothing to do with reincarnation. People want to feel as though they have an essence. People want to feel like there is a personality or a psyche. Some underlying framework with which they approach the world that is not dependent on just being a collection of specific memories and bits of knowledge.
It is a set of underlying attitudes. To really blunt that, we all know people are, at base, happy people and other people who are, at base, sad people. People who have a tendency to be more perverse than other people, to view things through humour than other people, to view the world as more dog-eat-dog as other people.
It is a potential mistake to think that somebody's underlying attitudes are some kind of essence.
Jacobsen: So, all conscious experience and all consciousness do bind to something natural, something material.
Rosner: You mean the material.
Jacobsen: I take the material as a limiting form of the natural.
Rosner: I would go further: consciousness is the result of the material. It is what happens in our brains and the rest of our nervous systems with mostly our brains and a fraction outside. To be simple, consciousness is what happens in our brains.
Jacobsen: It is kind of like occasionally getting a stomach ache in your enteric nervous system.
Rosner: But for shorthand, the focus is on the brain. I am thinking that it is a way to think about it. How does the shape of an information space effect the experience of consciousness?
Jacobsen: You know when you take a mathematical formula with enough variables. But it is different variables represented in different ways. The different things that you're describing - the landscape, the math of consciousness, the material aspect of the brain, and the information space. To me, I take these as different orientations on the same fundamental ideas.
Rosner: Yes, but at some time, you need to come up with predictions and workable empirical models. Let's go to something with less nebulousness. We can call this a new session. But let's talk about neutrinos.
Matter is, as you know, super transparent to neutrinos. It takes a fantastic amount of matter to have any kind of probability of stopping a neutrino, of detecting a neutrino. The neutrino detection experiments in the world, what it takes to detect them; you set up a huge tank.
Some huge block of matter, e.g., a tank of mater, but it has to be gigantic, like a million gallons, with detectors all around the tank. The deal is, quadrillions of neutrinos are passing through the tank every second. You're only detecting a few neutrinos every second, only a tiny fraction, because neutrinos aren't stopped by matter, except to only a very tiny extent. The deal is that neutrinos and photons are the only two long-distance particles, which includes anti-neutrinos.
But the difference between neutrinos and photons is that photons are just energy. They have a wavelength, but are only the energy that they consist of. Once a photon is largely exhausted by travelling across the universe and losing energy to the curvature/gravitation of the universe, there's nothing left. There's no geegaws; there's no doodads associated with the photon. Photons are just energy stuff.
But with neutrinos, neutrinos will also lose kinetic energy as they travel across the width of the universe. No matter how much energy a neutrino loses; there's still the doodad, which is the key - picture a physical key that can unlock a neutron.
If the neutrino is intercepted, or if a neutron is hit and detects the neutrino, if the circumstances are right, then the key in the neutrino will unlock the neutron and turn this into an electron plus a proton plus energy. A neutron can decay into a neutron and a proton plus energy.
But it also decays, spontaneously decays, into an anti-neutrino, which, I guess, can run into a neutrino and then they cancel each other out. The deal is, there is this little scorekeeping key. No matter how much energy a neutrino loses travelling across space.
It is still the key to unlocking a neutron and turning it into a proton plus an electron. So, it seems like neutrinos are the key to the associational mechanism of the universe as an information processing system. Neutrinos travel across the open universe, which we've called the active center.
They are mostly not going to be stopped. Most photons travel across the active center of the universe and don't get stopped. Stars only cover one-trillionth of the night sky. So, most photons go on and on and on. Most photons travel across enough of the universe that they lose much of their energy to the curvature of space.
Most photons that escape from their immediate neighbourhood. Most that make it to the surface of a star only have a one-trillionth chance of hitting the surface of another star, which is similar to the odds of them hitting the surface of a planet. They're just not gonna and then deplete most of their energy.
The deal with neutrinos is that they are even less likely to hit anything once they make it to the surface of a star. Inside of a star, there are a gazillion collisions every second. I've seen calculations as to how many photon collisions it takes for energy to get from the centre of a star to the surface of a star. It has a bunch fo zeroes in it. It is huge.
Once on the surface, nothing is stopping you. It is the same with neutrinos, or more true for neutrinos. They get free of the star where they were released. They just keep going. Until, they hit what we've discussed as the outskirts near T=0, where everything is collapsed.
It makes sense that the active center of the universe is stuff not needing to be opened up because it is already open. It is already under conscious consideration. So, it makes sense neutrinos don't interact with that stuff, which isn't created or released.
It makes sense that they open up the closed stuff based on the shape of space and the gravitational lensing based on the gravitational associations among the matter in the universe. When most people, or when I think of, all this stuff in the universe. I tend to think of every galaxy sitting in its own gravitational wells rather than walls, filaments, and large-scale gravitational structures that span 20% of the observable universe.
But we should think in terms of filaments because those large-scale gravitational structures determine or help direct the associational process by flooding some parts of the closed outskirts with neutrinos that will blow those things open. We have talked about that, but not in those terms.
It makes sense that neutrinos are the associational engines. They all splatter against the back wall of the universe. The really tight, dense, closed-up neighbourhood of the universe close to T=0 that has the requisite density and probably the requisite energy available for these depleted neutrinos, depleted of kinetic energy.
I do not know enough about neutrino action to know what part a neutrino's kinetic energy role plays in whether a neutrino is captured or not. Nobody's done any research into kinetically depleted neutrinos anyway. It is hard to capture a neutrino. I don't know if anybody has ever researched.
Neutrinos waste so little. If they have any kinetic energy at all, then it means that they are only travelling at 99.99999% the speed of light. I don't even know how you would even study kinetically depleted neutrinos. I would guess that all the neutrinos created by fusion in that active centre. Almost all of them splash against or crash against the dense, closed-up, inactive or dormant T=0 area of the universe.
They'll flood certain parts of that around that. A lot of energy available around T=0 because, even if the universe did not big bang, the universe still has the geometry of the Big Bang. Assuming that you could get there, it would be very dense and very hot. You got stuff frozen in time and super hot if you can open it up.
If you can open it up, then it is the same as starting time again. All these neutrinos splash into it. A closed part of the universe opens up and becomes part of the active centre with the energy that's needed to open it up being available because the universe close to T=0 is dense and super hot.
[End of recorded material]Rosner: It has nothing to do with reincarnation. People want to feel as though they have an essence. People want to feel like there is a personality or a psyche. Some underlying framework with which they approach the world that is not dependent on just being a collection of specific memories and bits of knowledge.
It is a set of underlying attitudes. To really blunt that, we all know people are, at base, happy people and other people who are, at base, sad people. People who have a tendency to be more perverse than other people, to view things through humour than other people, to view the world as more dog-eat-dog as other people.
It is a potential mistake to think that somebody's underlying attitudes are some kind of essence.
Jacobsen: So, all conscious experience and all consciousness do bind to something natural, something material.
Rosner: You mean the material.
Jacobsen: I take the material as a limiting form of the natural.
Rosner: I would go further: consciousness is the result of the material. It is what happens in our brains and the rest of our nervous systems with mostly our brains and a fraction outside. To be simple, consciousness is what happens in our brains.
Jacobsen: It is kind of like occasionally getting a stomach ache in your enteric nervous system.
Rosner: But for shorthand, the focus is on the brain. I am thinking that it is a way to think about it. How does the shape of an information space effect the experience of consciousness?
Jacobsen: You know when you take a mathematical formula with enough variables. But it is different variables represented in different ways. The different things that you're describing - the landscape, the math of consciousness, the material aspect of the brain, and the information space. To me, I take these as different orientations on the same fundamental ideas.
Rosner: Yes, but at some time, you need to come up with predictions and workable empirical models. Let's go to something with less nebulousness. We can call this a new session. But let's talk about neutrinos.
Matter is, as you know, super transparent to neutrinos. It takes a fantastic amount of matter to have any kind of probability of stopping a neutrino, of detecting a neutrino. The neutrino detection experiments in the world, what it takes to detect them; you set up a huge tank.
Some huge block of matter, e.g., a tank of mater, but it has to be gigantic, like a million gallons, with detectors all around the tank. The deal is, quadrillions of neutrinos are passing through the tank every second. You're only detecting a few neutrinos every second, only a tiny fraction, because neutrinos aren't stopped by matter, except to only a very tiny extent. The deal is that neutrinos and photons are the only two long-distance particles, which includes anti-neutrinos.
But the difference between neutrinos and photons is that photons are just energy. They have a wavelength, but are only the energy that they consist of. Once a photon is largely exhausted by travelling across the universe and losing energy to the curvature/gravitation of the universe, there's nothing left. There's no geegaws; there's no doodads associated with the photon. Photons are just energy stuff.
But with neutrinos, neutrinos will also lose kinetic energy as they travel across the width of the universe. No matter how much energy a neutrino loses; there's still the doodad, which is the key - picture a physical key that can unlock a neutron.
If the neutrino is intercepted, or if a neutron is hit and detects the neutrino, if the circumstances are right, then the key in the neutrino will unlock the neutron and turn this into an electron plus a proton plus energy. A neutron can decay into a neutron and a proton plus energy.
But it also decays, spontaneously decays, into an anti-neutrino, which, I guess, can run into a neutrino and then they cancel each other out. The deal is, there is this little scorekeeping key. No matter how much energy a neutrino loses travelling across space.
It is still the key to unlocking a neutron and turning it into a proton plus an electron. So, it seems like neutrinos are the key to the associational mechanism of the universe as an information processing system. Neutrinos travel across the open universe, which we've called the active center.
They are mostly not going to be stopped. Most photons travel across the active center of the universe and don't get stopped. Stars only cover one-trillionth of the night sky. So, most photons go on and on and on. Most photons travel across enough of the universe that they lose much of their energy to the curvature of space.
Most photons that escape from their immediate neighbourhood. Most that make it to the surface of a star only have a one-trillionth chance of hitting the surface of another star, which is similar to the odds of them hitting the surface of a planet. They're just not gonna and then deplete most of their energy.
The deal with neutrinos is that they are even less likely to hit anything once they make it to the surface of a star. Inside of a star, there are a gazillion collisions every second. I've seen calculations as to how many photon collisions it takes for energy to get from the centre of a star to the surface of a star. It has a bunch fo zeroes in it. It is huge.
Once on the surface, nothing is stopping you. It is the same with neutrinos, or more true for neutrinos. They get free of the star where they were released. They just keep going. Until, they hit what we've discussed as the outskirts near T=0, where everything is collapsed.
It makes sense that the active center of the universe is stuff not needing to be opened up because it is already open. It is already under conscious consideration. So, it makes sense neutrinos don't interact with that stuff, which isn't created or released.
It makes sense that they open up the closed stuff based on the shape of space and the gravitational lensing based on the gravitational associations among the matter in the universe. When most people, or when I think of, all this stuff in the universe. I tend to think of every galaxy sitting in its own gravitational wells rather than walls, filaments, and large-scale gravitational structures that span 20% of the observable universe.
But we should think in terms of filaments because those large-scale gravitational structures determine or help direct the associational process by flooding some parts of the closed outskirts with neutrinos that will blow those things open. We have talked about that, but not in those terms.
It makes sense that neutrinos are the associational engines. They all splatter against the back wall of the universe. The really tight, dense, closed-up neighbourhood of the universe close to T=0 that has the requisite density and probably the requisite energy available for these depleted neutrinos, depleted of kinetic energy.
I do not know enough about neutrino action to know what part a neutrino's kinetic energy role plays in whether a neutrino is captured or not. Nobody's done any research into kinetically depleted neutrinos anyway. It is hard to capture a neutrino. I don't know if anybody has ever researched.
Neutrinos waste so little. If they have any kinetic energy at all, then it means that they are only travelling at 99.99999% the speed of light. I don't even know how you would even study kinetically depleted neutrinos. I would guess that all the neutrinos created by fusion in that active centre. Almost all of them splash against or crash against the dense, closed-up, inactive or dormant T=0 area of the universe.
They'll flood certain parts of that around that. A lot of energy available around T=0 because, even if the universe did not big bang, the universe still has the geometry of the Big Bang. Assuming that you could get there, it would be very dense and very hot. You got stuff frozen in time and super hot if you can open it up.
If you can open it up, then it is the same as starting time again. All these neutrinos splash into it. A closed part of the universe opens up and becomes part of the active centre with the energy that's needed to open it up being available because the universe close to T=0 is dense and super hot.
Authors[1]
American Television Writer
(Updated July 25, 2019)
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*
According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, Rick G. Rosner may have among America's, North America's, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher Harding, Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main "Genius" listing here.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the "World’s Smartest Man." The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named "Best Bouncer" in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.
Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.
Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, 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.
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 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 2012-2019. 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 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
