Born to do Math 140 - Taking the Universe at Face Value (2)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
October 15, 2019
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The clumpings in different areas. Those amount to really dense interaction areas. There is something relevant and important about the associations there.
Rick Rosner: Yes, but we haven't made much headway, once you've seen an equation written so many times, once you hear or see it, you immediately pick up the symbols automatically. You've heard it or remember it, auditorially. One way that you don't experience it is doing the math, in a sense.
When putting things together, you see as one object that which is multiple objects. You just do the math. There may be another way in which it has been rehearsed in your head so many times. Even without going to the associational trouble of seeing it, or hearing it, in memory or sub-vocally.
When you say stuff within your head, you don't even really need to think of the final answer. Do you need to think of it? Is it that ingrained? I am beginning to think something is so deeply ingrained in your brain so many times that I am beginning to think that that is part of the landscape, the mental landscape, and so the spatial landscape too.
The information there feels more profound. It will be deceptive phrasing. It feels less specific and deeper. It is like an underlying worldview or set of worldviews expressed. That would constitute something more of a structural thing.
Some deeply rooted framework upon which more specific sensory information are at rest. We have specific memories. Then we have this underlying set of feelings about the world. One suspect or several suspects in discovering those inchoate feelings or attitudes about the world, about stuff in general.
One is that they are like every other specific piece of information because they are based on less information. There's no difference. That all information is the same, except for the degree to which you have the information.
The picture that you have no idea about will be vaguer than the one that you do have information about. Another way to look at it is that, maybe, another, deeper - I don't want to say, "Metaphysics," because it is a deceptive phrasing - underlying vague attitudes that might be a form of deeply held, deeply researched information that is rooted in the gravitational history. This kind of tacit information.
It is this tacit information that is this substratum - or the underlying structure or landscape - upon which the associational structure is built. Almost like a golf course or a pinball field, where - not exactly a pinball field or machine... I don't know.
It is not the best analogy because you have flat play areas and ramps. I am thinking of an undulating landscape. When you try to remember something, it is like rolling a ball across the landscape. Whatever declivity the ball falls into, that is the triggered memory.
Imagine a rolling landscape with ball holes.
Jacobsen: A really, really complicated billiard balls table.
Rosner: More like a golf course because when you roll a golf ball around it, and when the ball rolls into a divot, then that calls up a memory. The landscape is what helps determine where the ball goes, the hills and valleys.
That landscape is the shape of space. The landscape contains information. The expressed associations as in the ball goes in the divot. That triggers a file to be recalled and presented to awareness. You don't directly perceive the landscape, but the landscape helps determine what you do perceive.
This may be indirectly perceived because, when you're rolling a billion balls a day across the landscape, your picture of reality is shaped by the landscape.
Jacobsen: How do all these billions of individual interactions on this landscape, on this virtual golf course, called the universe, come together in terms of non-physical connections between the parts while all part of this weave connected in some manner?
Rosner: Yes, the universe perceives itself via exchanging particles. In other words, the tightness, the thereness, of particles in the universe; I believe there is an argument to be made under the rules of Quantum Mechanics with the lack of fuzziness of everything in the universe due to the universe continually perceiving itself.
It is this particle exchange that determines the universe. It is the Tarantino gunfight. All the particles moving and interacting helps to pin the particles down fairly tightly in space, and in time; it is the universe detecting itself.
Jacobsen: This is in an intimate way with close interactions and far distant interactions.
Rosner: And due to the history of the interactions, that formed the basis for this landscape. The whole idea of fields is to avoid some of the problems of action at a distance. You get a field via the interaction of particles that hit you, directly. You being a particle.
So, something happening 10 lightyears away. It doesn't influence you until particles from that deal take 10 years or more to travel across to you, and then influence you, directly. There's no action-a-distance, I think, in an old sense that what happens there, now, is perceived or felt here-now.
Instead, the idea of fields, I think, is that you perceive what happens elsewhere once particles from elsewhere or the net product of particles, for instance - as I believe gravitation is the product of other forces (e.g., electromagnetic force expressed via photons with unbalanced net forces among swarms of photons manifesting gravitational force), but, still, you don't feel the force until particles have had enough time to travel from there to here.
That's a more complicated way of saying, "There's no instantaneous action-at-a-distance." Everything is mediated by stuff travelling across space. I would guess that the shape of the landscape is or potentially has, or can be, part of the conscious experience. Even though, we may not perceive it directly.
I would also argue: if so, it can be mistaken for a soul. Although, it's not. I think when people talk about the soul.
Jacobsen: You mean most people here.
Rosner: I mean people who have been exposed to a fair amount of science and are talking about the soul more philosophically than the idea of the soul as defined by a particular religion.
Jacobsen: I interpret that as liberal theology and natural philosophy.
Rosner: People have a sense. You see this in movies. I do not know if people believe in it or want to believe in it. There's something about reincarnation. There was a movie from 40 or 45 years ago called Heaven Can Wait. You see this in movies.
There's a bunch of movies like this, like 20 or more, where somebody dies and goes to heave. But they are put through some heavenly bureaucracy.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rosner: They are sent back out as a baby. For that to work, there has to be some essence of the person that is the same that comes back in the movie.
Jacobsen: Is there any part of that that makes any sense, practically, to you?
Rosner: Not exactly, no, it doesn't make any sense practically. If you obliterate all the information in somebody's head, if all the information is disallowed, then there's nothing to be transferred to the baby. But people do have a sense that there is some essence that transfers some specific memories.
I don't think people have any time to even entertain this kind of nonsense anymore. But I am wondering if the tacit information that is the rolling landscape is perceived within consciousness indirectly and vaguely, as a set of underlying knowledge.
The more I talk about it; the more it sounds like garbage. There is information is in the shape of space and in the distribution of matter. I am wondering how, assuming that IC is right and that our moment-to-moment consciousness can be visualized or manifested in a physical universe and the universe looks like the universe that we live in, we perceive the shape of our information space. Is it rolling hills? If we perceive it, do we perceive it vaguely but deeply?
Something that is less based on specifics. I don't know. I entertain the possibility, not that it is a soul, but that the information perceived that way has this vagueness that can be mistaken for that bullshitty soul that is the crux of cheesy reincarnation movies.
[End of recorded material]Rick Rosner: Yes, but we haven't made much headway, once you've seen an equation written so many times, once you hear or see it, you immediately pick up the symbols automatically. You've heard it or remember it, auditorially. One way that you don't experience it is doing the math, in a sense.
When putting things together, you see as one object that which is multiple objects. You just do the math. There may be another way in which it has been rehearsed in your head so many times. Even without going to the associational trouble of seeing it, or hearing it, in memory or sub-vocally.
When you say stuff within your head, you don't even really need to think of the final answer. Do you need to think of it? Is it that ingrained? I am beginning to think something is so deeply ingrained in your brain so many times that I am beginning to think that that is part of the landscape, the mental landscape, and so the spatial landscape too.
The information there feels more profound. It will be deceptive phrasing. It feels less specific and deeper. It is like an underlying worldview or set of worldviews expressed. That would constitute something more of a structural thing.
Some deeply rooted framework upon which more specific sensory information are at rest. We have specific memories. Then we have this underlying set of feelings about the world. One suspect or several suspects in discovering those inchoate feelings or attitudes about the world, about stuff in general.
One is that they are like every other specific piece of information because they are based on less information. There's no difference. That all information is the same, except for the degree to which you have the information.
The picture that you have no idea about will be vaguer than the one that you do have information about. Another way to look at it is that, maybe, another, deeper - I don't want to say, "Metaphysics," because it is a deceptive phrasing - underlying vague attitudes that might be a form of deeply held, deeply researched information that is rooted in the gravitational history. This kind of tacit information.
It is this tacit information that is this substratum - or the underlying structure or landscape - upon which the associational structure is built. Almost like a golf course or a pinball field, where - not exactly a pinball field or machine... I don't know.
It is not the best analogy because you have flat play areas and ramps. I am thinking of an undulating landscape. When you try to remember something, it is like rolling a ball across the landscape. Whatever declivity the ball falls into, that is the triggered memory.
Imagine a rolling landscape with ball holes.
Jacobsen: A really, really complicated billiard balls table.
Rosner: More like a golf course because when you roll a golf ball around it, and when the ball rolls into a divot, then that calls up a memory. The landscape is what helps determine where the ball goes, the hills and valleys.
That landscape is the shape of space. The landscape contains information. The expressed associations as in the ball goes in the divot. That triggers a file to be recalled and presented to awareness. You don't directly perceive the landscape, but the landscape helps determine what you do perceive.
This may be indirectly perceived because, when you're rolling a billion balls a day across the landscape, your picture of reality is shaped by the landscape.
Jacobsen: How do all these billions of individual interactions on this landscape, on this virtual golf course, called the universe, come together in terms of non-physical connections between the parts while all part of this weave connected in some manner?
Rosner: Yes, the universe perceives itself via exchanging particles. In other words, the tightness, the thereness, of particles in the universe; I believe there is an argument to be made under the rules of Quantum Mechanics with the lack of fuzziness of everything in the universe due to the universe continually perceiving itself.
It is this particle exchange that determines the universe. It is the Tarantino gunfight. All the particles moving and interacting helps to pin the particles down fairly tightly in space, and in time; it is the universe detecting itself.
Jacobsen: This is in an intimate way with close interactions and far distant interactions.
Rosner: And due to the history of the interactions, that formed the basis for this landscape. The whole idea of fields is to avoid some of the problems of action at a distance. You get a field via the interaction of particles that hit you, directly. You being a particle.
So, something happening 10 lightyears away. It doesn't influence you until particles from that deal take 10 years or more to travel across to you, and then influence you, directly. There's no action-a-distance, I think, in an old sense that what happens there, now, is perceived or felt here-now.
Instead, the idea of fields, I think, is that you perceive what happens elsewhere once particles from elsewhere or the net product of particles, for instance - as I believe gravitation is the product of other forces (e.g., electromagnetic force expressed via photons with unbalanced net forces among swarms of photons manifesting gravitational force), but, still, you don't feel the force until particles have had enough time to travel from there to here.
That's a more complicated way of saying, "There's no instantaneous action-at-a-distance." Everything is mediated by stuff travelling across space. I would guess that the shape of the landscape is or potentially has, or can be, part of the conscious experience. Even though, we may not perceive it directly.
I would also argue: if so, it can be mistaken for a soul. Although, it's not. I think when people talk about the soul.
Jacobsen: You mean most people here.
Rosner: I mean people who have been exposed to a fair amount of science and are talking about the soul more philosophically than the idea of the soul as defined by a particular religion.
Jacobsen: I interpret that as liberal theology and natural philosophy.
Rosner: People have a sense. You see this in movies. I do not know if people believe in it or want to believe in it. There's something about reincarnation. There was a movie from 40 or 45 years ago called Heaven Can Wait. You see this in movies.
There's a bunch of movies like this, like 20 or more, where somebody dies and goes to heave. But they are put through some heavenly bureaucracy.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rosner: They are sent back out as a baby. For that to work, there has to be some essence of the person that is the same that comes back in the movie.
Jacobsen: Is there any part of that that makes any sense, practically, to you?
Rosner: Not exactly, no, it doesn't make any sense practically. If you obliterate all the information in somebody's head, if all the information is disallowed, then there's nothing to be transferred to the baby. But people do have a sense that there is some essence that transfers some specific memories.
I don't think people have any time to even entertain this kind of nonsense anymore. But I am wondering if the tacit information that is the rolling landscape is perceived within consciousness indirectly and vaguely, as a set of underlying knowledge.
The more I talk about it; the more it sounds like garbage. There is information is in the shape of space and in the distribution of matter. I am wondering how, assuming that IC is right and that our moment-to-moment consciousness can be visualized or manifested in a physical universe and the universe looks like the universe that we live in, we perceive the shape of our information space. Is it rolling hills? If we perceive it, do we perceive it vaguely but deeply?
Something that is less based on specifics. I don't know. I entertain the possibility, not that it is a soul, but that the information perceived that way has this vagueness that can be mistaken for that bullshitty soul that is the crux of cheesy reincarnation movies.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment