Born to do Math 142 - Hard to Get At
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
November 1, 2019
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We were speaking about some of the aspects of IC with the long-distance particles, photons, functioning as information carriers as they travel through the curvature of space over billions of years and lose energy to the curvature of space. It's a mechanism of the universe defining itself, in a manner of speaking. Let's keep this going.
Rosner: When we last talked about this, IC, Informational Cosmology, we decided that information had to be less localized, less linked to specific structures like galaxies in the universe than we'd thought before. Although, black holes still have to be specialist structures, particularly the black holes at galactic centres because they are getting more information from within themselves than the rest of the outside universe.
We decided that there's a lot of information in the loss of energy from long-distance particles losing energy to the curvature of space. That lost energy provides a gravitational force. The universe rearranges itself and space exists due to the cumulative, or space and the distribution of matter in space, energy loss of long-distance particles due to the curvature of space.
So, there's some information on that. Although, it is tacit information because it is information that isn't conveyed by detecting particles across distances. It is tacit information via not detecting particles. It is letting those particles keeping going and losing energy with the distances that they travel, slowly reshaping space.
So, how much information in terms of how the universe perceives what is going on with itself from moment to moment, how much information it gets from that kind of information versus the information that it gets from particles being detected, I don't know.
I would guess that the universe's moment-to-moment picture of itself is due to particles being detected. The framework information, the gravitationally conveyed information, I don't know. Maybe, they both contribute to the universe's picture of itself.
But I don't know what the breakdown is or the qualia of it is. Here's what I do know, the universe is an association engine. If it is a hologram, and I don't like the term because I am fuzzy on what I mean by "hologram," but if the universe is something that perceives itself as a whole, then it means that we as thinking beings with our own mental universes can pick out specific aspects, specific things that we're thinking about, from moment-to-moment.
When we're driving, we're thinking about our car, other cars, billboards, street signs, and other stuff like whether we will get laid that night, what we will do at work, etc. All of these are specific ingredients in what we are thinking at any given moment.
At the same time, there's an overall information sphere that encompasses all of that. We're association engines because when enough aspects of what we're thinking about at the moment are associated with something else that we have thought about at some time; information from the past becomes part of what we're thinking about currently.
That stuff can be words. If we see a picture of a kangaroo on a billboard, we will think the word, "Kangaroo," because there is enough information from our current thoughts to bring the word, "Kangaroo," from our thought history. Also, if we saw a billboard with 6 + 6, we would think 12 because we have developed thought structures that are recallable thought structures that are part of math that will give us 6+6.
We have memories that are recallable. Memories feel different from mathematical principles. 7*14 being 98. That feels like a different kind of thought than remembering your 3rd-grade classroom. But they probably have in common that they are pulled up in their various qualities by association.
We've built structures that will allow us to pull by association, maybe strings of associations, e.g., 163*162. You'd have to build a bunch of structures. You'd have to go 160*160, 256, so 25,600. Then you'd have to remember that, hold that in your awareness and then add in the products to get it up to 162*163. But all that is probably via association.
You build structures. Then you associate or continue to recall them via associations. Memories come up or feel as if entire different worlds because everything is associated with everything else in the memory. The way the windows in my 3rd-grade classroom had semi-circles at the top, how a lot of Sun came through the windows, how there was a row of books lined-up under the windows, as I became more nearsighted during the year then I lost the ability to read the titles across the room.
All that stuff is brought up via association. That feels like a type of holography. Although, not necessarily lightwave holography, which is a very specific mathematical thing. But the deal is, the general rule is, when you think of enough stuff associated with things that you have thought about in the past, those things come up, depending on how amenable those things are to being recalled, how many hooks there are to get at them.
We've discussed this as being a geometric property. That some things are harder to get at than others because they're less hooked in or are in harder to access parts of space.
[End of recorded material]Rosner: When we last talked about this, IC, Informational Cosmology, we decided that information had to be less localized, less linked to specific structures like galaxies in the universe than we'd thought before. Although, black holes still have to be specialist structures, particularly the black holes at galactic centres because they are getting more information from within themselves than the rest of the outside universe.
We decided that there's a lot of information in the loss of energy from long-distance particles losing energy to the curvature of space. That lost energy provides a gravitational force. The universe rearranges itself and space exists due to the cumulative, or space and the distribution of matter in space, energy loss of long-distance particles due to the curvature of space.
So, there's some information on that. Although, it is tacit information because it is information that isn't conveyed by detecting particles across distances. It is tacit information via not detecting particles. It is letting those particles keeping going and losing energy with the distances that they travel, slowly reshaping space.
So, how much information in terms of how the universe perceives what is going on with itself from moment to moment, how much information it gets from that kind of information versus the information that it gets from particles being detected, I don't know.
I would guess that the universe's moment-to-moment picture of itself is due to particles being detected. The framework information, the gravitationally conveyed information, I don't know. Maybe, they both contribute to the universe's picture of itself.
But I don't know what the breakdown is or the qualia of it is. Here's what I do know, the universe is an association engine. If it is a hologram, and I don't like the term because I am fuzzy on what I mean by "hologram," but if the universe is something that perceives itself as a whole, then it means that we as thinking beings with our own mental universes can pick out specific aspects, specific things that we're thinking about, from moment-to-moment.
When we're driving, we're thinking about our car, other cars, billboards, street signs, and other stuff like whether we will get laid that night, what we will do at work, etc. All of these are specific ingredients in what we are thinking at any given moment.
At the same time, there's an overall information sphere that encompasses all of that. We're association engines because when enough aspects of what we're thinking about at the moment are associated with something else that we have thought about at some time; information from the past becomes part of what we're thinking about currently.
That stuff can be words. If we see a picture of a kangaroo on a billboard, we will think the word, "Kangaroo," because there is enough information from our current thoughts to bring the word, "Kangaroo," from our thought history. Also, if we saw a billboard with 6 + 6, we would think 12 because we have developed thought structures that are recallable thought structures that are part of math that will give us 6+6.
We have memories that are recallable. Memories feel different from mathematical principles. 7*14 being 98. That feels like a different kind of thought than remembering your 3rd-grade classroom. But they probably have in common that they are pulled up in their various qualities by association.
We've built structures that will allow us to pull by association, maybe strings of associations, e.g., 163*162. You'd have to build a bunch of structures. You'd have to go 160*160, 256, so 25,600. Then you'd have to remember that, hold that in your awareness and then add in the products to get it up to 162*163. But all that is probably via association.
You build structures. Then you associate or continue to recall them via associations. Memories come up or feel as if entire different worlds because everything is associated with everything else in the memory. The way the windows in my 3rd-grade classroom had semi-circles at the top, how a lot of Sun came through the windows, how there was a row of books lined-up under the windows, as I became more nearsighted during the year then I lost the ability to read the titles across the room.
All that stuff is brought up via association. That feels like a type of holography. Although, not necessarily lightwave holography, which is a very specific mathematical thing. But the deal is, the general rule is, when you think of enough stuff associated with things that you have thought about in the past, those things come up, depending on how amenable those things are to being recalled, how many hooks there are to get at them.
We've discussed this as being a geometric property. That some things are harder to get at than others because they're less hooked in or are in harder to access parts of space.
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