Born to do Math

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.

Sunday, 15 December 2019

Born to do Math 149 - Predictive Power and the Power to Choose

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 149 - Predictive Power and the Power to Choose

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

December 15, 2019

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How can predictive power increase freedom, potentially?

Rosner: I wonder about increased freedom, if any, if our actions are based on more and more predictive information. There are plenty of time travel books, movies, and T.V. shows, where people are can travel into the past to try and fix things that they want to change. That did not go the way that they wanted. So, the question is, "Does it change the experience of time to be able to run multiple parallel simulations of the next few moments and even further into the future than the next few moments and then choose among those moments?" We already do that.

It doesn't feel like we are choosing among future moments. It feels like we are moment-to-moment taking the best actions based on what we think will happen. We don't really think of ourselves, generally, as predicting what will happen moment-to-moment, but we are doing it.

We stop at a stoplight that is red because we predict that there is traffic. Or, also, because we see cars are coming, we predict that if we step into traffic that the cars will keep coming and hit us. We are predicting and making the best possible choices based on those predictions.

But we don't see those as predictions. We see ourselves as reacting to circumstances. In only some of our choices do we see ourselves as predicting and acting according to our best predictions, if you come up to a girl, a woman, I'm from the 70s and the 80s, and the 90s, where you went up to women in bars and said stuff to get the woman to like you.

In doing that, you are trying to figure out what the best thing to say would be. My default was to ask the woman to dance because I did not know how to talk to women. After 3 songs, it would get sweaty and weird.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: All I had to do was say, "Enough of that dancing shit, let's get you a drink." I was bad at it. I was a little clueless. But my best-predicted action was to ask a girl to dance. That seemed, at least, to get me to the next moment of dancing based on the prediction that, sometimes, the girl would say, "Yes."

But it doesn't seem like a prediction when you take a step predicting the floor will still be the floor and gravity will still be like gravity in the next few subsequent moments. So, I am saying that there is a possibility that future powerful entities with more global information and a much more powerful ability to predict will experience the world.

There's a famous book or series of books from the 70s called Dune. It is getting made into a T.V. series again. It was made into a movie nobody liked, maybe a T.V. series a while ago. In the book, that one character can see the future exactly as it will play out. He is blind. He can see the future so well that he just knows where to go and what to do because he can so exactly predict the future.

I am saying that time won't be experienced as moment-to-moment. But we don't experience time as moment-to-moment now. We accumulate a history. But our perception of each moment, our awareness of each moment, is smeared out across moments and out consciousness and sub-conscious smooths everything out.

So, it feels as if we are experiencing time in a moment-to-moment fashion. Even though, the information that we get about the world does not perfectly fill out each moment at that moment and our processing of each moment does not happen at each moment.

We accumulate knowledge about changes in the world across a span of, a short span of, time, but still a span of time. We don't experience a bunch of instantaneous moments. We experience, vaguely, a bunch of smeared out moments.

Again, it raises the question as to what a vastly more powerful moment to moment massive amount of predictive information would look like or would feel like within a vastly knowledgeable and powerful consciousness.

The default point of view would be that we would still experience things linearly. In that, we would take action. That action would be locked into the moment. We would take another set of actions that would be locked into subsequent moments. We would still experience things linearly even as we were working through a much wider range of possible futures.

Because generally, we don't see the possible futures in any kind of fully fleshed out way. When I went up to a girl in a bar and asked her to dance, I didn't picture ten different versions of the next few days based on how the girl might react. She says, "Yes."

We get along. We have a one-night stand. We still like each other in the morning. Or if she says, "Fuck off," then I get embarrassed and leave the bar or go to another bar, or go home. You don't picture fully-fleshed out futures.

You experience the possible reactions the woman could have. I don't know whether the more powerful consciousnesses of the future will perceive more fleshed out possible futures. That's probably a dumb supposition in a lot of ways. But I am not even sure of the ways.

[End of recorded material]

Authors [1]

American Television Writer

(Updated July 25, 2019)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing

Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com

(Updated September 28, 2016)

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

Sunday, 8 December 2019

Born to do Math 148 - Hidden Infinities and the Rules of Information

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 148 - Hidden Infinities and the Rules of Information

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

December 8, 2019

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Jacobsen: In terms of hidden infinities, could the dimensionality vary based on the amount of precision of each moment?

Rick Rosner: Nope, probably because the amount of freedom that increasing amounts of missing information can give you.

Jacobsen: What is the upper limit to that?

Rosner: The way information works in a self-consistent system. I would guess, it has to be locally 3-dimensional. Unless, you've engineered a special space that doesn't work according to the rules of information, like a simulated world, where you want your characters to live. You could build a 4-dimensional video game.

It would be hard to picture on the screen. You could have the characters battling each other in a 4-dimensional space. But the space has been specifically constructed from the game and is not governed by the rules of information.

Jacobsen: How do the rules of information in that space, where a) a universe for the mechanical philosophy as dead and b) there are non-local effects?

Rosner: It is a fake world. That world isn't built from the information. That world is a simulated world built within a video game. You can give it whatever physics you want. You can even have some approximation of whatever you picture as multiply dimensional time.

But as you work through the game, you can build worlds, where time works weirdly. But it is all simulated. In the natural world, I think things are generally 3-dimensional. We have 3 spatial dimensions and 1-time dimension.

Discussing variations in dimension is getting caught up in mathematical extrapolation and doesn't have anything to do with the deeper questions about operating in the world, which has the rules that we are operating in.

Let's talk about how this effects the experience of time to have increasing abilities to predict the future, and whether that influences the linear experience of time. To do something with time, where time works normally, you need a succession of moments.

Anything that is not a succession of moments is a different game and is not exactly a time-based game. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I think the more interesting thing is what the world looks like if you can extrapolate possible futures with greater and greater power.

We can predict a great deal about the world that we're in now. But there are plenty of things that we can't predict, like the behaviour of the people we encounter or dealing with traffic. We can predict the physics of everything.

We can't predict individual events governed by other people's actions. We get better and better at predicting weather. I don't have any good answers for this. But I wonder how the experience of time will be changed when we have greater and greater knowledge, which equals greater and greater predictive knowledge.

Where under linear time, we have no choice but to move along with the flow of time, from moment to moment. Each choice that we make is locked in to the next or subsequent moment. Everything we do is locked in time. We deal with the consequences of the actions of each previous moment.

[End of recorded material]

Authors [1]

American Television Writer

(Updated July 25, 2019)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing

Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com

(Updated September 28, 2016)

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

Sunday, 1 December 2019

Born to do Math 147 - Just Add Some More Dimensions (1)

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 147 - Just Add Some More Dimensions (1)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

December 1, 2019

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What if there is more than 1-dimensionality of time?

Rosner: Asking what time would look like if it were more than 1-dimension mistakes the character of time, I think time is 1-dimensional. But more than that, time is a succession of points and cannot be anything but that.

To suggest a time that's more than 1 dimensional, it can't be. Time has to work the way time works. However, there are multiple potential futures and similarly multiple potential pasts. We know. Eveything we know is based on the past. All knowledge comes from history. The stuff that's come before.

All that information constrains the possible futures. But since we do not have complete information about the past, there are a bunch of possible pasts, too. So, the diagram of what we know has this big wad of knowledge representing the past with the most known about the immediate and then getting more and more vague as you get further into the past, and somewhat similarly for the future.

We know most about what is going to happen in the current moment and less so as you move into the future. But the cones of spreading possibilities in the past and in the future, I don't think they have a dimension. It is possible.

Basically, a dimension is how much spread you get at each successive distance from your point of origin. For instance, along a 1-dimensional line, there's no spread. At each spread along the line, it is a point. If things are spreading along a cone, along a 2-dimensional surface, then the size of the cone or the radius of each cone at each cone or distance is increasing linearly by x.

For a 3-dimensional spread, it spreads by x^2. Maybe, there is some math to be done with the increasing spread like at T2 and T1. I don't know the math of this and if it is cleanly dimensional

Jacobsen: If something was probabilistically not quite real, it would be a 1.2-dimension of time?

Rosner: No, it is to some extent exponential. Because the possibilities multiply exponentially. At T1, you have, in a very small system, 100 different open questions that can be resolved or each resolved in several ways. At T2, the open questions have compounded. The number of possibilities haven't increased arithmetically, but more exponentially. If they are increasing exponentially, then that's not describable dimensionally.

Because if it is x to the n and n is the number of moments in the future, then that's exponential rather than arithmetic. So, you don't have a steady increase by x^3, x squared, or x^7. On the other hand, maybe, it is not perfectly exponential because of the future events, the specific events that answer the 100 open questions; those may constrain the open questions at T2. It is 100 open questions at any subsequent moment.

Anyway, I don't know how to characterize the rate of increase of possibilities moment-to-moment starting at T0 as the present moment and moving forward exponentially. I doubt the spread or increase in possibilities is describable x^n with n as some specific number that doesn't vary across future moments.

There is a lot of convenient math for combining the 1-dimensionality of time with the 3-dimensionality of space, and any further tweaking of dimensionality due to the curvature of space due to General Relativity.

Jacobsen: If those are emergent phenomena and create the world, are they separate before they come into being?

Rosner: No, they are all part of the same deal. I don't think you should be tempted into thinking time can vary 1-dimensionally. That you can have time that functions as anything but 1-dimensionally.

Jacobsen: What about space?

Rosner: According to the rules of information, you probably need space that is 3-dimensional. I doubt you can vary the dimensionality of space. You could probably do it in your imagination to simplify your image of things.

[End of recorded material]

Authors [1]

American Television Writer

(Updated July 25, 2019)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing

Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com