Born to do Math 58 – Hows, then Whys (Part 2)

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 58 – Hows, then Whys (Part 2)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

May 4, 2017

[Beginning of recorded material]

Rick Rosner: We have the principle that you can only be in one world at a time, or that at least macro objects that you interact with are unitary and not shapeshifting. They are consistent and not shapeshifting from being—your phone isn’t shapeshifting as if it changing places with phones across alternate worlds. Macro objects embedded in history don’t behave that way, embedded in our worldline.

There are processes going on that keep us confined to a world that is shifting and non-existent, except for the natural processes of physics, biology, and chemistry, and everything. The only allowed changes among the allowed things in our environment are based on physics and causality and random shifting among many worlds is precluded. That’s a good first step for talking about the whys.

[End of recorded material]

Authors^[1],[2]

Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
RickRosner@Hotmail.Com
Rick Rosner

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com
In-Sight Publishing

Endnotes

[1] Four format points for the session article:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
4. 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:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
2. Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.

[2] Some corresponded around this topic below:

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: IC questions: Why make light elements without stars? Why make heavy elements only in stars? Why stop at heavy element formation at Iron in stars? Why make heavier than Iron elements in super- and hyper-novae explosions? Why end in neutron stars, white dwarfs, or blackish holes? Why these progressions informationally?

These amount to developmental stages in information processing. Organisms are born, develop, mature, decay, and die. Same with the development of complex elements in the universe’s apparent life history. 

Light elements form, then heavy elements in the guts of stars, and then stop at Iron, and then form heavier elements in the spatio-temporal shock waves from supernovae and hypernovae explosions, and then further decay into their embers as white dwarfs, neutron stars, and blackish holes. 

Maybe, these represent information phase changes.

Or maybe, these represent information processing or storage peaks, and then the new mechanisms circumvent the 10^85th information limitations of the bland universe, if averaged, by localizing – heliosphere, heliopause, and so on – information processing and then turning light elements into heavy elements, and the Iron limits of this segmentation requires complete shedding of the fiery skin of the star for a big spatiotemporal shock wave, and then this create heavier elements, where needed – because these heaviest elements only form when up to Iron is no longer good enough and the super heavy elements can be used by all parts of the universe through super spreading.

The last remnants that don’t need active processing anymore, dense data processing, can be stored in the neutron stars and the blackish holes.

The neutron stars and the blackish holes as if big lock-downs like electrons in orbits around nuclei.

Maybe, there’s the transition from magnitude to magnitude, information processing load to information processing load.

That’s funny.

It could match a comedian’s set: setup, punchline, setup, punchline, setup bigger punchline…

Information locked down in atoms and electron orbits. Information processing until light elements, and then lock down, and then information processing in stars into heavy elements, and then lock down, and then supernovae and hypernovae, and then short-term creation of heaviest elements, and the lock down into massive structures such as neutron stars and blackish holes.

It seems clean.

There is 4-dimensionality, but there’s also the dimension or the factor of scale.

Scale might be the dimension of information load, and so relevance to the larger-scale information processing in the universe.

Up-down, left-right, forward-backward as the what – “here’s a bunch of room to do stuff.” Time as stuff taking place in the what, so the how – “here’s a stuff doing stuff in the bunch of room.” The information load or the relevance metric as the why – “here’s the importance of this stuff relative to other smaller stuff based on what this stuff is doing in the bunch of room and its bigness.”

Perhaps, that is the bridge to the why from the how, which is the indication of relevance. No direct translation, but a measurement for hinting at importance.

Then, we can ask the whys.

We can ask those whys with more precision.

I do not know if this can be considered an additional dimension because the standard 4 dimensions translate into space and time in Minkowskian Space. I feel as though the hows lead to the whys, but does not have a bridge. The hows amount to the new set theory and the informational physics as reality. The ethics, from within the universe and derived from the basic premises of logic – so math and set theory, new or old, especially new, give the basis for action from one information processor to another, but come from the logic, or the new set theory and the informational cosmology/physics.

The facts of existence lead to inevitable oughts. Probable is – or seems – derives probable oughts – or might as well.

Hume was right in a cosmos of classical mechanics, of Cartesian coordinate systems, and absolute, linear, and infinitely defined time and space. The facts of existence evolve in an absolute manner, the universe and organisms. No ‘rhyme or reason’ for ought.

In an Einsteinian, Minkowskian, curved, finite, universe with a beginning, and evolved organisms and a universe, it seems better, but much the same. You get, at the limit, deism or a Spinoza pantheism, as did Einstein – as you well know, simply laying the reasoning out as clear and thoroughly as possible.

Deism and pantheism hint at non-random directionality to the universe, but stay without grounded ethics.

I suspect Einstein selected deism/pantheism and secular humanist values based on these reasons. Humanism does not have basic beliefs. It has, as with other belief systems, asserted positions. It rejects gods, God, and the supernatural, though no by necessity rejecting gods or God.

In this interpretation, and seemingly rooted and valid, even sound, humanism becomes another faith system minus pervasive faith, selective faith in humanity and asserted ‘human values.’

IC creates ethics from the bottom-up, following from the logic. The Minkowskian, curved, finite universe with an apparent beginning rooted in information, with scales of emergence – increasing solidity in material or physical reality based on more information to self-define and actualize itself. We have both mentioned these, at disparate times, of the “might as well” ethic the “good enough” organism evolution, and “as if” universe.

The bridge to the bridge to the bridge, and so on, is the no physics and supernatural & absolute ethic (pre-science and religious institutions) to the infinite physics and natural & partial ethic (early science and humanistic institutions) to the finite physics and inevitable ethics.

The finite and inevitable ethics, or ethic, really, as IC in its early development. 

The whys of the universe, the purpose to the universe relative to the armature world becomes the metaphysical whys for the universe, or category 1 whys/primary whys. The relevance of structures of the universe relative to the reality in the armature world, as noted earlier, as the category 2 whys/secondary whys. The third whys, or category 3 whys/tertiary whys, are the relevance – without explicit knowledge and representation of its manifestation in the mind of the armature – of structures, via their magnitude, in the universe, one to the other – one filament to another, and one atom exchanging photons with another in a probabilistically defined space over a relatively defined time. The probabilistic space, or volume, and the time associated with the volume, amount to the information capture, and these can be redefined in the ICST language too. To develop category 2 and category 1 whys, primary and secondary whys, we best explain as best as we can category 3 whys. As near as I can tell, category 3 make the foundation for category 2, and category 3, then 2, build the bases for category 1.

These relate the physics, the set theory, the ethics, the hows, and differentiate whys and set us, potentially, on a course to answering them.

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 2012-2017. 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.