Born to do Math 90 - Steady As She Goes
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
October 1, 2018
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the current status of IC in terms of development?
Rick Rosner: The reason that a straight Big Bang universe can't be a model for thought is that if the universe as experienced in a given moment - a given long moment with a moment of the universe being many hundreds of millions of years long - for that analogy with thought to apply then there would have to be some steadiness in the size and scale of the universe.
Because, by analogy with our brain, our minds process a limited range of information from moment-to-moment; that is, the amount of information in our brains at 10 o'clock is not different than at 1 o'clock or 3 o'clock - unless asleep - and so are humming along and dealing with the same amount of information dealing with different sorts of things.
If the universe is an information processing apparatus, you would expect provisions for steadiness within the operations of the universe; whereas, a Big Bang universe is unhomogenous over time. Science like homogeneity, similarity.
It is related, in some way, to Occam's Razor. That you don't want to set up special conditions to explain what is going on at any one time or any one space. The history of science has been getting away from specialness. That we started off as the center of the universe.
Then the Copernican system moved the Sun to the center, then further developments move us to an absolutely average galaxy to 10^11th galaxies in an unexceptional space. In that, all space that comes from a Big Bang is pretty much the same as any other place in space.
The Big Bang includes absolute spatial homogeneity. Space is the same every place, except in some places, have galaxies and some don't. But the distribution of galaxies is homogenous. Things are the same through space.
The price you pay for spatial homogeneity is temporal complete specialness. Every moment is a time of the Big Bang is a unique point because the universe is always changing in size. But if the universe is an information processing apparatus, you would expect that there would be some steadiness from moment to moment in the universe.
That the universe can be the same size a billion years from now and a billion years ago, as it is now. For that to be true, you can't have a strict Big Bang. We're also assuming or guessing that the universe is much older than the apparent Big Bang age.
That means that there have to be ways to keep the universe lit. That is, you have to recycle galaxies or create new galaxies. There are some possibilities. You have to create new galaxies that will light up, burn out, and fall away - to be replaced by newer new galaxies.
Or you have to have a way for old galaxies to be relit, and/or you have to have a way for some galaxies to stay lit indefinitely for many, many hundreds of millions of years. By analogy with what happens in our brains or our minds, you would expect both.
You would expect some galaxies to stay lit. If galaxies are some information processing units, you would expect things like a language or perspective processing unit. You would expect that to be on whenever the universe is away or we're awake.
We are always processing words. We are always looking at our surroundings through a perspective processing apparatus. We always orient ourselves in space via the part of our brains that turns what we see into 3-dimensional space.
We never, unless we're doing acid or screw up these processes, see the structure space break down around us, so we never understand 3-dimensionality. There are other galaxies or other information processing units, memories, or whatever; that we would expect to cycle in and out as needed.
We need some physics that relights old galaxies, keeps some galaxies lit and lets you bring in new galaxies. That points at neutrino action in parts of the universe that have an extreme amount of gravitational curvature. That would be at the apparent beginning of the universe at T=0, and around blackish holes.
That something should happen around the parts of the universe with the greatest gravitational strain on space. That pulls fused matter apart. By fused matter, I mean neutron star stuff. I mean matter that has been fused into heavier and heavier elements.
There should be processes that rip this stuff apart back into more raw protons and electrons and lighter elements, which implies neutrino abosroption. Where a neutron gets hit or sucks a neutrino and then comes apart - I always get confused by neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, you need to have most processes in the non-extremely curved parts of the universe are fusion processes.
Lighter elements fuse together into heavier elements, turning protons plus electrons into neutrons. You need places in the universe where the reverse happens. Those places should be extremely curved places, as around blackish holes.
Hawking even talked about the matter being able to escape fully black holes because the strain on space adds enough energy to space around the event horizon that matter can be spontaneously created at the event horizon with matter duals popping out.
Like a piece of matter and its anti-matter counterpart spontaneously popping out of space right near the event horizon, one particle falls into the black hole and the other can struggle out of it. That is how black hole evaporation happens.
In IC, you do not have fully black holes. But you should be able to have similar stuff happen in, and around, the vicinity of black holes, where the matter gets torn apart and some stripped matter, some torn apart matter, that is not yet fused becomes available again to the, I would assume, rest of the galaxy.
Other processes include the strain on space allows for the tearing apart of matter that can allow for anti-neutrinos that are wiped out when a neutron is torn apart into a proton plus an electron. I would also assume those same parts of space are less transparent or more opaque, better able to absorb neutrinos, than less curved parts of space.
That neutrino fluxes, that pretty much every galaxy is a neutrino generator as normal matter fuses and as protons and electrons come together into neutrons releasing neutrinos; you would each galaxy to be a huge net producer of neutrinos because it is tough for normal matter to absorb them. I would guess that you've got these large filament structures in the galaxy.
Which, I assume, maintain relationships among longstanding structures in the universe of, specifically, galaxies and, perhaps, the filaments that they are a part of that stay lit for much longer than you'd expect a galaxy to stay lit, I would expect that you would have stable spatial relationships along these filaments with all the matter lined up along these filaments - to some extent focusing neutrino flux and keeping the galaxies lit and helping to maintain the spatial relationships, or the network or the filaments, longer than you would expect them to be maintained.
Jacobsen: That makes sense in two senses. One is the principle that larger structures tend to last long past a certain point. Similarly, two, small structures tend to last longer at a certain point.
Rosner: I agree with that. There is also the possibility that curved structures - the places where space is massively curved - as with the huge 1 million to a billion weight blackish holes at the center of galaxies. Those might act in a certain way like tent pegs or nails into the overall structure of the universe or the distribution of matter in the universe, where those are harder to move.
Those are more resistant to being pushed around gravitationally than smaller structures or less curvy/pointy structures because a gravitationally curved area is like a point or as a nail in a 4th gravitational dimension.
Those nails may hold the universe to a more set structure.
Because, by analogy with our brain, our minds process a limited range of information from moment-to-moment; that is, the amount of information in our brains at 10 o'clock is not different than at 1 o'clock or 3 o'clock - unless asleep - and so are humming along and dealing with the same amount of information dealing with different sorts of things.
If the universe is an information processing apparatus, you would expect provisions for steadiness within the operations of the universe; whereas, a Big Bang universe is unhomogenous over time. Science like homogeneity, similarity.
It is related, in some way, to Occam's Razor. That you don't want to set up special conditions to explain what is going on at any one time or any one space. The history of science has been getting away from specialness. That we started off as the center of the universe.
Then the Copernican system moved the Sun to the center, then further developments move us to an absolutely average galaxy to 10^11th galaxies in an unexceptional space. In that, all space that comes from a Big Bang is pretty much the same as any other place in space.
The Big Bang includes absolute spatial homogeneity. Space is the same every place, except in some places, have galaxies and some don't. But the distribution of galaxies is homogenous. Things are the same through space.
The price you pay for spatial homogeneity is temporal complete specialness. Every moment is a time of the Big Bang is a unique point because the universe is always changing in size. But if the universe is an information processing apparatus, you would expect that there would be some steadiness from moment to moment in the universe.
That the universe can be the same size a billion years from now and a billion years ago, as it is now. For that to be true, you can't have a strict Big Bang. We're also assuming or guessing that the universe is much older than the apparent Big Bang age.
That means that there have to be ways to keep the universe lit. That is, you have to recycle galaxies or create new galaxies. There are some possibilities. You have to create new galaxies that will light up, burn out, and fall away - to be replaced by newer new galaxies.
Or you have to have a way for old galaxies to be relit, and/or you have to have a way for some galaxies to stay lit indefinitely for many, many hundreds of millions of years. By analogy with what happens in our brains or our minds, you would expect both.
You would expect some galaxies to stay lit. If galaxies are some information processing units, you would expect things like a language or perspective processing unit. You would expect that to be on whenever the universe is away or we're awake.
We are always processing words. We are always looking at our surroundings through a perspective processing apparatus. We always orient ourselves in space via the part of our brains that turns what we see into 3-dimensional space.
We never, unless we're doing acid or screw up these processes, see the structure space break down around us, so we never understand 3-dimensionality. There are other galaxies or other information processing units, memories, or whatever; that we would expect to cycle in and out as needed.
We need some physics that relights old galaxies, keeps some galaxies lit and lets you bring in new galaxies. That points at neutrino action in parts of the universe that have an extreme amount of gravitational curvature. That would be at the apparent beginning of the universe at T=0, and around blackish holes.
That something should happen around the parts of the universe with the greatest gravitational strain on space. That pulls fused matter apart. By fused matter, I mean neutron star stuff. I mean matter that has been fused into heavier and heavier elements.
There should be processes that rip this stuff apart back into more raw protons and electrons and lighter elements, which implies neutrino abosroption. Where a neutron gets hit or sucks a neutrino and then comes apart - I always get confused by neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, you need to have most processes in the non-extremely curved parts of the universe are fusion processes.
Lighter elements fuse together into heavier elements, turning protons plus electrons into neutrons. You need places in the universe where the reverse happens. Those places should be extremely curved places, as around blackish holes.
Hawking even talked about the matter being able to escape fully black holes because the strain on space adds enough energy to space around the event horizon that matter can be spontaneously created at the event horizon with matter duals popping out.
Like a piece of matter and its anti-matter counterpart spontaneously popping out of space right near the event horizon, one particle falls into the black hole and the other can struggle out of it. That is how black hole evaporation happens.
In IC, you do not have fully black holes. But you should be able to have similar stuff happen in, and around, the vicinity of black holes, where the matter gets torn apart and some stripped matter, some torn apart matter, that is not yet fused becomes available again to the, I would assume, rest of the galaxy.
Other processes include the strain on space allows for the tearing apart of matter that can allow for anti-neutrinos that are wiped out when a neutron is torn apart into a proton plus an electron. I would also assume those same parts of space are less transparent or more opaque, better able to absorb neutrinos, than less curved parts of space.
That neutrino fluxes, that pretty much every galaxy is a neutrino generator as normal matter fuses and as protons and electrons come together into neutrons releasing neutrinos; you would each galaxy to be a huge net producer of neutrinos because it is tough for normal matter to absorb them. I would guess that you've got these large filament structures in the galaxy.
Which, I assume, maintain relationships among longstanding structures in the universe of, specifically, galaxies and, perhaps, the filaments that they are a part of that stay lit for much longer than you'd expect a galaxy to stay lit, I would expect that you would have stable spatial relationships along these filaments with all the matter lined up along these filaments - to some extent focusing neutrino flux and keeping the galaxies lit and helping to maintain the spatial relationships, or the network or the filaments, longer than you would expect them to be maintained.
Jacobsen: That makes sense in two senses. One is the principle that larger structures tend to last long past a certain point. Similarly, two, small structures tend to last longer at a certain point.
Rosner: I agree with that. There is also the possibility that curved structures - the places where space is massively curved - as with the huge 1 million to a billion weight blackish holes at the center of galaxies. Those might act in a certain way like tent pegs or nails into the overall structure of the universe or the distribution of matter in the universe, where those are harder to move.
Those are more resistant to being pushed around gravitationally than smaller structures or less curvy/pointy structures because a gravitationally curved area is like a point or as a nail in a 4th gravitational dimension.
Those nails may hold the universe to a more set structure.
[End of recorded material]
Authors[1]
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
RickRosner@Hotmail.Com
According to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writer’s Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmy Awards, The Grammy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He has also worked as a stripper, a bouncer, a roller-skating waiter, and a nude model. In a TV commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the World’s Smartest Man. He was also named Best Bouncer in the Denver Area by Westwood Magazine.
He spent the disco era as an undercover high school student. 25 years as a bar bouncer, American fake ID-catcher, 25+ years as a stripper, and nude art model, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. He lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a bad question, and lost the lawsuit. He spent 35+ years on a modified version of Big Bang Theory. Now, he mostly sits around tweeting in a towel. He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife and daughter.
You can send an email 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, Scott.Jacobsen@TrustedClothes.Com, Scott@ConatusNews.Com, scott.jacobsen@probc.ca, Scott@Karmik.Ca, or SJacobsen@AlmasJiwaniFoundation.Org.
He is a Moral Courage Webmaster and Outreach Specialist (Fall, 2016) at the UCI Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality (Ethics Center), Interview Columnist for Conatus News, Writer and Executive Administrator for Trusted Clothes, Interview Columnist for Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Chair of Social Media for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, Councillor for the Athabasca University Student Union, Member of the Learning Analytics Research Group, writer for The Voice Magazine, Your Political Party of BC, ProBC, Marijuana Party of Canada, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Harvest House Ministries, and Little Footprints Big Steps International Development Organization, Editor and Proofreader for Alfred Yi Zhang Photography, Community Journalist/Blogger for Gordon Neighbourhood House, Member-at-Large, Member of the Outreach Committee, the Finance & Fundraising Committee, and the Special Projects & Political Advocacy Committee, and Writer for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Member of the Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab and IMAGe Psychology Lab, Collaborator with Dr. Farhad Dastur in creation of the CriticalThinkingWiki, Board Member, and Foundation Volunteer Committee Member for the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, and Independent Landscaper.
He was a Francisco Ayala Scholar at the UCI Ethics Center, Member of the Psychometric Society Graduate Student Committee, Special Advisor and Writer for ECOSOC at NWMUN, Writer for TransplantFirstAcademy and ProActive Path, Member of AT-CURA Psychology Lab, Contributor for a student policy review, Vice President of Outreach for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, worked with Manahel Thabet on numerous initiatives, Student Member of the Ad–Hoc Executive Compensation Review Committee for the Athabasca University Student Union, Volunteer and Writer for British Columbia Psychological Association, Community Member of the KPU Choir (even performed with them alongside the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra), Delegate at Harvard World MUN, NWMUN, UBC MUN, and Long Beach Intercollegiate MUN, and Writer and Member of the Communications Committee for The PIPE UP Network.
He published in American Enterprise Institute, Annaborgia, Conatus News, Earth Skin & Eden, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Gordon Neighbourhood House, Huffington Post, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Jolly Dragons, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Psychology Department, La Petite Mort, Learning Analytics Research Group, Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab, Lost in Samara, Marijuana Party of Canada, MomMandy, Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society, Piece of Mind, Production Mode, Synapse, TeenFinancial, The Peak, The Ubyssey, The Voice Magazine, Transformative Dialogues, Treasure Box Kids, Trusted Clothes.
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 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 2012-2018. 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.
