WHAT IS INFORMATION...MAXIMIZATION OF THE FOUNDATION OF LOGIC..

Here I want to talk about my ideas about how the incompleteness of math was definitely found by mathematicians around the 1800s.

 And they had thought from the time of the ancient Greeks that math is by deductive axiom. You know, you have the axioms, you deduce, and you can prove a reliable conclusion whatever you're reasoning about, about geometry or whatever. 

  But by the 1800s, it was seen there were flaws in this whole idea. You can't define things well.. And so what was proposed was that  you have a method of proving that you can't prove anything because of these contradictions. Basically for Godel's idea like the liar paradox, if a liar is lying it's a lie but if he's telling the truth about lying he's telling the truth.

To which I replied that truth is always going to be more important than falsehood. So I disagreed. And if we have + and -1 electric charges and we measured like the liar and the truth, then one or the other is always going to win. 

(Actually the electron has some mass but more energy, and the positron has some energy but more mass, a decidedly nonrelativistic event if mass and energy are equivalent.  As I say here on my site elsewhere! It may be just this distinction of mass and energy between the charges that gives the resilient snapback of the light to just the speed of light as Maxwell believed. "Einstein thought the most of Maxwell of any physicist. Who's Einstein!")

 So mass and energy are not quite equivalent. This I still hold to be true. And though one is truer than the other, one of each claim that we make is always truer than the other.

  There's also this idea that it's not absolute. We're not totally sure, but more sure than not. But ultimately, one of the main things I noticed about this is that you have the problem of knowledge and ontology where the basis of truth is considered. They search all these events about truth and they find that all of them have loopholes, like in ethics, every virtue can be rearranged around to a vice and the only one that's least rearrangeable is wisdom. So I ask, what would be the most wisdom about this?

Because, the truth is not perfect, So I believe that not only is there more truth than falsehood and it has a physical basis, that's where you find what's true or false unlike with some of the higher math. But about the problem of knowledge, you have loopholes in all the types of knowledge they found.  And this is because I think longer distance connections aren't as sound as shorter distance connections.  And so I think instead of asking what can we know about anything? I would ask what's the best use we can make of what we know?

 I would ask first of all, what can we know most definitely. And then we could work from there. And my belief is that about truth and falsehood, it's like action reaction pairs like electron and positron. And so you have this connection like for Newton's First and Second laws and the Third law, every reaction there's an equal but opposite reaction. But there's mass in one law and there's inertia, 1 inertia in the first law and mass momentwo in the second law, momentum. And these combine to the Third law. All the action reaction pairs are based on what changes and what stays the same. Like inertia and momentum. 

 

 And so you have this kind of question,  in ontology, the problem of knowledge, they're saying that there are those who believe we can't know anything.

 And also there are those who believe we can't even know ourselves, and we can't know anything else.

 But if we look at what it's based on, it's the foundation of logic and that is the action reaction pairs. This is like the neuron becausetj they have a simple and complex structure on each side, like with Noether's theorem. What changes and what stays the same can classify all sets according to this. And so you have the neuron in the brain with simplicity and complexity. And that's basically the form of the the pattern has like action reaction pairs and energy conservation. 

 So, the question of how we could derive this I think ultimately relates to how the longer distance connections don't actually match up as much and so loopholes are common in the longer distance or higher information, but not in the more basic information. And this would be the most sound and the most reliable foundation of logic we would find anywhere with energy conservation.

This reminded me of what they say about Einstein not defining a signal or information in relativity, but I define them as a change in like the mass or  energy of a body in one place, with an exchange of energy between them and that creates a definite change on the other side, even if it's only probabilistic like a lot of the the quantum mechanics are defining connections like this. So this definition is also based on energy conservation and the same idea. When you have a change as a balance, then you have a foundation of information like in information theory. 

 They can't decide what information is. There are like 70 definitions. They're all arguing about it. I think this about energy conservation is going to be the ultimate one that's the same, the same as the problem of knowledge with the dispute about what information is itself. 

  And so if you have your action reaction pairs, they're balancing like the neuron. And so we can know ourselves because it's based on that same action reaction pair. And then we look around the world around us, everything is based on that same pattern, extending out from this basis. You were wise, and aware!

And so I believe that all this means while although we can't know the higher knowledge as reliably, we can know it more by probabilistic connections, and we can start with the most secure knowledge, although it's only by axiom, but it's what all the evidence shows that we find a lot of the evidence more often than doing without.  And experience is the best teacher for my hope to help you find more value in this these events and math. 

 And  that's how you would say that there's more foundation in that principle and we can know things. But ultimately, the higher knowledge itself is not completely without value or you wouldn't even use it. So I think that we would find a probabilistic element of almost anything with a loophole like that, and make use of  von Neiman's idea about evolution of behavior, so you can always find one best move in any game of strategy if you boost your advantages and limit your downside.

 -