...MAXIMIZATION OF THE FOUNDATION OF LOGIC.."WHAT IS INFORMATION?"
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. All kinds of logic had loopholes.. 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. If we have + and -1 electric charges and we measured like the liar and the truth, evidence will show 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.)
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 in 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 wise about this?
Because the truth is not perfect, 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. This may be because 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 the electron and positron.
And so you have this connection like for Newton's First and Second laws and the Third law, Every reaction with 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 because they have a simple and complex structure on each side the axon and dendrite, 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 information like action reaction pairs and energy conservation.
So the question of how we could derive this I think ultimately relates to how the more distant connections don't actually match up as much and so loopholes are common with distance or higher information, but not in the more basic information.
For example in the history of life on Earth the larger life took much more time to evolve than the one celled life. This was because the short distance connection of the cell was with the stronger connections where the in and out waves balance like for molecular computation, but larger life needed to overpower the loopholes of connections with more distance. So the basic connections would be the most sound and reliable foundation of logic we would find anywhere with energy conservation.
This reminded me of about how Einstein didn't define 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 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.
Information theorists 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 because it's based on energy conservation not looser connections.
And so if you have the 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 when we look at the world around us, everything is based on that same pattern, extending out from this basis. You were wise, and aware!
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, it's what all the evidence shows more often.
And experience is the best teacher for my hope to help you find more value in this these events and math.
And I would say there's more foundation in that principle and we can know things. Ultimately, the higher knowledge itself is not completely without value.. it's at a higher level and we're more evolved than one celled life.
So I think that we would find a probabilistic element of almost any event with a loophole, and make use of Von Neuman'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 losses.
-
