Editing Talk:Free Will

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 61: Line 61:
  
 
I didn't start out planning to go into all of this, but it is something that we will have to deal with eventually.  I figure I will break my chapter down into appropriate pages providing the development with perhaps a unifying page tying the individual pages together.  Consider this as a heads up as to some things as advanced content that will have to be dealt with eventually.  --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 14:17, 1 June 2011 (CDT)
 
I didn't start out planning to go into all of this, but it is something that we will have to deal with eventually.  I figure I will break my chapter down into appropriate pages providing the development with perhaps a unifying page tying the individual pages together.  Consider this as a heads up as to some things as advanced content that will have to be dealt with eventually.  --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 14:17, 1 June 2011 (CDT)
----------------------------------------------------
+
 
 
:Great stuff Ted. While you're right in that what you're saying isn't strictly out of MBT, it is still of value. Tom gave a large over-arching big picture view of, well, everything - that leaves a lot of details to be filled in. Much of what we will quote out of the BB isn't straight from Tom either, but interpretations and experience of other veteran board members. I think the point of the wiki is to expand on MBT - if it was just MBT sourced material then it is probably better to just read the book. I'm probably just singing to the choir. As we all know, the "My" in MBT is to signify that we all have our own unique TOE's.
 
:Great stuff Ted. While you're right in that what you're saying isn't strictly out of MBT, it is still of value. Tom gave a large over-arching big picture view of, well, everything - that leaves a lot of details to be filled in. Much of what we will quote out of the BB isn't straight from Tom either, but interpretations and experience of other veteran board members. I think the point of the wiki is to expand on MBT - if it was just MBT sourced material then it is probably better to just read the book. I'm probably just singing to the choir. As we all know, the "My" in MBT is to signify that we all have our own unique TOE's.
  
Line 67: Line 67:
  
 
:Another perspective I have is that it doesn't matter what the source of the information is, it only matters if it is valuable to you. So perhaps I am wrong about what I wrote above - I'm not sure. Perhaps Tom may have an opinion on this issue? I know that someone like Claudio might not appreciate mixed interpretations. This is not entirely like an encyclopedia of objective content. --[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 14:47, 1 June 2011 (CDT)
 
:Another perspective I have is that it doesn't matter what the source of the information is, it only matters if it is valuable to you. So perhaps I am wrong about what I wrote above - I'm not sure. Perhaps Tom may have an opinion on this issue? I know that someone like Claudio might not appreciate mixed interpretations. This is not entirely like an encyclopedia of objective content. --[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 14:47, 1 June 2011 (CDT)
----------------------------------------------------
+
 
 
::What I said above regarding free will does come from '''''My Big TOE''''', you just have to understand it at the correct level.  That is part of what we are trying to provide here, that deeper level of understanding.  Note pages 260 and 261 of these pages from '''''My Big TOE''''' as available on Google Books.  Here is the link:  http://books.google.com/books?id=6To0902iZeYC&lpg=PA1&dq=my%20big%20toe&pg=PA260#v=onepage&q&f=false  This is the reference that you need to cite this material under.  Note on page 260 at the bottom paragraph how Tom starts to discuss the delay needed to transfer information in NPMR from a sending IUOC to a receiving IUOC.  He goes on to talk about the time to transfer information by the 'flipping' of reality cells.  He does not go into all details, but assuming you understand that all of CS is reality cells filled with data represented by the state of the cell as perturbed or unperturbed and that this data must be transferred by the 'flipping' of not only the cells within the sending IUOC but along the path of reality cells that represent the path from sender to receiver along the RWW.  Then the reality cells of the receiver finally receive the data transfer and must then process it within the receiving IUOC by the 'flipping' of the states of the reality cells that make up that receiving IUOC.
 
::What I said above regarding free will does come from '''''My Big TOE''''', you just have to understand it at the correct level.  That is part of what we are trying to provide here, that deeper level of understanding.  Note pages 260 and 261 of these pages from '''''My Big TOE''''' as available on Google Books.  Here is the link:  http://books.google.com/books?id=6To0902iZeYC&lpg=PA1&dq=my%20big%20toe&pg=PA260#v=onepage&q&f=false  This is the reference that you need to cite this material under.  Note on page 260 at the bottom paragraph how Tom starts to discuss the delay needed to transfer information in NPMR from a sending IUOC to a receiving IUOC.  He goes on to talk about the time to transfer information by the 'flipping' of reality cells.  He does not go into all details, but assuming you understand that all of CS is reality cells filled with data represented by the state of the cell as perturbed or unperturbed and that this data must be transferred by the 'flipping' of not only the cells within the sending IUOC but along the path of reality cells that represent the path from sender to receiver along the RWW.  Then the reality cells of the receiver finally receive the data transfer and must then process it within the receiving IUOC by the 'flipping' of the states of the reality cells that make up that receiving IUOC.
  
Line 79: Line 79:
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
::::Mike, multiple PMR experiences simultaneously, i. e. overlapping in PMR time, are going to be processed in the same way that the two VRs of NPMR and PMR normally are handled.  As Tom has described this, it is something typically done by relatively new IUOCs wanting to develop more quickly by this doubling or tripling up.  While there are no doubt high level composite beings that are composed of more than one of what would normally make up an IUOC and I think that Tom has discussed this, they have no need to do this.  The normal IUOC has no way to create these divisions within itself.  Actually, I cannot envision a way by which AUM would have been able to create divisions within itself if it were not inherently already so divided naturally by the development I describe.  That is not that it could not happen in ways we cannot imagine.  This will perhaps make more sense when I put my chapter as already written up as probably multiple pages.  With the natural development that can be anticipated based upon the nature of pure mathematics as being discovered here in PMR, emergent complexity and self organization can clearly result in something like I describe.  This is viewing pure mathematics as something discovered and as inherent to the nature of the digital reality of the LCS.  One can then readily see these natural divisions of something that functions as all of the proto IUOCs being able to experience VRs independently.  One can also then readily see the possibility of a few IUOCs amalgamating into one functional being of a very high order but of course lesser than AUM.  If you look into the nature of cellular automata, I don't think you will see a ready way that an IUOC once created can readily break down into multiple functioning 'cores'.  It simply is not of the scale for the emergent complexity and self organization of the whole to take effect within one IUOC.  So is my opinion.  Also, Tom simply does not describe it this way in his model. --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 12:24, 2 June 2011 (CDT)
 
::::Mike, multiple PMR experiences simultaneously, i. e. overlapping in PMR time, are going to be processed in the same way that the two VRs of NPMR and PMR normally are handled.  As Tom has described this, it is something typically done by relatively new IUOCs wanting to develop more quickly by this doubling or tripling up.  While there are no doubt high level composite beings that are composed of more than one of what would normally make up an IUOC and I think that Tom has discussed this, they have no need to do this.  The normal IUOC has no way to create these divisions within itself.  Actually, I cannot envision a way by which AUM would have been able to create divisions within itself if it were not inherently already so divided naturally by the development I describe.  That is not that it could not happen in ways we cannot imagine.  This will perhaps make more sense when I put my chapter as already written up as probably multiple pages.  With the natural development that can be anticipated based upon the nature of pure mathematics as being discovered here in PMR, emergent complexity and self organization can clearly result in something like I describe.  This is viewing pure mathematics as something discovered and as inherent to the nature of the digital reality of the LCS.  One can then readily see these natural divisions of something that functions as all of the proto IUOCs being able to experience VRs independently.  One can also then readily see the possibility of a few IUOCs amalgamating into one functional being of a very high order but of course lesser than AUM.  If you look into the nature of cellular automata, I don't think you will see a ready way that an IUOC once created can readily break down into multiple functioning 'cores'.  It simply is not of the scale for the emergent complexity and self organization of the whole to take effect within one IUOC.  So is my opinion.  Also, Tom simply does not describe it this way in his model. --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 12:24, 2 June 2011 (CDT)
----------------------------------------------------
 
:::::I think I would have to see your full derivation of the idea to fully understand it. As it stands right now the sentence "Actually, I cannot envision a way by which AUM would have been able to create divisions within itself if it were not inherently already so divided naturally by the development I describe." troubles me deeply, as it directly conflicts with my understanding of MBT. What I think you might be getting at, is that AUM was already divided up into reality cells to begin with. When it discovered how to create perturbations the reality cells were already there. But that might not be what you're saying - I will look into cellular automatons further. All I can say for now is it seems like you are putting more constraints on AUM than what Tom proposed in MBT, but again perhaps he was very subtle with some of the details that I may have missed. I don't see why an IUOC of sufficiently low entropy could not break down its processing functions into two separate cores - it is not obvious that it does not have enough "emergent complexity".
 
 
:::::Do you have a reference or link to the paper you mentioned earlier? I'd like to read it.
 
 
:::::Also, do you mind if we continue this discussion on the forums? It is getting away from the idea of "Free Will" and I think it would make for a good discussion with others on the forum. I can do the copy-pasting if you'd like. --[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 13:11, 2 June 2011 (CDT)
 
 
Hi Folks, should we not keep things consistent and use a second ref group <nowiki><references group="MBT Trilogy" /></nowiki>. If this page grows, which I assume it will, having the actuall references that can highlight back and forth from reference section at the bottom back to the reference point in the content, will be less confusing. The references don't have to be links. I changed it as an example, feel free to change it back if you feel I am off in the weeds, I just think consistency and well define references lend to better navigation and credibility.
 
:Yes, thanks. I was just going to make the change myself. --[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 10:53, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
::Well I wasn't sure about to to be honest because I know there might be instances where external links don't reference the page content. In this case, if we have an external links section, should I create a template of style to match that of the reference blocks? --[[User:David Mathis|David Mathis]] 11:55, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
:::Oh ok for those cases I think following Wikipedia's style is best, since they've probably refined the solution optimally. The links in an "External Links" section are done with a bullet list instead of a numbered one - I think that would work for us.--[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 13:02, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
-------------------------------------------------
 
Mike,
 
 
Don't you think that this page is ready to link into the Community Portal?  Why not put it before the page for editors and that introductory paragraph and after the TC information with a short introductory paragraph or sentence?  If we decide it isn't perfect or find more information to add, that can be done later.  --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 22:37, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
 
: Yes, I was starting to think about it being ready today as its in a state I'm fairly happy with for now. I added the link and some temporary introductory text to the community portal. Of course, the beauty of a wiki is that the content can evolve over time. One question though - is it wiki policy to keep your signature on the bottom of the page to note the initial creator of that page? --[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 01:12, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
 
 
::I don't know.  I had started to think that I should take them off.  I just remember something vague at first about signing your work but perhaps that was only referring to on the talk pages.  What should be the policy?  I'm winging all of this.  David?  --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 02:07, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
 
 
:::I vote that the signature is unnecessary. The history will capture the creator of the article. --[[User:David Mathis|David Mathis]] 10:43, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
 
:::Yeah I think that was just for talk pages. --[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 10:55, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
 
 
::::Then we are all agreed.  Sign your comments on talk pages as that is a free for all.  If it is something you originally wrote or participated in, then that will be mentioned in the context paragraph if appropriate.  The articles themselves should be created anonymously.  --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 11:09, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
 
 
:::::Ted, yeah, I agree. Your TOE reviews should definitely have your signature.
 
 
----
 
 
Mike,
 
 
Finally taking time to look at some of the pages created.  This looks pretty good to me.  --[[User:Ted Vollers|Ted Vollers]] 04:29, 25 July 2011 (CDT)
 
:Thanks! --[[User:Michael Saganski|Michael Saganski]] 11:23, 26 July 2011 (CDT)
 

Please note that all contributions to My Big TOE Wiki are considered to be released under the Click to view usage permitted (see My Big TOE Wiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)