Talk:Free Will

From My Big TOE Wiki
Revision as of 13:11, 2 June 2011 by Michael Saganski (talk | contribs) (Additional and advanced material to consider.)

Jump to: navigation, search

Should we make use of the convention roughly developed on the BB Forums to distinguish between a casual use of the word intent and the special use of the word Intent used in MBT? This will come up many times and we should decide on that policy up front and not need to make changes later. Ted Vollers 10:07, 30 May 2011 (CDT)

Sure, I think that would be best. I'll change the capitalization of the word. I will also change it into a link with the hopes that someone will eventually create a page explaining what Intent is, how it differs from intent, and why we capitalize it.--Michael Saganski 10:18, 30 May 2011 (CDT)

Hi Mike, I saw what I think you are trying to do with references and realized that we don't have but should be using Cite: Please read the information at this link and see the demo page I created ( as an example and test of the new Cite installation. This is the same extension that's used for references on Wikipedia.

Notice that when you view the source I make use of <ref></ref> tags to create the references and then at the bottom I place the <references /> tag that anchors all of the page's references into that spot. If you click on the references in the page (the [1], [2] etc, it will bring to to the reference at the bottom and highlight it. More can be done than just this, so make sure to read the usage page mentioned above.

We need to stick with this convention to keep consistency throughout the site. --David Mathis 10:32, 30 May 2011 (CDT)

That's a good idea David. I implemented it on this page. I imagine most of the references will be to the My Big TOE forum, so it may be redundant for me to have that listed in the name of the reference, but we'll see.--Michael Saganski 22:30, 30 May 2011 (CDT)

More reference material to be sifted through: --Michael Saganski 22:55, 30 May 2011 (CDT)

So I would use grouped references like this. One like you have it for my big toe forum references and then one for normal external references etc.. You just need to give you toe references a group like <ref group="toe_forum_references">Whatever</ref> and then the same way for any other refs that will be heavily pointing to the same place. You are on the right track and doing a great job. I added it just as a test, perhaps an acro like TF for toe forum instead of group="toe_forum_references" we use group="TF"?

Grouped references

This may be disabled by $wgAllowCiteGroups = false; if desired. However, it is enabled on the foundation wikis.

The following example generates separate reference lists for citations and miscellaneous footnotes:

   According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big <ref>E. Miller, The Sun, (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23-5.</ref>.
   In fact, it is very big <ref group="footnotes">Take their word for it. Don't look directly at the sun!</ref>.
   <references group="footnotes" />
   <references />

Consistent references to MBT

Rather than use TOE forum reference, I would make it MBT forum reference and keep our abbreviations and acronyms consistent all around.Ted Vollers 20:20, 31 May 2011 (CDT)

What do you think of how it looks now? --Michael Saganski 22:32, 31 May 2011 (CDT)
Looks good to me. Ted Vollers 22:47, 31 May 2011 (CDT)

Additional and advanced material to consider.


We can as experiencers of VRs possess free will as we interact with the 'physical' frame work of the VR and the other experiencers of the VR. Each VR is in a sense a meta reality 'outside' of the base reality of digital consciousness space. The VR content is generated based upon probability by TBC which feeds appropriate data to us individually representing and creating our VR experience. We interact with that probability based 'physical' reality and interact with other IUOCs sharing our VR experience. Within that experience effectively outside of the base reality, we can speculate on the nature of the base reality and create models of what might be its nature. Such a model is at the core of MBT.

Free will as we experience VRs as IUOCs results because the two main categories of data with which we interact, other IUOCs and the VR substrate or physical seeming aspects, are totally independent of our selves. We receive data representing these inputs and we process it internally and then we produce a resulting output data stream representing our choices or interactions with what is external to ourselves. It is within this internal processing that free will arises. We may interpret the incoming data according to our own understanding or functionality and freely choose what we consider to be an appropriate output response. There lies our free will within a VR experience. There are large breaks between our periodic receiving of data and our periodically transmitting data in response. This is described by Tom in MBT as those differences in timing that Tom described and which Claudio always said that I never understood. The very high cycle rate of the base CS, the 10^18? slower cycle rate relative to the base cycle rate of the NPMR VRs and the still slower cycle rate by 10^18? cycles of the PMR VRs. Tom did not describe how much time in base system cycles we as IUOCs devote to our internal processing of the incoming data to generate our output data back to the VR. Clearly there is room for a great deal of internal cogitation before we break off to go back to our main job of functioning as an integral part of AUM and doing whatever our small part of the processing of the whole of AUM amounts to.

While these are things that I know and have posted on, it also gets into the kind of thing that Claudio always wanted to jump on as not MBT but my own TOE. I don't know how to tie this all in together and link it to reference posts on the BB or from the books. Basically we are exploring and learning our jobs here. The question of free will within the basic digital CS is tied up in the generality of the 'bootstrapping' that Tom described in MBT. I have mentioned this on the board and it was always another point of contention with Claudio. I have written a part of a very long chapter of a book taking development from the Void to the point that proto IUOCs exist based upon considerations of pure mathematics as it is studied within PMR. This is where cellular automata come in as well as emergent complexity and self organization of complex system. Tom considers it of value and has passed copies to a few others, notably Martin Peniak as being of potential value in his doctoral research. This is the basis of AUM 'dividing' itself to create us as IUOCs. Another big collision point with Claudio. AUM did not so much divide itself from a uniform state to create us as IUOCs but took advantage of the naturally occurring inherent organization that naturally developed during the bootstrapping to divide along.

Think of the pattern of a giraffe's hide as representing in the brown patches the proto IUOCs as differentiated areas of reality cells. The tan background or lines between the brown patches then represents the RWW providing intercommunication between us as proto IUOCs as we participate within and providing the unifying communication buss which integrates the whole into one entity, AUM. As we are taken past the point of proto IUOCs and become IUOCs, further subsets are established within our total entities and these subsets become the FWAUs that were developed as suitable terminology within the BB.

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. --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.
That being said, I think there should be some indication of where the material is coming from. If you're not referencing the BB or book, I think the content should be separated in some sense from the material with references. For example, if you wanted to add your own interpretation and expansion on free will, like you wrote above, to the Free Will page, perhaps it would be best suited in its own section (under its own heading) on the page. For concepts entirely your own but related to MBT, having them on their own unique pages would work as well. This way, we can all expand upon the source while still having a perspective on where the information is coming from.
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. --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: 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.
Note that Tom does not say anything about the parallel processing that Claudio always wanted to throw in. Nowhere does Tom describe parallel processing. Continuing on these pages Tom goes into the discussion of the relative time differentials of the VRs and compared to the base cell cycle rate of AUM. He describes how these differences allow for all this flipping of reality cells to transfer and process the information between sending IUOC and receiving IUOC and the processing that they do internally. He specifically says in so many words that this allows plenty of time for AUM to do its own processing between these requirements of IUOCs for their processing of VRs. And remember that Tom has explicitly said that we as IUOCs in Union are AUM. This is not a description of parallel processing. It is a description of time sharing between processes. Exactly what Claudio would never listen to. Each IUOC is in essence a 'processor' that in parallel with all the other processors and intercommunicating over the RWW becomes AUM for part of the time. Then each IUOC is given time to participate in its chosen NPMRs and PMRs. These are not done by parallel processing within the IUOC (as Claudio would have it) as the IUOC is not a multi core processor but a single unit of processing functionality. It can time share cycles as being described here but it cannot parallel process different VRs and function as part of AUM at the same time. It must do this sequentially as time sharing of the major cycle, the round robin process, of many many cycles as AUM interspersed with many cycles experiencing NPMR interspersed with one cycle within PMR.
Tom does not discuss cellular automata within MBT in this way but what else is this toggling of cells except a description of the process within a cellular automaton. If you are not familiar with them, look them up on the Internet. We do not know the specific geometry and rule set for interaction of the cellular automaton that is the LCS. But it is clearly described as such. Remember, if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. I even know a paper written describing what is essentially a 3D cellular automaton that appears to be adequate to create the reality of the LCS with its many functionalities, VRs, and the past and future data bases. Because Claudio has his mind locked in a contrary viewpoint, don't be yourself unable to see the reality and logic of this. Tom understands and accepts this as adding to the description of the model of MBT.

--Ted Vollers 06:29, 2 June 2011 (CDT)

Ted, everything you said I can agree with, given that an IUOC can be modelled as a single-core processor (no-parallel processing). However, in the interest of staying open-minded and sceptical - I don't see why an IUOC can't be a multi-core processor (parallel processing capable). Tom does not describe parallel processing inside an IUOC but he does not deny parallel processing either. If AUM can break itself up into multiple processors, and if we continue with the fractal process nature of reality, why not an IUOC? A sufficiently evolved IUOC can have many FWAU's in multiple PMR's - this does not necessarily mean parallel processing but it does hint at the possibility. hints at this capability as well (although in his example, he did use the word "switch" which implies a serial process). Another example is the parallel processing done by our PMR brains. I am very curious about your thoughts on this. --Michael Saganski 11:43, 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. --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. --Michael Saganski 13:11, 2 June 2011 (CDT)