Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
I've been having what I would describe as some interesting thoughts about the conductivity of information within a two dimensional system, as it pertains to the Four Colour Theorem and by extension the Three Utilities problem. That is to say, if I have a number of different coloured areas that have to take different colours, I can create what is effectively an "interface" that is a flat surface that contains sites for three different colours. What I can't do is transmit the exact order past a fourth colour. Using the in-built logic, I can ensure that in a four-colour system, the three colours that come out on the other side are the same three that went in, but the order is lost.

Just lately, I've been spending a decent amount of time considering the nature of information transmission, for the purposes of coming up with a four dimensional bi-directional funnel model for the effect of partial information and quantum chaos on determining future and past events. I could do with a video to explain it really - there's a natural constraint which prevents full knowledge of any point other than the singularity of one's own conscious perception - where multiple sets of initial conditions can give rise to perceptually the same outcome, then those initial conditions all have non-zero probability, when the only condition that must be met is that the current perceptual outcome must exist.

In basic terms, imagine Schroedinger opens his box, and looks at the "outcome" of his cat. He sends me an e-mail, simply saying "The cat is dead". But what if he had resolved to send that exact e-mail whether or not the cat was dead or alive? While he has communicated with me, crucially, information has not been transferred. Because the message has no necessary causal dependency on the outcome of the cat, it cannot transmit full information. It can alter the probabilities, and in conjunction with other semi-information, it might all eventually collapse the number of cat outcomes to one. But in itself, it means nothing.

Welcome to the whole fucking universe.. Even after you read something in the newspaper, there's still a non-zero probability that it's incorrect. The further back you go, the less certain the conditions are, because without the cognitive ability to fully grasp the implications of all sensory input, your current mental state could have arisen out of a number of different initial conditions, increasing in number the further back you go and the more variables you introduce.

You're at the point of convergence of two cones, one going forward through time, the other back, both representing the uncertainty of any time that isn't now. It's kind of neat really :o)

  • 1
Isn't that just a verbose way of saying that you can't be sure of anything unless you've experienced it yourself, and even then you can't really be sure because your mind could be playing tricks on you?

Not really.. That assertion is more a building block for the point I'm actually making, which is sort of about light cones, except running through time bi-directionally and pertaining to information rather than spacial locations... It's hard to explain - I need a whiteboard.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account