Skip to content

About Nature and its ways. Intelligence and God. Supercomputers. Truth, the way I see it. Thinking about future.

March 22, 2007

Mohan, mdashf

“The funniest thing about Nature is there is a lot of coincidence. The more you dig the more you are amazed how easy it is to dig Nature.”

About Nature and its ways
Intelligence and God
Truth, the way I see it
Thinking about future

March 22, 2007
I could be wrong technically, but I did not refer to advance mathematics while thinking or writing about this. My purpose is not to give mathematical theorems. The purpose is to tell you how I really think about some of the usual stuff that you may also be thinking about. This is not what I just sat and thought over few days. This is how I basically think, since when I was young and this is how I still think.

You might find this interesting or you might just say what a prophetic standpoint. To tell you the truth I don’t care. I am not going to think another way just because you don’t like it. But also I think its great to know what you think of these issues yourself. I see a similarity in the way our minds work and the way Nature work.

All transactions of Nature are statistical in nature. Nature is like a grand machine which probabilistically decides how its going to go into the next instant of future. There is something in all minds that is kind of like a prototype of nature, I have a tendency to call this as IRM, Instantaneous Reality Machine. This calculates our ‘destiny’ instantaneously and tries to collapse some of the illusions, Nature throws at us, including the blurry imagination of our own mind.

Now this is like a ‘game’ of calculating safety against risk, known against the unknown, conscious against unconscious and all such mutually exclusive variables of Nature and this involves seeking an escape into the instantaneous future. I can’t see why intelligence could be associated with the ability to decide our destiny for the next instant.

Machine views of Nature.
Finding the instantaneous destiny is a basic capability of all human beings while the grand scheme of destiny is in Nature’s hand. Now, we don’t know if our intelligence is the reason why we can seek a path into future, that is, our ability to leap into the instantaneous destiny and continue for the next instant and so on. It could be just that we have an automatic process that does this, calculates the destiny instantaneously, and then there is intelligence which is telling us what exactly we did so that we could move into the next instant of future.

What we experience as intelligence could just be an effect, say, a feedback program of this automatic process. In a similar way when Nature is throwing so much realities and illusions at us it might just have an intelligence associated with it. A truck coming at your car is reality, you hit it you die, but the precise probability of not knowing the reality is illusion, its an error in the probability that we correctly measured reality, the illusion is often small in the instant. But it could be just that Nature has an automatic program in deciding where and how to throw reality and illusion at us, just like a machine and no intelligence associated with itself.

If there is an intelligence associated with this program / machine, which you can call God, a grand intelligence, the intelligence of Nature, then God just might be an illusion of our mind, one of all trivial questions the Human mind can ask or God might just be sitting in his chair and laughing at me. I would explain why I think so, based on, how I see, how our mind evolved working with physical reality when we’re kids.

You’ll see mind doesn’t know more than a ‘football’ if it has seen only a football. A very trivial question will be raised in your mind in a physical way and you tend to imagine another ’sphere’ the way you have registered a football in your memory. Same with a cricket ball. But same with intelligence as well. That is, to say, associating intelligence with Nature and calling it God might be an extrapolation of human intelligence.

Whatever it is these are all directly connected to the way our minds have been programmed to respond to Nature, programmed to die and to the less believable, at-least to me of the trivial question of existence of God. You can say its a perception only. You have to be able to give me valid alternate perception or feed me with your sense of God that will help me say “No you were right”. I don’t mind to be wrong and you don’t have to be all ’scientific’ about God. But it should be non-trivial. I believe trivial or non-trivial all these questions are explorable only under a measurement kind of approach in a statistical framework of Natural transactions.

Updated, 21 sept 2010:

Because any other way of discussing this is a futile exercise. One for example is an argument with a religionist. No matter how you discuss with him about why it is an insignificant purpose to talk or think or imagine about God, he is not going to give up on it. He has formulated and formed his opinions on God, and various forms of  “it” in a way which is shrewd manipulation of peoples superstitions. The scientist is often blamed of adhering to a No God stance, but I believe its the stance of an educated atheist, one who is educated about pretty much every human thought and experience he has come across, and yet to come, and believes faith can be devoid of God. I happily belong to this category and if I can’t invent a God, which is almost always a religious or a conceptual God, then that’s because  I am an educated atheist. If a theist believes he is educated and there is a God, who so extravagantly created this Universe, disrespectful of all the laws of nature, as I understand and will ever understand, its not an opposite of my view point of educated atheism of “No God” but rather a traditional case of educated theism, as I have willed, just now. His education and his theism are both open to the questions of science and scientific query and exploration and a regular blasphemy of the educated mind. To hold them as sacred is an escape from not only reality but of all progress humans have made for themselves. And we live in a time which is more cognizant of the scientists view point and feelings, than it was in Galileo’s time. (Will write another blog on the contingent creation of our Universe, I believe)

Close updating, 21 sept 2010

Parallel processors / super computers / Speed Vs Efficiency
Now with a statistical framework of Natural transactions you are very likely to end up at mutually exclusive probabilities.  Like safety and risk ‘add up’ to a probability of 1, mutually exclusively, its either safe or its risky. Orthogonal variables, that is mutually exclusive or independent, like, say, traveling along the x-axis or traveling along the y-axis. When you follow your thoughts on this and if you know that speed and efficiency are not same although efficiency may look like speed at the macroscopic level you may be naturally led to the question of parallel processing, that is super-computers and related efficiencies .

Now let me explain a little more. You have 4 computing nodes and these are connected in parallel i.e. each one of them computes mutually independent problems. You know, like  you are ’sipping your coffee’, ‘having an eye on the motion of other cars in your vicinity’, ‘having an eye on the speed limit’ and other changing scenarios and so on… how fast and safely can you still drive?

Now think that one of these tasks may be idle for a while as it gets a ‘communication’ from another node.  Now you would say okay I’ll stop one of these completely because safety is of higher concern. Sure it is. No but thats the point, how safely and fast can you drive under this scenario? You would say well there is a natural limit. It depends on the rate at which each node has completed its computation and the natural limit at which another node will work because there is a signal its receiving.

There has to be a natural limit because the situation is fast changing when you are driving. So you said that there is  a maximum speed at which you can drive safely without spilling coffee all over and making erratic motion of your car, scaring a lot of people on the highway and inviting the danger of being caught for bad driving. You are very right.

Now I’ll tell you something very non-trivial. By making decisions very slow along each node and letting them communicate in a safety driven way you are making a slow progress along each node but the overall efficiency has increased, remember, there are always changing situations that you could not have anticipated. Now this efficiency and safety concern is actually giving a very optimized speed.

Its not the speed at which some very rash driver drives making the ride unsafe and undesirable, its a slower motion. Now think of increasing the # of nodes. Say you have 1000 nodes, each providing you very minute details, the precise rate at which these details are changing and so on. Act on the same principles of very slow motion along each node and a concern for the safety cos you don’t know how known and unknown are changing and you will produce very smooth and safe motion. Although each node was generating very slow motion, by programming them efficiently you can bring overall safety, high speed and smooth motion.

You have taken care of a lot of details and rate of change of the details and so on, acting on the impulses of each node very slowly, rendering some others idle for a while but have produced a very desirable motion.

Truth is generic, its beautiful
The purpose of the above analogy was to show you that slow and efficient produce fast and ’safe’ results, not necessarily in driving a car but in every other transaction of nature. What is safe in driving a car could mean ‘finding the right target’ at a later point of time for a laser guided bomb, it could also mean calculating the truest and most reliable stock market scenario and so on.

Now this means if you have enough nodes connected in parallel and programmed “parallel” then its not speed that you are producing. Its much more than that. Its efficiency and truth of the next instant in a more precise, instantaneous and reliable way. This is how an ideal super computer would work. This is how Nature works in all its transactions and this is the ultimate statistics.

Truth is conserved and it can be defined in a generic way from “probability” that fits any kind of transaction.
When I said ‘normalizing to one’ parameters I meant this. The significance of that statement can be connected to the basics. A mind is a ‘truth’ seeker in the instant. (all minds) Thats why its trying to take the ‘known’ and ‘all unknown together’ and precisely normalizing them to unity. By normalizing to unity its finding the truth of the situation because thats the only way to escape into the instantaneous future.

No one can force his mind not to find the truth of the instant. The truth of the instant has been found out, we want it or not. Thats the basic job of all minds. Thats what the mind does. Mind works not only through conscious mechanisms and outlets but also unconscious mechanisms and outlets.

Thats precisely why lying is a conscious process. In the instant, un-conscious is not in anyones control so to blurr truth one has to resort to conscious. Now the ‘amount of truth flux’ one tries to hide will leak through one’s unconscious outlets just like any other probabilistic flux in a way truth of the instant is conserved.

Some will find this utterly stupid or I am just self-skeptical
Now we can measure probability flux of elementary particles in physical detectors. Are there smart ways of knowing if elementary particles like an electron have an intelligence associated with it. Is truth/probability leaking in some way and the conservation isn’t obeyed? Is it expressing in some other way that would signify intelligent electrons. Now having intelligence associated to elementary particles would naturally mean intelligence is the feedback effect of the complexities of a vast nature where all transactions occur through probabilistic ways and the nature expands ‘freely’ into the instant of the future from the instant of the present by determining the truth of the future instant.

Thinking about future, Not allowed?
May be a 100 years from now people think along this way. May be I am grossly mistaken at many levels. It does not matter. I think like this.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: