tl;dr

You know, I wasn't going to comment on this, but I just scrolled over it again and it's just so asinine. For one, I know you read my comment. It wasn't long. Your choice of writing "tl;dr" sums up the point I'm trying to make here. You're pretending to be some sort of supporter of the community, but you can't even bring yourself to receiving criticism from someone whose been apart of it for years before you even joined. You remind me of Conan O'Brien, specially in his Hunter S. Thompson interview. When Hunter tells Conan that he's a victim in the kingdom of fear, and all Conan can do is sputter out in his plastic personality in response to something so unscripted.

tl;dr 💪🏿😂👌🏿

So you're saying don't be Yolk?

[quote]So you're saying don't be Yolk?[/quote] Well that's what makes us so special, we're the exception. We've created 90% of the memes people use around here kiddo. You should show us nothing but respect. And you wonder why you can't join.

I eat yolk for breakfast every morning son. You have so much more to offer than this trivial masturb8tion. [quote]Consciousness Is A State Of Matter, Like a Solid, a Liquid Or a Gas http://www.corespirit.com/consciousness-state-matter-like-solid-liquid-gas/ [/quote] Thoughts please.

[quote]It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.[/quote] -Erwin Schrödinger, 1935 You know, Tegmark's study is an extension of what I see as the fundamental problem with the Copenhagen interpretation. Now, while there is no interpretation that is exactly superior to another, they have their advantages and disadvantages, and Tegmark is essentially utilizing one of the disadvantages of the Copenhagen interpretation to justify his argument from a physical standpoint. It stems from defining our perception of reality through the assumption of quantum mechanical influence on the macroscopic world besides that entailed by the correspondence principle. I, personally, don't like that. It's not satisfactory. Now, I'm not well versed in information theory so I'm not even going to try to be critical of the more computationally focused bits of his paper. I think it's healthy speculation, but not very physically meaningful. I see his calculations and derivations as more of a proof-of-concept than anything serving a purpose outside of academic chatter. It's more like "okay, let's look at this from outside the box, and apply our ways of understanding nature in a way such that we can create a semi-rigorous interpretation of consciousness based solely on physical constitutes." Which is perfectly fine, but how meaningful it is is debatable. I don't think it will breach a physical understanding of consciousness, because I believe the foundational principles being utilized are inherently flawed, which they are.

Aaaaaa such a breath of fresh air. Thank you... I found this little tidbit as well.  http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-managed-to-fit-quantum-chaos-into-a-maths-equation   The review letter is here.  https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.204101 Thoughts please.

So I think mathematical chaos is often misinterpreted, but I feel like starting where most people are introduced to chaos actually gives a far better sense of the term. If you have a good understanding of it, skip the next 3 paragraphs. In the pic above, you'll see how the bifurcation diagram (top-right) relates to the Lorenz attractor (left), and the Mandelbrot set (bottom-right). I like this picture a lot because they're very well known images, and is eye opening about the nature of chaotic systems, in my mind. So, for the bifurcation diagram, it's a map which essentially plots different iterations of the same function with slightly different parameters. The x axis (r-value) is the parameter which is changing. We note that beginning with a specific r-value, we have one solution to the function. As these parameters change, we see the diagram bifurcate, that is to say the function is periodic about two values, and then again and again. Eventually we get to the hazy mess, which is what we call chaos, when the initial conditions are such that the function isn't being attracted to any specific points. The reason why I felt the need to explain that, is because people often think of chaos as, well, chaos. It's just slightly different from a mathematical perspective. Chaos is a topic that is open to be studied mathematically, where as the conventional perception of it is such that the rigidity of mathematics would be unfit for that conversation. Maybe you don't think that way, but it's just something I've ran into. So, while this study is interesting and could very well have the potential to generate some great physics, it's nothing absolutely crazy or groundbreaking. They've determined a mathematical formalism for something we already knew was chaotic, we just didn't have the mathematical groundwork to describe it as well as we can with classical or purely mathematical examples of chaos. Definitely necessary, I just feel like the term "chaos" might make it seem more sci-fi-esque than it is to the layman. I mean, if you look more into chaos theory, you'll find we've deduced power spectrums for chaotic systems before. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02845623) Basically what we look at in quantum mechanics is how energy works at the most basic level of matter. In particular, the defining characteristic of this is that this energy is quantized. It's broken up into finite quantities, hence the term quantum. What we also know is that matter likes to play around with it. It jumps around, tags in and out with other like-matter, pops into and out of existence, etc. So, while matter is confined to distinct levels of energy, there is still a particular distribution among these levels. That's where a power spectrum comes into play. A power spectrum is used to determine how the energy is distributed. Now, a tool we use often in quantum mechanics is linear algebra. A very useful part of that are eigenvalues and eigenvectors, because of what they do and their connection to differential equations. Incredibly interesting topic that I won't go into detail about, but would recommend learning up on. To put it all together, the power spectrum must contain the eigenvalues, and the eigenvalues must be where the energy is allowed to be. If we know the eigenvalues, we can determine the power spectrum, which is what we see here. It's difficult to carry this out when you have a chaotic system, so what they've done is definitely significant.