“The funniest thing about Nature is, there are a lot of coincidences. The more one digs the more one is gotta be 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
All of article was written march 22, 2007. Only a small part was edited thereafter in 2010, as indicated. A few words here and there, were edited, today. All images have been uploaded today. Today is 10-10-2015.
I might be wrong here, technically, but I did not refer to advance mathematics, while thinking or writing about this. My purpose is not to give mathematical theorems. My purpose is to tell how I really think about some of the usual stuff that anyone in general 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.
One might find this interesting or even might just say, what a prophetic standpoint. To tell the truth, I don’t care. I am not going to think another way just because one doesn’t like it. But also, I think its great to know what one may think of these issues oneself.
I see a similarity in the way our minds work and the way nature works.
All transactions of nature are statistical in nature. Nature is like a grand machine, which probabilistic-ally 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 subconscious 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.
Machinist 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, if our intelligence 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, this process 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 itself.
A truck coming at our car is reality, we hit it we 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 — creator, associated with itself.
If there is an intelligence, associated with this program or machine of nature, which one can call as God, a grand intelligence, the intelligence of nature, then God might just even 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 were kids.
You’ll see mind doesn’t know more, than a ‘football’ if it has seen only a football. A very trivial question would be raised in our mind, in a physical way and we tend to imagine, another ’sphere’ the way we have registered a football, in our 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. Yes, God could simply be an illusive extrapolation of human intelligence, an alter-ego of various wants.
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. One can say its a perception only. One has to be able, to give me valid alternate perception, or feed me with one’s sense of God, and that will help me say “No, you were right”.
I don’t mind to be wrong and one doesn’t have to be all ’scientific’ about God. But it should be non-trivial. I believe trivial or non-trivial, all these questions can be explored, 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 one discusses with him or her, about why it is an insignificant purpose, to talk or think or imagine about God, s(he) is not going to give up on it.
S(he) has formulated and formed his or her 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 or she 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 or she 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 allowed myself to pronounce, just now.
His or her education and his or her 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.
— I am inspired to say, I will write another blog, on the contingent creation of our Universe, I believe.
Closed updating, 21 Sept 2010.
Parallel processors / super computers / Speed Vs Efficiency
Now with a statistical framework of natural transactions, one is 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. I am talking about orthogonal variables, that is mutually exclusive or independent variables, like, say, traveling along the x-axis or traveling along the y-axis.
When one follows one’s thoughts on this and if one knows, that speed and efficiency are not same, although efficiency may look like speed, at the macroscopic level, one may then be naturally led, to the question of parallel processing, that is super-computers and the related issues of efficiency .
Now let me explain a little more. Lets say, one has, 4 computing nodes and these are all connected in parallel i.e. each one of them, computes mutually independent problems. You know, like one is (1) ’sipping one’s coffee’, (2) ‘having an eye on the motion, of other cars in one’s vicinity’, (3) ‘having an eye on the speed limit’ and (4) other dynamic scenarios and so on … how fast and safely can one still drive?
Now think that, one of these tasks, may be idle for a while, as it gets a ‘communication’ from another node. Now one would say, okay, I’ll stop one of these tasks completely, because safety is of higher concern.
Sure it is.
No, but thats the point, how safely and fast, can one drive, under this scenario? One 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 the latter node is receiving.
There has to be a natural limit, because the situation is fast changing, when one is driving. So one would say that, there is a maximum speed, at which one can drive safely, without spilling coffee all over and making erratic motion of one’s car, scaring a lot of people, on the highway and inviting the danger, of being caught for bad driving. One would be very right.
Now I’ll tell something very non-trivial. By making decisions very slow, along each node and letting the nodes communicate in a safety driven way one is making a slow progress, along each node, but the overall efficiency, has increased, remember, there are always changing situations, that one could not have anticipated. Now this efficiency plus 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 we have 1000 nodes, each providing us very minute details, the precise rate at which these details are changing and so on. Lets act on the same principles, of very slow motion, along each node and a concern for the safety, cos we don’t know how known and unknown are changing, and we will produce very smooth and safe motion.
Although each node was generating very slow motion, by programming them efficiently, we can bring overall safety, high speed and smooth motion.
We 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 we have produced a very desirable motion.
Truth is generic, its beautiful
The purpose of the above analogy was to show 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 we have enough nodes, connected in parallel and programmed “parallel” then its not speed that we 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, 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 subconscious mechanisms and outlets.
Thats precisely why lying is a conscious process. In the instant, subconscious is not in anyone’s control, so to blur truth, one has to resort to conscious. Now the ‘amount of truth flux’ one tries to hide, will leak through one’s subconscious 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 or probability leaking in some way for the electron, and the conservation isn’t obeyed? Is the electron 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, for now.
I think like this.