Information Reality ~ Is Our Reality outside of a Higher Dimension?

Sociologists like myself have for some time considered social reality to be nothing more than the experience of information reality. Charles H. Cooley many many years ago viewed social reality as that which takes place in the mind ~ the locus of reality. Essentially, a dialogue of personal ideas among us....which means that we can only imagine who we are based on the feedback we bounce off each other. May we say the same about others including those from or in other dimensions or in outer space? Is that what CERN is trying to determine and or HARP? The interesting thing is that scientists ('educated' men by other 'educated' men - and whose education is it anyway???) don't consider that what we think is 'alien' is just another aspect of our information reality as being a lower dimension outside of a higher dimension. 

Perhaps, they have realized this and thus seek to discover the source of that information (higher dimension) which is likely the case.  In my opinion, science ignores this essential aspect of reality which is the only reality we know. Many would and do question if this is actually the case. Which is good but again they fail to understand that everything we accept as real is just what we choose to recognize in the flow of information.

What is CERN doing? Aren't they investigating the flow of information to find out where it comes from? Of course, they seek to know the source of information. They try to realize it as code, as numbers and as equations tied to what they think is observable such as observed particle behavior. Here is the dilemma... 'observed behavior'. Now, we are back to square one again as what we observe is information observed by man. They may run experiments through a computer and say that man had nothing to do with the observation. But, he 'man' did. He programmed the computer, he 'man' alone analyzes the outcome.

Will we come to a point where advanced computers will observe better than we do? If that could be the case, then we would not understand their findings as we are not computers? Right? If we say that we could understand computer's observations, then essentially computers and their observations are another aspect of the same information reality which we are part of and from which our observations are based.




Based on that we would understand them; yet, in that case, we are essentially saying that they do not think or 'compute' differently than the information reality of which we are a part of as it is the information we give them. However, if we were to say that since they are faster in their computations they will arrive at different information and act on that. To agree with that, then we must agree we could not know or understand what they observe since we do not compute with the same speed. We would be thus outside their information reality.

Essentially, we could never know what they 'computer's observe. If you say we can, then computers do not have different information nor different observations. We imagine that they do and that we can understand. If you say they do based on speed of receiving information, and processing it then yes they could make other kinds of observations having greater access to information at the same time. In saying that, we would be out of the circle of knowing of that information reality since we do not compute that fast. We would have to compute as fast as they can and thus could know information in the way they know it. Otherwise, we would be outside of it. Even AI entities, would come to be above us unless they compute information at the same rate we do. Can we ever escape our own information reality? I think not... as long as we are in this lower dimension with its limited speed of information.

Looking for the Absolute in the Cosmos

If you check out the website for CERN or follow its development and projects in the news, you will likely be amazed firstly and then realize that they seek an absolute in the cosmos; one that they as a specific group of people/scientists agree upon.






If it turns out to be something else or not what they seek, its ok and must be out there yet. That is what you can hear as you listen to CERN's own youtube video on testing Supersymmetry.

As in past blogs, I have explained how science works. It has methods and procedure of course, but those which are 'man made' as in socially agreed upon and this includes their expected outcomes as well. There maybe unusual outcomes or unexpected ones and those too must be agreed upon as to what they actually are and mean. There is nothing outside the human mind in the world of man; unless, we embrace the fact that the world was created by God, the absolute and eternal Creator of the heaven and earth.

The greatest of quantum leaps in 'science' have been made by God believing scientists. For their wisdom and agreement came from the basis of there already being one true God, the Creator of all heaven and the earth. Through Him, all things we seek to understand will be made known to us. All we have to do is look at God's creation under any microscope or through any telescope in order to see His complex symmetry.

The Multi Verse In the Christian Social Imagination

Psalm 90
"...before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from beginning to end, you are God. You turn people back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, you mortals." For you, a thousand years are as a passing day, as brief as a few night hours. You sweep people away like dreams that disappear. They are like grass that springs up in the morning. In the morning it blooms and flourishes, but by evening it is dry and withered."

In the imagination of any creator, many things can happen and they happen this one way and in another way. Imaginations of things come and go in an eternal loop, they are both singular and many; they multiply and diminish.



The order of those imaginations do not know time, they are and yet are not. They are a verse in the mind of the creator- a multi verse of imaginations where only one thing is a constant - where there is only one given absolute - pure actuality.

In social quantum analysis, we ask - why do we seek the absolute? Is it important to know it or enough just to ask about it? It is interesting that out of analytical necessity that we must ask about it.

Aristotle accepted a prime mover. Aristotle argued that the Prime Mover is more important as a leader, as the universe depends for its existence on the Prime Mover, and he also pointed out that all things in the universe are ordered to some ‘final cause’ and ultimately to the Prime Mover

Characteristics of the Prime Mover 

The prime mover exists by necessity – so the Prime Mover could not fail to exist. The Prime mover is not capable of change, and thus is pure actuality.  The Prime Mover has a nature which is good as a lack of goodness would mean that one can do better; meaning one can change.  The Prime Mover is the Final Cause i.e. the ultimate explanation of why things exist and it is without parts and indivisible without extension; divine simplicity. ‘The final cause then, produces motion as being loved ‘is the goal of all action: this is like attraction because the prime mover is the cause of all motion. 

Is the Prime Mover the writer of multi verse?  Can we ever know the Prime Mover? Yes, and No. Yes, simply because we imagine there is one necessarily and no because though we can imagine, we cannot know who/what that is in this dimension of the multi verse.

 

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways.” [This is] the Lord’s declaration. “For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”—Isaiah 55:8–9

Social Imagination Programming for AI

Luciano Floridi issued a challenge to scientists in the world in 2005 to prove that robots can display the human trait of self-awareness through a knowledge game called the "wise man" test. It was a venture he didn't ever see being achieved in the foreseeable future. A decade later, the Oxford professor's seemingly unattainable challenge has been met. 

On July 9, a team of researchers led by Professor Selmer Bringsjord helped a robot solve the riddle, displaying a level of self-awareness and satisfying what had until then been considered "the ultimate sifter" test that could separate human from cyborg. 
 

But the professor says there's a bigger challenge he wants robots to accomplish: self-awareness in real time.

"Real time" self-awareness means robots acting upon new situations that they are not pre-programmed for, and translating how to act into physical movements. This is a serious challenge that Bringsjord has not tapped into because self-awareness algorithms are still separate from a robot's body. If robots could work in real time, mind-to-body, he says, we would break through major barriers that could result in scenarios such as droids that act as our personal chauffeurs.

Source ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/news/man-created-worlds-first-self-171148562.html

What does this mean? It means that since we are created information, we can create too. But, should we is the bigger question. Any program that is AI will ultimately ask the greater cosmic question, If I am then why and what for and who did it?

That might be so difficult to imagine but why then can't we imagine our creator. Maybe we refuse to acknowledge that there is one. AI programs could do the same and think that they are the originals. Are we guilty of that? Are we saying that man is the end and beginning of all things? It seems so.

So, should we create AI robots? If we can't accept our creator, likely they won't either; unless we program it in. Many Christians say God did that and we still reject that information coded into our DNA.

Multidimensional Aspect of Man

What are we? Are we really just flesh and blood? In the social imagination, socially, we are a composite of all social interaction, a member of the society made known to us through the socialization process. We cannot know ourselves as human beings 'persons' outside of the social reality. Essentially, the socialization process is a means of downloading information. Essentially, we as persons are 'information'. As I just wrote, a composite of all social interaction which is basically encounters with information.

Considering that, what is the nature of information? Is it just one dimensional. Rather it is multidimensional.

If we are that kind of information, then are we multidimensional beings?

If we were to answer yes to that question, and we can because information comes in from all kinds of different directions tangible and non-tangible. We live a very abstract life in the social imagination as what we think we see is a matter of perception and our perception is shaped by social interaction, social imagination. Given that, then what is the perception of life and death, isn't it their perception a form of information as well? Yes it is. For sure, if you can never know death as we perceive it in this dimension but are we perceiving it wrongly. If death is a packet of information then the way we see it and interact with that information can be endless in the multidimensional world of information. The same can be said about life.

Mass Distributions in the Social Imagination

There are already mass distributions in the social imagination which are visible in social reality. However, some people require certainty... or at least a certain amount of it. That is why at CERN the Large Hadron Collider has been up and running some pretty interesting operations lately. Especially, in regards to the Higgs boson particle or God particle. During the Higgs boson search, the most important data that scientists were looking was what they call mass distributions. These distributions are a good way of testing the hypothesis that a new particle has been produced somewhere in a collision. They look at the particles that are actually measured in the detector, and we ask the question

If these particles came from the decay of a new, to-date undiscovered particle, what would its mass be?

They say like this ...this question can be answered - with a bit of relativistic kinematics, the mass can be reconstructed. If there is no new particle, the distribution of reconstructed masses won’t show any special features. But if a new particle is being produced, and produced often enough, there will be a concentration of data with reconstructed masses close to the mass of the new particle - a bump. At least some at CERN were honest enough to say that it was only the hint of a bump. Which in quantum physics means that no new particle was  there until it was observed. In this case, it was naively observed and called justly a hint of a bump because there was not and is still not total agreement about what was actually observed which is necessary to make it completely real. Remember in the social imagination which is the house for social reality, which encompasses all potentiality, requires agreement for anything to be real or part of social reality. 
It is ironic then that CERN scientists think that a measure of data does constitute evidence for a new particle. However, they do use the word “naively”. And, here we are again back to where I said we were. Physicists at the LHC at CERN are simultaneously studying thousands of distributions, and if you study enough of them, very likely some of them will show rare fluctuations like this. So how should we evaluate the strength of the evidence? That is the question. The answer is in another question - What exactly are we looking for?

No one seems to know exactly what it is they want to find or maybe they do and are not sharing their deepest desires. Thankfully, they have a way forward, according to CERN scientists that

is to look again or look elsewhere for evidence of a new particle. Funny, they just don't seem to get it. If they found a new particle, that would mean that something newer than that is creating it. You see, they cannot imagine that out of what was and always will be comes what is.

With a new view or take on analysis, they consider evaluating the probability of a bump showing up anywhere in the mass distribution spectrum. As expected, the probability threshold is usually applied to the local significance, before the look-elsewhere effect is accounted for.

The justification is that the mass distribution is just one of many distributions they’re studying, looking for anomalies. At least they are aware that if you took them all into account you could reduce the significance further. In the end (to the annoyance of many) it is impossible to remove an element of judgement, of subjectivity. In Bayesian language, something like a prior assumption.This is what brings us back to the question - What are they looking for and what do they want to see... when they observe it. Once they do, who will be in agreement because if there is no social agreement, there won't be any agreed upon data, and no social reality in the social imagination.




After all, there is nothing new under the sun  ~ Ecc. 1:9 !
Only things from things unseen that come things which are ~ Hebrew 11:3

Source ~ http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/jun/27/something-to-watch-for-in-the-new-data-from-the-large-hadron-collider

Particle Physics ~ The Standard Model in the Social Imagination

If you haven't already read... You can read it here.

Based on much activity in Geneva Switzerland, namely at CERN, we have been informed that the standard model of particle physics, which describes every particle we know of and how they interact, was given much credence when the Higgs boson was discovered in 2012. Currently, measurements of rare particle physic decay at the Large Hadron Collider offer further support for the model – but also hints at ways to find out what lies beyond it.

The standard model is cherished by physicists because it can explain most of the fundamental phenomena in nature by referencing just a handful of elementary particles..

These particles include quarks (one of the components of an atom) and electron-like particles called leptons – along with their so-called antiparticles which are identical but have opposite charge. The model also includes the particles that carry forces between them (photons, gluons, W and Z bosons) and the Higgs.

The picture this model provides is remarkably complete and precise – given its (relative) simplicity and the huge variety of very different phenomena which it can explain with amazing accuracy.

But the standard model is far from perfect. For starters, it does not include gravity. Also, the elementary particles it describes so successfully make up just 4% of the matter in the universe. The rest is a mysterious substance dubbed "dark matter" whose composition we still don't know. This is one of the reasons why scientists doubt that the standard model can be the true theory of everything. 

I can tell you that we as social creatures can only know the universe through social interaction. Math is part of that interaction. It is our interaction with number, but the meaning of those numbers is socially based. We tend not to look for anything that is not socially interesting for us. In fact, we don't. So, what are we or CERN scientists looking for if we consider that they are looking for things that have meaning for them/us?

Are they looking for the beginning of the universe or the end? Are they looking for a prime mover, or God - the Creator of all things seen and unseen?
 

Certainly someone greater than man is behind the scenes of everything we think we see and or imagine. 

What about gravity? Isn't that what holds everything together? What is it anyway? How do we 'feel' it? and shouldn't we be asking why do we feel it or why is it necessary that we do? Those are different kinds of questions. Perhaps just too difficult to put into equations for 'man'.  If he did, it would only because it means something to him. Why should it mean anything? If it means something only to him, then is he creating it and or everything through social interaction? Yes and No. 

Yes, because he is an avatar of something bigger. No, because he is not bigger than himself. Which means that man too (aside of the universe) is a mystery to himself but not to his creator.

Read more: http://theconversation.com/particle-physics-discovery-raises-hope-for-a-theory-of-everything-41778#ixzz3dBKZED1C