While working on a psuedo-random noise generator for his dithering algorithm, Aleksey Vaneev claims to have discovered a "backdoor" in mathematics that shows math is a pre-existent system with information encoded into randomness.
"In author's opinion, the program "reads data" directly from the entropy pool which is "embedded" into mathematics from its inception, like any mathematical constant is (e.g. PI). This poses an interesting and probably very questionable proposition: the "intelligent impulses" or even "human mind" itself (because a musician can understand these impulses) existed long before the "Big Bang" happened."
Any self-contained logical system that shows some objective reliability, or objective point of conceptual unification with known principle, seems to arrive at this point eventually. "Did we invent this or did we discover this?"
What's interesting to me in the first place is that there are multiple, overlapping systems of varying scopes--_with_ their associated contradictions--in which this is a thing. Mathematics is just one of those systems.
The second thing that's interesting to me is that this is just one question which could offer insight toward further leverage, and yet the question itself hasn't seemed to offer much leverage so far. If you were to rank the questions that are "worth the time spent on them," I really wonder where this invented/discovered question would be in the list.
Does it matter whether we know the answer--whether we know if this thing was invented or discovered?
And if so, how much does it matter? Or, in what ways does it matter?
And, is it possible that it matters more that we can hold both of those possibilities in the same organizational mindset at the same time (invented AND discovered), and from that point consciously leverage them both?
That last question I really wonder about, because I've seen amazing & simultaneous results levered from both ends of such dichotomies.
> If this imagery looks intelligent, in some way formulated, where's the formula?
There are also some interesting gaps here, i.e. intelligence == formulaic; the question-model of "where is it" vs. the possible model of "I don't know where it is," (therefore?) and so on.
Nevertheless a fascinating topic in lots of ways, thanks for posting.
4 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 9.8 ms ] thread"In author's opinion, the program "reads data" directly from the entropy pool which is "embedded" into mathematics from its inception, like any mathematical constant is (e.g. PI). This poses an interesting and probably very questionable proposition: the "intelligent impulses" or even "human mind" itself (because a musician can understand these impulses) existed long before the "Big Bang" happened."
What's interesting to me in the first place is that there are multiple, overlapping systems of varying scopes--_with_ their associated contradictions--in which this is a thing. Mathematics is just one of those systems.
The second thing that's interesting to me is that this is just one question which could offer insight toward further leverage, and yet the question itself hasn't seemed to offer much leverage so far. If you were to rank the questions that are "worth the time spent on them," I really wonder where this invented/discovered question would be in the list.
Does it matter whether we know the answer--whether we know if this thing was invented or discovered?
And if so, how much does it matter? Or, in what ways does it matter?
And, is it possible that it matters more that we can hold both of those possibilities in the same organizational mindset at the same time (invented AND discovered), and from that point consciously leverage them both?
That last question I really wonder about, because I've seen amazing & simultaneous results levered from both ends of such dichotomies.
> If this imagery looks intelligent, in some way formulated, where's the formula?
There are also some interesting gaps here, i.e. intelligence == formulaic; the question-model of "where is it" vs. the possible model of "I don't know where it is," (therefore?) and so on.
Nevertheless a fascinating topic in lots of ways, thanks for posting.