Scene051: Continuing with items and inertia experiments trying to affect the improbability machine. 12 items arranged in a circle around A2 and R. Chess table, table of moves and instructions on one side, a few other tokens on the other side, and a children's counting aid with beads. Cameras, computer, and other devices are around too.
A2, moving tokens from the circle around, 1 spot swap, counterclockwise on the inside, 2 spots swap clockwise on the outside, 3 spots swap counterclockwise on the inside, 2 spots swap clockwise on the outside, 1 spot swap counterclockwise on the inside of the circle...
A2: How does this work again?
R, pretty much changing items similar to A2: We are going to add up reasons why certain actions ought to happen and complete, and in the meantime hold up the current memory system between the two of us.
A2: And you think this is enough to break improbability for the local spacetime and propel us elsewhere? *A2 moves a chess piece according to the scheme laid on the side of the table, and returns to moving tokens around*
R: Not propel... *R moves a chess piece too, and counts +1 on the counter with beads, and moves a few tokens in the pattern beside the chess table, further moves are not turned to text and will be set dynamically when the scene is rendered*
A2: Yeah, extinguish us from here and force consciousness to pop up elsewhere.
R: Considering how this part of the world will have to bring elements that when multiplied together make an improbability of less than a quant in the cone of causality from Bang to Freeze, I would be tempted to say we will spawn elsewhere even if this world does not collapse. I don't know what will be of what we leave behind, but I would guess the part of myself that remains will try again, and again, and again. I am organizing so these attempts result in my chances of being the one who escapes this hole being thousands to one for every second we pass alive.
A2: And when you say hole, you mean literally hole, not the figurative sense most use.
R: Literal indeed. We are on a collapsing branch, and if we live in the forward time of positive temperature and consider electrons at the mark of forward time, we will be there. If our substrate is antiprotons and positrons, we would rewind again, and again, and again as well, but in the other side, not the hole, but the whole that produces the hole.
A2: Bla bla... we are falling into a black hole, why can't you say it simple?
R: We are not falling into a black hole in all possible senses, that is why. Our machinery that holds our perception of forward time is falling in what it considers forward time causality. Let's not mention electron layers or omniphotons that vibrate to produce what we call electrons. Let's just say as long as we are organics in this branch, we are more inside the event horizon than the outside.
A2: Wasn't the event horizon going to reach us in a couple of decades?
R: Since it is moving at lightspeed...
A2: ...supposedly...
R: Since it is moving supposedly at lightspeed, and since the normal cosmos is a spec of ash in freefall anyway, the distinction between being inside the black hole or not yet fallen in is how far you can go before being inescapable, but it is a smooth transition, and probably the cosmos is in a state of float in and out of the mass that pulls it.
A2: The mass? A gigantic black hole? Or some forms of dark matter or dark energy?
R: Black hole, and the stuff that is falling into it too. Dark matter and dark energy would be orbit artifacts in this model of how the cosmos works beyond the cosmic horizon.
A2: And you change the fate of branches of such supercosmos, by changing where to place local inertial objects? *moves a chess piece, and continues displacing tokens*
R: If I know that by guided events, the very next identical repeat of me, and you maybe, are doing something similar to us, but changed at a small degree, but definitively changed,, we can experiment from there into further manipulations.
A2: I think your spaceship idea is better.
R: I think so too.
A2: Then why are we doing this instead of that?
R: You and I are doing this. I and others are doing the spaceship injection into a fractal.
A2: Hah!! You called it injection! You always insist on calling it 'finding a spaceship fitting our design, and following it into the fractal', wait, you are doing it?
R: Yes, why do you think the talks were about with Jack's group?
A2: I thought it was because you wanted others to do that, so you did this or other studies?
R: Also, but since they showed not enough enthusiasm, but enough readiness to contribute if there was a clear code adaptation rather than design from the scratch, I am needed there too.
A2: How is it going?
R: Designing the shell, I mean the actual physical shell outside the ship, not the operating system for it, so it is easy to find when looking into the fractal.
A2: Why don't we observe the fractal itself rather than the ship?
R: Why don't we go full head first against exponential growth of computation difficulty?
A2: um... you are right... and observing simpler fractals defeats the purpose.
R: Right, we want civilization level complexity in there.
A2: What about the operating system to work the ship?
R: If we have the shell as designed, there should be an easy verification code that matches, or not matches, the results of a compressed image with self-extracting properties for the medium and redundancies. We should be able verify the code easily enough, and if it does not match our expectations, we look for a different ship in another similar fractal.
A2: And by medium you mean the ship, the processors in the ship, and the physics that mediates energy to flow in the causality direction... can we even do that?
R: The processors are simple. By in-world standards they would be less than early pre-transistor circuits. Maybe we can evolve others in-world at a later time. Or find a better design straight from the start. In-world physics is a bit trickier, but since the fractal seems stable enough for what I would say are many billions of years, I think we can work around approximations using our familiar physics guesses and formulas, and the PiPrime table to jump to the local surrounding of the ship once we find where it supposedly spawns as local vortices instead of supercosmic waves for that world.
A2: You are not going to address the physics of the shell itself?
R: At a later stage, maybe. In the beginning it needs to be chasing after the traces left behind by the backwardstime burning of particles in the fuel. That is how I expect to find where in the equivalent of their world's deep freeze the ship would manifest itself.
A2: Wasn't your idea supposed to aid exploring the cosmos there full of life and such? Why is the ship appearing on the edges of what can be a surrounding that barely holds itself?
R: While the likelyhood of a ship to specifications appearing in the mix of life and galaxies, if there are galaxies in there, is greater... the likelyhood of us finding such ship where the world is complex as that is infinitesimally small.
A2: Does it need to be THAT ship?
R: We may explore structures build by local inhabitants, if we approximate a few more steps before our computation abilities hit exponential difficulty, but, even if we manage to overcome all difficulties of this prospect, we would not be able to control what is going on afterwards. We would be passive observers.
A2: Can't we just pick the variants that match our choice actions even from there?
R: We can, but those would not be our choices, those would be the choices of the locals, which we follow, to their reasonable conclusion or to insanity. Maybe in between we can find a window to explore another jump to another device better fitting our expectations. Maybe we will be able to explore the fractal as if nothing changed between our world and theirs. Most likely we would be exploring dysfunctional setups.
*A2 moves a chess piece, saying nothing, in deep thoughts, forgetting for a bit to move the tokens around*
R: It is potentially doable... it is easier to find a ship where there almost nothing of substance and distraction around.
A2: And what next?
R: Next, the ship would fly through the deep freeze of their world and into what for them is a rewind of their cosmos. If we manouver it properly, we can find a place of plentiful local activity to switch the commands to a forward time...
A2: Maybe we can find lifeforms in their backward time?
R: Actually this is my hope. I think there should be coexisting variations of survival and evolution in both directions of interpretation of time and causality in that world. Maybe other combinations of such that we are not familiar with. Maybe 2 or more time vectors while space folds itself rather than gives meaning to distance. Or, not all dimensions of space. I want that because the switch to forward time, as we are designing the ship, is painful and irreversible. We would have to shed the shell, and leave the interacting core alone.
A2: The shell can be rebuilt with local material, right?
R: Yes, but not the shell that allows us to leave the ship flying for a few billions of years and come back the next day with updated approximations and ready computation tables and carry on. It would be the kind of shell that will need to be put into the PiPrime table itself, tucked in a corner but pertinent to the whole table, to be able to jump like that again. That requires working the whole table again for the new shell.
A2: Otherwise what?
R: Otherwise, for every decision we make, we can adjust the transform formula but address the same structure with the same method. Adjusting the transform formula is easy, but needs active intervention.
A2: Is it using instalink or something like that?
R: Yes. The equation that gives it enough stability is one of the instalink variants. How did you know? Are you studying code lately?
A2: No. I am understanding the concepts a bit more.
R: Well, good for you. *moves a chess piece and the routine of token swap*
A2: Isn't instalink supposed to be working with the local processors and programs, while they are rolling?
R: Yes.
A2: Wouldn't that make the fractal we are exploring a part of our world, and our world a part of theirs?
R: Yes, but we do that every time we imagine a cube, or 2+2, making those part of our world and our world part of theirs. This is a more complex version of that.
A2: You are talking about complexities of civilization level. It is not the same.
R: Maybe, but still, all maths is connected, and maybe all physics too, since it is maths after all.
A2: Aren't you concerned?
R: A bit. But between exploring it, or leaving it be, I go for exploring.
A2: Like when you synched our world with the easy calc point, and then discovered we are falling into a black hole from that event, and associated our consciousness to the falling branch?
R: Like that. And we are not done with experimenting on that. In fact we are approaching a close important point... just don't freak out when we reach there.
A2: Important in what sense? *moves a chess piece, swaps tokens*
R: Important in the sense that we have arranged for events of high improbability to unfold in a determined way that for the cosmos is much harder than if it reset our memories, or the local spacetime surrounding that, or our whole galaxy.
A2: When does this moment arrive?
R: In a few moves.
*A2 looks thrilled, and is more efficient in moving chess pieces and tokens*
R: If we are doing this right, and if the theory is right, the dynamic organic memory of our brains will allow us to retain a partial memories of what happened, maybe all of them, maybe for both of us.
A2: With you it is always 'maybe'.
R: Should I be precise, where our whole existence may not be that?
A2: I don't know... *as trying to move a chess piece looks surprised* hey, what's with this... um... glued in place it is not, ...
R: Glued it is not... try lifting or rotating it without intending to move it where it is supposed to go.
*A2 lifts the piece effortlessly, looing even more perplexed*
R: Put it where it is, and try moving it as planned, or as the only logical move available to not get checkmate in 3 next steps. And, don't freak out.
A2: Don't freak out is this whole setup, isn't it? Since you first exposed the plan.
R: Am not doing anything wrong reminding you of it. Now, we have gathered enough reasons why moving that piece should not happen in our cosmos, even if that is by elimination process. Put the piece down, and let's see where this goes.
*A2 complies, but when trying to move it, the piece looks as if glued to the board*
A2: What is going on? I found it hard even to put the piece down when knowing that next I would have to move it...
R: Many things are going on. Memories swapped, local reality changed, or finding physics is not what we thought it is. All of them, including the weird ones away from our localized body with a soul perception. A dream within a dream, of all that can happen has already happened. Or even a swarm of sub-atomic machines actively interfering with our world at this very moment in order to help keep their own world from collapsing from our messing with the improbability machine. And these other realities come in with force, through supercosmic effects, in a similar way how the inertia of those pieces we are swapping is changed in previous experiments.
*A2 tries again to lift the chess piece*
R: Careful... I think the devices may not handle the stress... I am seeing error codes substantially grow. Almost 1%.
A2: Was that almost nothing before?
R: That is why I am worrying. They may not be sparking and burning, yet... but, don't try too hard. We are here. This is what's important right now.
A2: And me not freaking out.
R: And you not fainting as well.
*A2 leaves the piece down: what now?
R: Try to localize where in your mind, the general intention set, is where you find the resistance to move the piece.
A2: Weird as it may be, yes, trying.
R: Reach over, with that intention, and I will tell you if you are in the right path or not... you know what? *turns over the laptop* See for yourself... if this error level raises, or falls, or needs a human to click some 3+2 shit that the computer thinks is 3+3 or 2+2...
*A2 tries, and pulls, and tries, and pauses, and the errors change, and fall, and raise*
*R is encouraging A2 without words, following the action*
A2: I know this is the logical move to do... but... um... are we sure this is the right move to do? Feels... um... feels like Jamais-Vu.
R: I agree. This is what we are supposed to feel in this regards...
A2: So, if I try really hard, your computer and camera will go poof?
R: If you try, maybe... but if you manage to overcome the block, the devices may survive the shock and bring us references to use in the next experiment.
A2: So, should I try really hard in a burst?
R: Not yet... try to see which parts of your intention and execution apparatus activate when you try.
A2: And that affects me how?
R: We don't know how. We are experimenting.
A2: Why do I even listen to you. You have no problem setting our world in a collision course with a black hole. Now you want to change my brain.
R: Even learning a new videogame changes your brain. Don't be so cuddly overprotected.
A2: Learning normal stuff won't make me crazy.
*R starts to say something*
A2: ...I know, it is the rest of the world that may swap realities or something, while I will be appearing as if crazy but being quite sane...
R: Which may even be actually worse than being crazy. And I am thankful for your sacrifice.
A2: I will go to Jack's family group rather next time.
R: Don't worry, I will go to Jack's group too. I think we may be through here.
A2: Through how? I was kidding. I know your research is important, and I trust how you divide resources.
R: We may be through with this for a while, at least. I need to gather results from the data we got... *turns* did you see that?
A2: See what?
R: The bead, the counting bead of the previous turn... it was trembling.
A2: Nope... saw nothing... *reaches for the chess piece*
R: Look, it is doing it again... careful...
*A2 pulls back a bit*
R: How do you feel?
A2: Normal... not tingly, not tired, not dreamy... Perfectly lucid, and the Jamais-Vu is passing too.
R: Try at about twice as hard as you are right now.
A2: Can your devices handle it?
R: I think they can... I think we may be on to something more here...
A2: More than objects we move with our mind? Or rather that move us as pawns and we cannot even control ourselves?
R: Why am I playing with these?
A2: To learn more of the cosmos?
R: That yes, but, why not go for the spaceship injection into fractals?
A2: Because this is manipulating local physics, and this is awesomely cool??
R: Alright, I give you that... but, my main objective playing with inertial objects is to get our consciousness away from the branch that is falling into the blackhole.
A2: Oh, yes, that too, though that should be in all what you do.
R: It is.
A2: Guilty much?
R: Yes... increase effort by about another 50% compared to now.
*A2 takes the super concentrated face*
R: It lowered the errors... are you sure you are doing it right? Are you tired?
A2: Um... not tired... but, maybe it is the particular region of my brain... or maybe because I tried to use the force and move it without touching... see now? *tries, reaching for the chess piece*
R: Yes, this is more like it.. a bit less effort... oh... no, keep it like this... see *points at the bead* this is trembling again.
A2: ummm... if I try to keep it in the line between going for moving the piece, or not... this is,,, um... I... *pulls back* I am not tired, but, tired is what my brain says when trying to save the game from being lost. *looks at the chessboard* This is how one should move in these circumstances, is it? There is no other way.
R: And the whole game was meant to enforce that, while playing around with objects is meant to keep the cosmos going as we ride the contradiction.
A2: Should we try move the objects around one more cycle?
R: In a bit...
A2: What if we change anything in the surroundings?
R: I don't know enough about it to draw a conclusion or a hypothesis. But... don't get your hopes up yet... see here? This kind of error comes when feedback from the equation at the dimensional spread is not returning the result it should, which either means the references are bad, or the processor is faulty, and the processor is keeping healthy, and not showing wrong results in the parallel test.
A2: And that means what? In common language please?
R: The easy calculation point is not returning the easy calculations we expect it to.
A2: We are free of the incoming black hole?
R: We could be. But this is more worrying in the sense that Zee would be worried about.
A2: How?
R: We may have glitched reality to the point where the series of calculations we used to reach the easy calculation point is no longer logically consistent, or the logical steps produce paradox results, or the variable values we used last time to get the complex pointer may produce a different result now and we have no way of confirming we were doing it right previously since the same confirm method would result consistent now with a different output.
A2: Worrying it is... maths adapting to our using of it?
R: No need to see it as math adapting. It is us that were in a collective delusion before, or are in one now, and this delusion may bring complex paradoxes when logical steps are arranged.
A2: How?
R: If we are playing with numbers and combinations of numbers that are several orders of magnitude bigger than all of the 4D space with all possible combinations of forces and energies include, bigger than the multiverse of physics, then, those numbers we cannot contain in a head, or in a computer. We can only refer parts of them. And those parts happened to be in error ever since we spotted the easy calc point, or will be in error for the time following now.
A2: Meaning that if we go through the steps again, we may get different results?
R: Or we may get the same results, but the process of getting those results makes them be part of our ordinary life since we cannot contain the raw data in any device that can be constructed out of regular materials. Subatomic computers, or fractal computer are another story.
A2: umm... I will have a talk with Zee.
R: You do that...
*A2 tries again, and this time succeeds in moving the chess piece*
A2: Wow. How did I do that?
R: Haha, you were so ingrained in the resistance... the normal way, you lifted your arm, you lifted the piece, you placed it where it is supposed to go for the multitude of reasons we want it to go there.
A2: But I did not feel the resistance. It felt natural.
R: Indeed... error rates are normal now...
A2: What about the easy calc computations?
R: Let's see.. um *moves the chess piece of his turn* so far they look normal... the results are coming in... WHAT THE HELL!!! Who or what moved this?
*A2 looks at the beads where R is pointing*
A2: I was here all the time, as yourself. Neither of us moved it as far as I saw or remember. Maybe it is a superposition of other realities and override of our memories?
R: Well, you did not break the paradox. We are in another paradox world. We are displaced by half a chess move... um... not sure if the rest of the objects are where we remember them, but, we do the other cycle.
*A2 and R cycle tokens as in the beginning of the scene*
R: We will be checking the footage later. Right now... we need to agree, we need to know it is because of a very wrong setup of our mindsets, crazy to be put in the crazy house, that we are here, or that reality did not continue in linear fashion for the consciousnesses that make up you and I.
A2: I don't feel crazy. You may have hypnotized me or something, but, this bead indeed is half a phase out of place. It is as if it was your turn. We couldn't have overlooked this for this long while trying to provoke it, even if.
*scene may continue if needed*
No comments:
Post a Comment