I will no longer respond in the
Crow post sicne the discussion is far from crows.
Numbers have been used to quantify ideas of behaviors or other ideas which are not measured by any object undergoing such implications of that number. For example, a rock with 100Kg of mass will weigh 980 newtons, but the rock dose not need to know it to have this result. So the idea of 100,000 grams having an aplied force of 9.8 times its mass is only necessary to a being that understands the concept of a number better than quantifying how many offspring it had, or how much food it needs. The same is true with velocity vectors, the result can be made the same regardless of the numbers, because the numbers are quantifying the result, and the result is quantifying the numbers (otherwise the numbers do not truely quantify what it means perceptively to gain that result). This is because numbers are meaningless beyond the experience of their use to quantify something.
To first understand how we quantify our thoughts, we must understand how we categorize a thought. Since its entirely up to the individual, the reciever must dictate how a thought corrolates with another thought, to allow for conotations and denotations (our two main categories for how one sifts through information presented to them). Once the intention is understood, the thought can be labled an entity, name (self-dependent and exo-dependent, meaning this can be determined by the speaker or reciever, dont care if they are words, that is part of my point to the counting system, but to avoid ovderlaps in theory we will assume exo-dependent means the information category is depednant on another part of the speach, or the speaker). To begin we start with the basics: Who?
To know what a reciever is seeing, it must be able to know if they recognize something or someone. To a being having experienced nothing before, comes across a rock face on a cliff, it will recognize it later, key to knowing the environment. But for every object we percieve, there exsists a finite amount of more objects to be viewed and given a name(s)-to avoid arguments over things like specialization vs intelligence of the being. We can assume that if the being is alive, its entire field of perception holds some emptyness to it, meaning there is room to see. For every object seen, there stands to be an infinite amount of information withheld from simply knowing its name, or whom we call something or someone. To really understand the environment, this being must ask more than just who, it needs some way to classify the type of entity (another set of who) so that if it calls a rock a rose, and it sees a similar rock it can know that is part of the rose group (or whatever it dictates to be a rock). This allows for a set of more complex questions which must be fufilled before the being can have any real intelligence to it. It knows who and what, but it doesnt haev a clue for what its food is and what it needs to do in order to survive.
The next step is to assume the being quantified emotions much similar to the way it quantified the categories of thought. These emotions can be used to quntify another experience, time. The question of when did something occur is key to answering the next set of question we have yet to quantify for this being. A change in emotional status, such as hunger or pain, or pleasure and abbundance can be used to relate to them something I will get to later. The being comes to a rock and takes the coarse of a lion to run up it, since the being enjoyed watching a mountain lion pounce from cliff rock to cliff rock, the being attempts it and falls, the change in emotional status changes the way the being percieves rocks, mountain lions and/or itself simultaneously, as the experience is challenging the limited experience of this being, assuming it still yet has to identify itself. For all it knows it could have been a mountain lion, this result begs to differ with its memories. So through a grace of mistake, the being now understands a concept of when, it saw a mountain lion previously, attempted to follow after it in the same fasion, and failed. A chronological order based on emotional memory. I wont go into quantifying emotions as that would be like applying smileys to every number without a simple system.
Because it now understands a process of memories which dictate who, what and when, it can begin to draw a map of its surroundings. The rock was there, I went somewhere else, and the mountain lion is still in its cave. Its not incredibly accurate, its not GPS, but the being knows from its perspective that its below a rock, and a lion. It knows somewhat more about the mountain lion and rock than the earth he landed on, and has somewhate of an idea of where it is. As it explores and experiences more, this expands and its concept for quantifying distances changes with each alteration to the previously quantified thoughts.
Lastly comes why. Why did the being fall where the mountain lion had succeede? For a being with nothing to go by as far as a previous generation, this is quite difficult to answer with one experience alone. It must attempt to follow the behaviors of many other beings to fully understand its place in the ecosystem, and/or know what its purpose is for asking such a stupid question. Its quite obvious to us that if we saw a mountain lion jumping, we wouldnt attempt to do likewise, we'ld shoot it because its been taught to us that the lion is for food. The being will eventually know what is food, after trying everything and anything it comes across (assuming nothing can kill him). So how long will it take the being to achieve a full answer to all of its questions? Thats another set of numbers to be given a meaning.
For evey thought, there exsists 5 others to give that thought a meaning. So we can take the total entries in the Encyclopedia Encarta and assume that it contains ALL current and up to date information within its archives. For every entry, there will exsist 5 sets of information to explain the concept fully. For every set, there will be an entirely other set of information to be used in the Dictionary to agian relate the 5 sets to themselves. So what is the total amount of information that can possibly be gained from the universe? Well its quite large, so large in fact, that the Universe itself would fit in it multiple times if it were quantified as volume.
n to infinity
C = (E^5*D^25)*L where c is a constant for universal translation, and L is the total number of known languages in use (not including theoreticals).
CB = all known celestial bodies in the Universe
LB = CB/all celestial bodies in the Universe life can exsist.
((((E^5*D^25)^n)*S)*CB*LB)^5)/C = T, where E is Encyclopedia entries, D is Dictionary definitions, and n is the the current thougth in the series, or information (assuming something like the letter a is 1 on the scale), and T is the total number of ideas and S is all the species of the world with more brain power than bacteria. (this is assuming all information catilogued in the Encyclopedia on astrology and astronomy contain full details such as a database for all known stars and systesm). If this assumption holds false, simply add the numbers to E and D before raisng them to the 5th or 25th. Also, I cannot find any information which holds the total information of any alien species, so we cannot fully calculate the entire Universal Unknown, but we can do our very limited perspective.
To know how much of the total information has been collected (not assuming this information adds to the previous series), we take all the knonw information an individual posses for say 100 people world wide, multiply that by the total population of the earth and divide it by the Total. So while we learn more, the percentage of knonw information grows incredibly slow, while the total number of known things grows exponentialy.
we will assume th knonw information average and call it
I.
I*(P)/T = k where I is knowledge average (or iq if it suits you, doesnt matter requires same amount of information), P is the Population of the Earth and T is total kowledge.
The unknown I assume is incalculable, since T is geometric to itself, or a reflection of itself due to the quantifying problem that numbers can overlap and mean differnt things.
Edited: Realized this did not include all bodies of information.
Show Posts