KIRAN : We have to first realize that with respect to Information we are all beginners just as people only 200 years ago in respect to energy. All of you know the experiments of sonic-bloom and others that just radiated fields with music and thus increased the yield but here as usual one would only follow that energy (sound) is the key. How about surrounding sprouts with beautiful pictures and see what this will do to their growth (of course each gardener knows that the beauty of his garden has an effect on its yield) also many people know that growing flowers next to edible plants increases the yield as well. We just need one study to show that Information like pictures or flowers increases the yield of sprouts for example under otherwise precisely equal conditions and you will be the originator of the new equation I=E*k (k a constant that has to be determined) and of course you will be as popular as Einstein, provided you have a tongue as beautiful as him.

LUCIAN : So, my “big picture” is based on the IE-duality: classical information as the Dynamical External Network of Quantum Gates modeling what we think as “independent and localized objects”, replacing the aberrant concept of continuum space-time, which processes Quantum Information as the qubit flow (mater and interactions). The main point is that the duality enables the conversion of QI (as internal degrees of freedom, from quantum registers) into external structure, and conversely.

Without having the details yet, I feel that this line of designing the theory is flexible enough to provide the basic language Q++ of Reality Design (Engineering reality, not just modeling it).

From the language to a full Operating System is a long way: here comes “Structure” into the picture; layers on top of other layers etc. and any Operating System has a CORE (kernel) which are usually inaccessible by IO-devices, as these are supposed to use drivers to communicate with the Kernel

(General Operational Dynamics )

KIRAN : Besides experiments with plants I think that computers are of course the best and so far completely unrecognized

experimental ground to show a direct transformation of Information into Energy. We all know thousands of examples where computers steel our energy particularly if the interface of a program (which is information) is not adapted to the user. And in all factories around the world computers control the processes and depending how well the program (information) is written save more or less energy. But the direct conversion of energy into Information has never been studied to my knowledge. How for example to investigate it the battery of a computer lasts longer if one does work with the CoRe-system rather than war-games. Experiments like this have never been attempted although we can observe every day that what information we deal with either gives us energy or burns it.

LUCIAN : I’ll stop with my “picture”, and get back on your question – but one more thing: the best architecture of a computer, classic or quantum, implements the so called Dynamical Programming, where the hardware reconfigures itself in response (adaptive/resonance) to the request / specific software which needs to run on it. This “resonates” with both DLE and The Secret (“Your wish is my command” etc.).

KIRAN : I know the computer of the future will not work with YES/NO logic but with what is already now been worked with on experimental basis with so called FUZY-logic a logic that also allows for at least one or better several states in-betweens YES and NO. And again what do we have then ? Yes again it is a DLE state and that is the state that all semiconductors are based on anyway as they are not YES-NO-conductors but they are in a dynamically labile state that conducts/emits/decays energy based on other parameters that can never be predicted for the individual atom but only statistically for collectives of large number.

LUCIAN : The point is, how to move past speculations and theories? I am not patient enough to build the theory first! It’s enough if we have the main ideas and principles …

So, I am working on the math-phys foundations in parallel with my math academic research, but it will take some more time till the implementation will be ready. The key points:

1) PlanKiran : E=hf (energy <-> frequency), de Broglie: p=h k (momentum <-> wave length and direction); but this is mechanics – dead, as you say;

2) Lucian: Entropy = – k ln |Aut(System)|, generalizing the

Boltzmann-Shannon formula beyond thermodynamics, where Aut(System) means the automorphisms of the system, i.e. transformations preserving and thus defining the Structure!

KIRAN : This is the way we have to see how the concepts of matter and energy can be applied to Information. Entropy is just one, and how about the Inertia, Impulse, Density, Color, Transparence, Purity, Gravity, Mass, Volume a.s.o. because certainly we can also adapt these concepts rigidly (scientifically) to information as we do this already literally all the time when we talk about information in all its different forms.

LUCIAN : The idea, as I see it, is that our conscience is classical, our subconscious is quantum and entangled with many other we’ve met or will meet (BTW I KNOW there time is NOT a physical dimension: see my article “On the Arrow of Time”, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4180 – I’ll explain another time if you are interested how entanglement works), and the subconscious can easily “read” the “us”, the conscious, but not the other way around, so we should build some “resonators” capable of non-demolishing quantum measurements … Does CoRe

work as such a quantum output device?

http://www.informationenergymedicine-academy.com/wp-content/uploads/Quantum-disengagement-300x230.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 425px) 100vw, 425px" />

KIRAN : Its very simple, our left brain works in the classical way where everything is connected only with one or few other things, the concepts that we associate with each other by being reasonable. The right brain associates a much larger number of ideas/concepts/things with each other maybe even an infinite number. This is the “entangled” mode of “reasoning” and we usually call this creative/intuitive/network thinking. In children the right brain is still very much more alive and active then in adults as they have been brainwashed by our current left brain culture. The rise of autism is only the tip of the ice berg of this left brain culture as autistic children have almost lost the use of the right brain. They can learn languages much earlier as other, are exceedingly good in RIGHT spelling, are capable of keeping organizing even the most simple things for hours, like EXACTLY stacking up boxes BUT they are incapable of associating which is the ability of the right brain…. More about this in a separate post about AUTISM http://www.informationenergymedicine-academy.com/category/applications-and-testimonials/autism/ one of the many new 100 % informational diseases that are spreading because we don’t know how to deal with this onslaught of information and because we do not recognize the resulting diseases for what they are “informational diseases”.

Kind regards,

Lucian

Associate Professor, Illinois State University

## 1 Comment

Ternary computer

Dear Kiran, dear Lucian. you are mentioning that the computer of the future will not work on the yes/no logic. Here are some notes on the Setun, ternary computer, on which still a growing number of students are working on their PhD’s.

The only modern ternary computer Setun was built in the late 1950s in the Soviet Union at the Moscow State University by Nikolay Brusentsov, and it had notable advantages over the binary computers which eventually replaced it (such as lower electricity consumption and lower production cost). In 1970 Brusentsov built an enhanced version of the computer, which he called Setun-70. With the advent of mass-produced binary components for computers, ternary computers have diminished to a small footnote in the history of computing. However, ternary logic’s elegance and efficiency is predicted by Donald Knuth to bring them back into development in the future. Ternary numbers can be used to convey self-similar structures like a Sierpinski Triangle or a Cantor set conveniently. Additionally, it turns out that the ternary representation is useful for defining the Cantor Set and related point sets, because of the way the Cantor set is constructed. The Cantor set consists of the points from 0 to 1 whose ternary expression does not contain any instance of the digit 1. Representations of integer numbers in ternary do not get uncomfortably lengthy as quickly as in binary. For example, decimal 365 corresponds to binary 101101101 (9 digits) and to ternary 111112 (6 digits). However, they are still far less compact than the corresponding representations in bases such as decimal. As for rational numbers, ternary offers a convenient way to represent one third (as opposed to its cumbersome representation as an infinite string of recurring digits in decimal); but a major drawback is that, in turn, ternary does not offer a finite representation for the most basic fraction: one half (and thus, neither for one quarter, one sixth, one eighth, one tenth, etc.), because 2 is not a prime factor of the base.

Willy De Maeyer

Kiran’s footnote:

Future computers will not only work on ternary logic but on ANALOGIC which has not 3 but infinite possible associations/ solutions to one problem