^Unless you like quantum-y heavy stuff and esoteric ideas, you
might want to skip this post. It's a short summery and
rough-draft of my NOR Theory that I wrote in response to a
conversation I was having elsewhere. It's long, strange and I'm
almost not wanting to post it on Facebook. But for the chance
that one or two people may want to see it, here it is:
NOR Theory: Kenneth Udut May 9,2014
Part of the problem with humans deciphering the quantum world
has to do with how our brains function. This is my theory only,
I'll preface it with, and one I'm currently formulating, so
alternative or revisions to this hypothesis are welcomed:
[I've spent a year staying up until about 5am trying to figure
out "What is everybody *not* seeing?" I've been keeping my focus
to Wikipedia and diving into scientific journals. The community
nature of conflicting biases coming to an acceptable consensus
through the power of peers in both cases but different ways is,
theoretically, making this method a little more well-rounded -
for in the end, no matter how many numbers, 'facts' are opinions
waiting to be disproven - any scientist knows that - a staple of
the scientific method]
In our brains, there is a rejection of incoming stimuli - shows
as a slight downward spike in brain scans, - just before
acceptance. In a sense, there is always a "no" just before a
"yes".
The "No" is biologically different in each individual. And by
acceptance, I don't mean that it's necessarily "answering Yes".
It's akin to a snail recoiling and going "eww, no you're
touching me" before it goes, "Ok, I'll process this new
stimuli."
Every piece of new stimuli is rejected before acceptance. And,
depending on the way the brain of the individual works, there is
different levels of recoil.
In this moment of recoil a comparison is begun. My theory is
that it is the technically the same as NAND or NOR gates in
computers but what it is NOR ing (I prefer NOR because it is
functionally simpler) is the anticipatory or expectation or
prejudice or prediction (the "No!") is the moment of reception
where outside stimuli - which could come internally as well
through feedback loops - finishing its initial journey to the
inside of the brain for the first time.
it is analogous to jumping on a trampoline and the trampoline
stretching before catapulting upwards the received stimululs
through the brain and doing a massive set of simultaneous NOR
comparisons.
What is interesting about NOR that it (along with NAND) can be
used to build any binary logic question.
And in a basic NOR, the only answer that leads to TRUE is when
all things being compared are 0. Clear. No conflict.
In psychology this would be similar to cognitive dissonance.
What one experiences in the world does not match up with their
expectations.
If this was the visual system, the reason some people can see a
stain on a shirt, or hear a note that is slightly out of tune,
or however their brains are most interested in comparing, is
because there is an expectation in the brain of what is ABOUT to
happen which is compared to what DOES happen. And this process
happens continuously. Not just in human brains but in all
nervous systems, at least down to the Sponge, which apparently
has none - but I believe also is a fundamental aspect of
reception-expectation-comparison-rejection-acceptance-inbetween
throughout all physical things - even to quantum zoom level of
'particle' charges. -o+ plus minus and the inbetween part.
But that's zooming too deeply at the moment.
How is this relatable? We are constantly trying to predict.
We have a built-in-predudice or expectation or anticipation of
future outcome..
This anticipation is compared with what we see. If what we see
is what we expect to see, then things are smooth and we often
don't even notice it.. such as our visual system notices a scene
but does not have any particular focal point so long as
everything is exactly where we EXPECT them to be.
This bias is perfectly natural and comfortable. It colors our
perspective of the world.
In my mind, science and religion are variations of the same
thing.
This could get me burned at the stake from both camps.
They are each mystery religions. At the center of each is a
Great ?
From all angles this great Question Mark is studied and many
declare "I have the answer!" and people follow. Or they declare
"The answer is unknowable". Or they declare "It will take
generations of revisions of past answers to come up with more
accurate answers and stand on the shoulders of giants until
Everything can be explained by Numbers. (science/mathematics as
a combination of Aristotlian Logic/Pythagoras).
What I enjoy about the reality of quantum things is it messes up
the Aristotle logic embedded in Scienctific assumptions about
Reality and messes up our dependance upon the idea that two
things can be alike to even compare with each other.
The "atom" (Greek sense of individual unit) keeps shrinking the
more we look.
But in the end, these are all humans telling stories.
Stories are designed to convince OTHER HUMANS that certain
things are TRUE or FALSE.
Stories utilize cultural assumptions (science is a culture,
religion is a culture, which is typically expressed in a shared
langauge with shared meaning) to assist other humans into
Agreement.
Social Agreement.
Social NOR.
Resolve all conflict in the listeners brain until their mind
mirrors your own. Not perfectly of course, but at least enough
so that each feels "We are of one mind on this issue".
I'm doing it now.
I'm weaving a tale involving digital circuity as being analogous
to brain spikes as being analogous to cognative dissonence as
being analogous to human groups gathering around a great
question mark trying to each come to agreement. I am invoking
authority (I have spent the past year), speaking outside the
boundaries of the coversation (which makes me appear smarter or
kookier, depending on your take - but something that is often
interpreted as "wow this guy must know, he certainly is smart
about this other thing" or "He is so crazy he might just be
right" prejudice.
And for what?
In the expectation that, after ALL OF THIS, you will say in one
way shape or form, "What you say is true."
If accepted, in whatever parts are accepted, it leads to
"confirmation bias" which bolsters my prejudice that 'Yes, I am
right", leading to further confidences that "feel" like truth.
And the feeling of "I am right" - is the feeling that comes from
the (inner NOR outer) = 0.
Or when there is agreement and no conflict.
And, as a human being, with my system of
predudices/assumptions/expectations/predictions of "what I think
will happen", it is a nice feeling, increasing a wash of happy
chemicals in the brain.
Unless it was disagreement I was seeking and upon receiving
that, I get the same effect of expectations and reality matching
up.
