How To Create A R - Neumann University: Fill & Download for Free

Of course! Because if you have a real time machine, rather than one of those pathetic, general relativistic excuses for one that physicists refer to, then there would be no correlation between it’s operation and the arrow of time or causality. If someone says “realistic time travel” you know they mean time travel allowed by the theories of relativity which were not founded on any attempt to do time travel research. In fact, Einstein, who came up with those theories, didn’t even like the idea of time travel. Any time travel methods found in solutions to relativity theories require either a space program or something that has never been found yet - a closed time-like curve or loop. The reason why these are the only options quoted by physicists is because NONE of them, in the decades since those theories were published, has looked for any other way to do time travel because none of them are looking for a way to do time travel. Now how realistic does that sound?Time machines have been under consideration for some time now, however for the first time the possibility of building a time machine that could take humans to the past, exists and how and why was first described in Tim Folger Discovers A Time Machine. However, the background behind why it is possible is far more complex, requiring a broader understanding of a variety of applicable sciences and mathematics. Below is an extensive description - what I call the Course In Time Travel Study List. This is what you have to study and why -1. Both theories of Relativity (just so you know what everyone else knows and why you can avoid it)2. Teleparallelism (Einstein's unfinished Unified Field Theory of gravity and electromagnetism. Because it provides the power solutions without the enormous requirements of General Relativity)3. The Principle of Resonance (just do it so you'll know how to apply it to #4)4. Rene Thom's Catastrophe Theory ( the study of how things can build up within a system and cause sudden changes )5. Crystallography (the study of crystalline structures, i.e. metal - think fuselages, craft bodies)6. Buckminster Fuller's designs (think fuselages, test chambers, and time stations)7. Black holes (as an extension of GR)8. Wormholes (as an extension of GR and understanding multiply connected spaces)9. Spooky Action at a Distance (beyond quantum entanglement )10. Bell's Theorem (standard entanglement)11. Quantum Teleportation (entanglement used to teleport information)12. John Archibald Wheeler's 'it from bit' (pertaining to the information basis of the universe)13. Torsion physics (the effects of twisting on space-time structures)14. Closed Time-like Curves (to understand theoretical space-time geometries which others think are connected to time travel)15. The Five Factors Proving the Parallel Universes of Hugh Everett III and John Archibald Wheeler (so you can know why parallel universes are now proved real and why)16. Tim Folger Discover's a Time Machine (time machine structure)17. Tesseracts (for geometric descriptions of multiple realities)18. Spatial 4th dimension (same reason as #17 and as how other spaces can connect outside of those that are compactified)19. Retrocausality (to understand a basic, conceptual element of time travel)20. Quantum Mechanics (to understand a key element of time travel and the nature of reality21. Temporal Mechanics (to understand the nature of time)22. Synchronicity (to understand a key link to the Participatory Universe)23. The Participatory Universe ( to understand the nature of reality and how to manipulate it)24. Nikola Tesla's Intelligent Energy (to contemplate the application of esoteric physics)25. Information physics and a digital universe (as a basis for reality, i.e. 'it from bit')26. Quantum and Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling (think travel methods)25. Time slips (anecdotal evidence of natural time travel geometries that mimic the latest time travel method discoveries)26. Time Travel Paradoxes (by reading my book, Paradox Lost: The True Geometries of Time Travel based on my special report for select members of the United States Congress)27. Chaos Mathematics and Fractal Geometry28. Differential Equations (As a means of mental programming and exercise to recognize relationships across multiple systems and causal relationships)Study all of those topics with a focus on how they can relate to time travel solutions without paradoxes, both in theory, conceptually and technologically, and you'll be able to bury people in any time travel conversation. While you're at it, read about, or the works of these guys - Gabriel Kron, John Archibald Wheeler, Hugh Everett III, H. David Froning, Nikola Tesla, N. A. Kozyrev, Alain Aspect, Rene Thom, R. Buckminster Fuller, Vannevar Bush, J. R. Oppenheimer, Nick Herbert, Fred Alan Wolf, Jack Sarfatti, E.E. Witmer, Gregory Meholic, Seth Lloyd, Yakir Aharonov, Rainer Plaga, John Stewart Bell, Benoit Mandelbrot, Bernhard Riemann, Henri Poincare, Edwin Abbott, Norbert Weiner, John von Neumann, Oswald Veblen, T. Townsend Brown, Francis Bitter, Ilya Prigogine, Richard Hamming and Claude Shannon, knowing that not all their positions are correct or germane to the topic, but you need to know about them, nonetheless, to have a proper, well rounded education in the foundations of the science of time travel.Information science genius, Claude Shannon, felt the need to put our temporal plight in a famous quote:That of course is the problem that time travel scientists want resolved. It was another information wizard, Richard Hamming, who put the plight of scientists and exotic, advanced concept research, into sharp focus -"Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack...When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist...spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems."And that, exactly describes Paul Sutter and others like him - the average scientist. Yet, Paul's faking that he knows important work, in Hamming's sense, when he doesn't even have a reasonable attack, like I do, and wouldn't know the first thing about how to get one because he doesn't know the first thing about this subject, so how could he?!I also like Hamming because he's another genius that understood the limitations of mathematics, like Vannevar Bush, in relation to understanding reality:Speaking of Vannevar, in closing, I have a fitting quote from my science hero, "As long as scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems."That's why we haven't had time travel yet, because as Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne and others have duly noted, scientists haven't had that freedom, and the lack of knowledge, as exhibited by Paul Sutter, is a dramatic example of that fact. However, from my efforts, and those of my fellows, we will soon enough...As Buckminster Fuller said, "To change things, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

Prof. M. A. R. Barker’s Tekumel is one.After roleplaying in countless fantasy worlds based on European/Celtic models, a world that does not rely on these overused backgrounds is a refreshing change of pace. Tékumel, a setting drawing heavily from Middle Eastern, Chinese, Indian, and Mesoamerican cultures, fits the bill perfectly. Tékumel is a place with the politics and intrigue of the Roman Empire, the religions of ancient India and pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, the magic of the Arabian Nights, the monsters and demons of the Cthulhu mythos, plus ancient ruins containing the technology of a good space opera thrown in just to keep things interesting.The World of the Petal ThroneThen there is the Glorantha setting from Rune Quest. It is a feast for those who love comparative religion. It is a Bronze Age mostly polytheistic setting with wonderful lore.Glorantha | GloranthaAnd if the Empire of the Petal throne didn’t quench SF cravings, how about the 8000 year future history of Orion's Arm ?No humanlike aliens, not unless you count humanity’s spliced offshootsPost singularity settingNot FTL but they have wormholesLots of transhuman stuff going onAI gods rule known space each with their own philosophy within their "sephrotic empires"The denizens of this universe are ruled over by god-like, superintelligent artificial intelligences (AIs), called "archailects", the descendants of humanity's (though not exclusively) early artificial life experimentation. These beings are so powerful that they can create new miniature universes, and are completely beyond the comprehension of normal humans. Their bodies exist as distributed intelligences in networks of planet-sized computer brains; their subroutines are themselves sentient, making an "archai" an individual and a civilization at the same time. Extraterrestrial life exists, but the focus is entirely on the descendants and creations of Earth life, here collectively called "terragen life". Normal humans, called "baselines", are an endangered species. Their genetically and cybernetically enhanced descendants have supplanted them.There are many types of intelligent life: near baselines (enhanced humans), posthumans, cyborgs, vecs (intelligent robots; named for Hans Moravec), aioids (intelligent computers),uploads (intelligences transferred into computers), neumanns (self-replicating robots; named for John von Neumann), provolves (animals with enhanced intelligence, similar to "uplift" - see below), rianths (humans with animal DNA spliced in), splices (similar to provolves, upgraded with human DNA), neogens (life genetically synthesized from non-life) and xenosophonts (aliens). Nanotechnology is common. Ringworlds, Dyson spheres and other "megastructures" exist. Much of civilised space is connected by a network of wormholes.I find all of these worlds compelling.

Think.First let’s define nowhere.This means that person X, has gotten Y knowledge not from study but from some nondescript place.It could be that the person is born with that knowledge, it could be that it got from inspiration, it could be that it got through reasoning.Second, let’s define scientist/professor.I think it is fair to agree that this is someone with an advanced degree of education in some science. If I’m not mistaken the median age of a PhD should be about 30 something.Data for UNESCO seems to confirm this.I’d say that with good discipline, motivation, and a very high IQ one should be able to finish said studies 10 years earlier at least and 15 years earlier at most. Notice that I’m already talking about prodigy level IQ.Now, let’s explore a couple of mechanisms as well:Divine Inspiration[1]Let it be said that there is no known physical mechanism to get knowledge from the void.Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—there could be such a mechanism—at the moment we have not confirmed anything particularly like it.Said inspiration also has to be human and culture specific.I previously wrote an answer on why telepathy is impossible given our knowledge of the physical world: Will humans ever evolve to use telepathy?Thanks to Christian Erhardt for finding it!Random Neural SearchIf we contemplate knowledge as a configuration of neurons, and in complete ignorance of the brain’s master learning algorithms—if there is such a thing—we could say that there is a neural pattern for specific types of knowledge.Let’s assume that just by random luck—instead of that learning algorithm—this person’s brain stumbled upon Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony.A stroke of genius, I mean, luck.This is akin the infinite monkey theorem[2], in which a monkey randomly typing an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text. Including Shakespeare’s work.As you can imagine, this looks stupid, but it’s not stupid.Shakespeare’s longest work is Hamlet, it consists of 29,551 words in 4000 lines. Let’s say each word is about 5 or 6 characters long—in my Hamlet pdf the average is 5,44. Then those 29,551 words become 160,827 characters. The brute search space for that is in the order of 27^160,827.A monkey typing one letter per Planck time will have tried 8.1^60 characters since the beginning of the Universe. Although this is a really fucking fast monkey, he will have covered a meager 0.0…(230140 zeros later)…9 percent of the total Hamlet search space.Mind you that this does not count for spaces, valid words, total length or even punctuation marks. What makes it even worse, is that we do not know how neurons encode this data. The proper configurations for those axons and dendrites could be much much more complex.The size of the proper search space is beyond the scope of this answer, needless to say it is cosmically immense.It looks stupid, but at some point in infinite time, the monkey will have written Hamlet. Laborious? Yes. Stupid? No.Genetic Neural SearchHowever, there is such a thing as natural selection and it seemingly allows for specific neural patterns to be selected, this is how nature has selected certain animal species to be able to perform certain complex acts—like walking—soon after birth[3].The same does not hold for human beings, even less at the level of complexity implied in your question, which—for the sake of argument—is more or less:Having structured knowledge in a human-codified domain.How would the knowledge of a hypothetical avian scientist look like? Or better yet how would the knowledge of a blind species look like?Having structured knowledge in a culture-specific domain.Not only there needs to be compatibility at the basic symbolic acquisition layer, but then you have symbol specifics which are culturally derived. Why would your brain represent said knowledge in arabic numerals instead of roman ones?At least until the moment when through sufficiently advanced medicine we manage to find a way of encoding specific neural networks into DNA, this won’t happen.Just for the sake of argument, I’ve coded a light genetic algorithm in Rust that will search for a specific random string 160,000 characters long. One could say that Hamlet is just one more string in a 27^160,000 alphabetical search space.At generation 0, the algorithm “finds” a string 3.69% like Hamlet’s.At generation 11, the algorithm is already at 4% similitude.It is just a matter of time until the algorithm converges on a solution 99.99% just like Hamlet.So—technically—one could say that the principle of selection can more or less “find” a large random string in a huge search space.Of course, neural development is not as simple as a genetic algorithm mating, selecting and killing bits with apparent randomness. There are more steps involved from genetic crossover to gene expression and fetal neurodevelopment.Yet the principle holds.And if a newborn horse is 3% more able to walk after birth than others, he might be 3%—or more—able to survive. On the long run, this advantage could compound until a newborn horse is 100% able to walk right after birth.But how do you select people to recite Hamlet after birth?There’s massive underpinnings behind the ability to develop language. I’m willing to bet that those underpinnings are vastly more complex than those involved in early motricity.Motricity requires your motor neurons to fire in certain patterns given certain inputs, the “symbolic layer” involved seems to be primal. It is the layer between your muscles and your “motor commands”.I’m largely ignorant about the subject, but language seems to have no such “primal” layer. It does have specific brain areas that seem to be tuned to “catch” language.The symbols involved in language seem to be built upon layers and layers of previous neural processing.So natural selection in that case, will not only have to select for a specific configuration of symbols, but also for the layers and layers behind those symbols.Selection of language. Selection of structure. Selection of specific bits.If a single layer mapping like the one in the genetic algorithm has a cosmic size search space, imagine a multi-layered one. The algorithm could in principle select for this, but the time-scales are multi-universe sized.What nature has done is—somewhat—select for symbolic processing power, which allows certain individuals to learn how to acquire those layers fast. Instead of selecting specific knowledge, it selected algorithms which allow the acquisition of said knowledge.Precocious language acquisition is a sign of high IQ. In my case, I learnt how to read when I was 2 years old. My reading speed increased throughout the years, the way I processed that information shifted from what was mostly verbal modes to highly visual fast saccadic processing.I did not acquire knowledge from “nowhere”.It was building upon layers of previously acquired symbols. When I was a kid I pronounced the words, vocabulary was being built constantly; once it reached a certain level, it aggregated. Words upon words, images, meanings, word frequencies, etc.The brain reconfigured itself.So no, while there seems to be a way of selecting neurons to perform certain tasks, no one is killing toddlers that can’t recite Shakespeare.Although—in principle—we could theoretically kill quadrillions of babies until we manage to produce one such abomination. Nature is wise and won’t allow such extinction-level draconian selection.And while higher level symbolic processing appears in the population, human selection is highly multi-dimensional and does not[4] seem to be selecting towards intelligence population wide.It is more likely that a physically attractive, aggressive, impulsive, psychopathic person will have more kids—albeit at a lack of rearing—than a civilized, modest yet handsome, highly educated, responsible person.Although one could argue that this would be an example of a sort of r/K selection theory occurring in humans. This is why I previously say “somewhat” select for symbolic processing power.Even so, at high levels of symbolic processing power, even the most intelligent of humans have to build up their knowledge from somewhere. John von Neumann became a Privatdozent when he was 25.For a child prodigy to have such level of knowledge at age 3 or 4 would require a species level rank up in intelligence.I highly doubt that biological intelligence of that level is possible, if you want to explore why, reading Israel Ramirez’s answer to Is it theoretically possible for biological evolution to produce a brain more intelligent than the human brain? might enlighten you.Personally, it reminds me of Spielberg’s movie AI.“David, I often felt a sort of envy of human beings... of that thing they call 'spirit.' Human beings have created a million explanations of the meaning of life... in art, in poetry, and mathematical formulas. Certainly, human beings must be the key to the meaning of existence. But human beings no longer existed.“The Specialist talking to DavidLike the robot boy in the movie, we have been designed—by evolution—to be young. What kinds of knowledge would we be able to acquire if given a lifespan of a billion years? In a sense, we’re like an octopus, smart yet too short-lived to achieve anything.A non-biological intelligent organism would have no such limitations regarding time and/or space. It could grow Dyson-sphere size until it reaches some primordial physical limit.Who knows.Note: yes, it’s been two months since my last answer. Hey there! Even got into YCombinator in that time.Footnotes[1] Divine inspiration - Wikipedia[2] Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia[3] Altriciality - Wikipedia[4] Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment