Temporal Encoding/Decoding Mechanism

Unlimited, perpetual and such stuff trigger my pseudoscience sensors… However no matter how pseudo something sounds, it has to be disproven first… And that’s my problem… I am unable to disprove it… To be honest I didn’t ask people who can probably disprove it in seconds…

So last year I had an this stupid thought. Can we encode information in evolving structure without increasing its size in spatial dimension?

Here’s the hypothesis/problem.

1. Can we store/encode data in structure that constantly evolves with time?
2. And if it is possible, could it be possible to reverse compute to extract or decode the data from the structure?

Structure could be numbers or 3D geometrical structure, however time is involved then it’s really 4D structure that’s evolving in time. Space-Time encoding…

If it works, you can p̶r̶a̶c̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶u̶n̶l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶e̶d̶* encode huge data in virtual structures as long as you can reverse compute to decode it in reasonable time. we are basically storing data in evolving 4 dimensional quasi-structure and linking its changing states in chain that evolves in time, kinda like predicting evolving structure using data+timestamps. or like storing data in structure combination that’s continuously evolving in sequence of timestamp… sorry if i’ve managed to confuse even more than clarifying it… To make it easier, here’s a quick video to explains this problem better… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDYpLCzLj7I

I also wrote a python script trying to test… It obviously doesn’t work because I’m relying on large decimal places that increase exponentially. If it’s tiny bit possible then definitely not the way I’m doing…

I was thinking whether it could be a P=NP problem… and possibility using some quantum computer algorithms…

Can anyone here disprove it please?

Thanks

1 Like

I mean, if you sent matter in a binary way on purpose into a black hole, then had a way to decode it at a different point in space time, that could be a way to encode “Spaghettified” data over constantly moving space time.

I was afraid that blackhole would be part of this tread sometime… I didn’t expect so soon.

the thing is, we don’t have control over what is being spaghettified in blackhole. We can’t calculate information of falling object in any practical sense…

But… we have control what we are encoding with this algorithm… We know exactly at what time what information is being encoded and we can see what the final structure is… that gives us advantage? i guess…

here’s example of encoding mechanism…

Doesn’t optical fiber polarization do something like this? So that it’s not simply high frequency binary, but it changes polarization to carry more data?

No. It’s not the same at all. give me sometime I’ll make better examples and drawings… I’m terrible at explaining…

Well, this is my kind of thread.
I think there are two ways of going about this, a mathematical one and a physics one. I have to dig some papers up, maybe I find something. But I believe there is quite good empirical evidence that information is conserved in physics and therefore this is not possible. Edge cases like the black hole were already mentioned. (Maybe CPT-invariance can be exploited to that end.)

I think your encoding method is not all that different from dictionary compression. You put part of the information into the method of compression itself and that has to be stored also. I have to think about that.

Doesn’t relativity suggest that space and time can be traded… I’m really trying to push from 3 dimention to 4th dimention and do reverse calculation to extract information… we can infact a use predictive method at every itration… parameters for prediction is 0 or 1 and there’s always a marginal bias towards right answer so I’m guessing it can be computed… I’ll elaborate tomorrow…

I am afraid no, the General Theory of relativity does not make any predictions regarding change in entropy or information, you would need to look at quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics an isolated system does not change the amount of information it contains over time. It is a theory, there is no strong proof in the sense that mathematics has those. However, empirical evidence is quite extensive that information is conserved. Most of the time there is only a debate if information content of closed systems can decrease. There is no approach that it might increase.

There might be a mathematical proof that information is conserved under certain circumstances. I have to look that up.

1 Like

I want express function of algorithm in detail and hopefully make better sense but I’m currently out… I’ll do it tomorrow…

But for now here are few more examples…
If you can predict single piece of information with high probability… it’s a prediction and not stored information…

Another example would be… you can compute/calculate position of a planet on 1 August 2050. In this case all you’re really doing simulations to predict probable location of the planet… however it’s fairly static process…

I’m not really storing the information but probabilities that produce structures at every itration of evolving structure…

However 99% I’m sure that there is some fundamental limitation… question is what…

That would be great.

Haha nice try, trying to outwit physics
I am afraid that won’t work, there is still information in your prediction in the most fundamental sense but as you said it probably won’t be easy to get to the bottom of this.

I’ll never try outwit physics. . not on purpose at least. Even though I’ve never been a science student… but I respect it too much…

Let’s get to it then. Even though I am 99% sure there’s some fundamental limitation which I’m missing here… But 1% was enough to propelled my interest to do a lot of thinking last year then I stopped… until now… So I’ll do some remembering of all the hypothesis and examples I was thinking then…

Here’s some premise… Assuming information is never lost, it’s obviously embedded in the structures. Universe is a structure. We track back and predict past states of the universe with some accuracy to make hypothesis/theories…
Universe is probably probabilistic… Everything exist in probabilities… We’re experiencing reality that are highest probabilities in single layer/slice separated by unit of time. But information linking/chaining has been going from beginning to end… From higher dimension universe is like one single geometric structure that consist of all past, present and future… Now take that last layer of the structure… the final product… it’s not a stretch to think it might be possible to track back step by step however not by us for sure…

We’ve some units of intelligence to make memories and predict probabilities but not smart enough access all the spectrum at once… We help ourselves with tools like computers…

What if it’s not necessary to store informations in space. what if all the informations exist in probabilities and we’ve not yet figured out a definitive ways to access it…

We do it to some degree with humans intelligence. however we’ve to consider that we have a primordial form of intelligence… But think of intelligence like a force… smart phone, smart speaker… smart force?? sorry…

Even though it doesn’t really fit the definition of force. but it’s my hypothesis that Intelligence at maximum functional potential in a confined space-time, will probably behave repetitive and even constant like other forces but it might be very wrong… At fundamental level, unit of intelligence is predicting change in state… you can also say that higher intelligence can predict complex systems with very high accuracy…

We need forgo classical physics… and focus on quantum here…
State of real is high probability for us… you can say we experience high probabilities that are crystallized into physical nature…
So for 1 second let’s say nothing is crystal here… it’s all cloud of probabilities we’re surfing through… At local scale we influence probabilities individually and collectively…

So if there was an intelligence force so strong which can influence and distort probability vector so much that reality becomes merely options and choices…
I think at this point P=NP… and if so, everything that would occur, has already occurred, there is no waiting linearly for passing of time. There would be no concept of free will, no fundamental difference between computing or picking out results; kinda like 4th dimensional being. ok… it’s going too far…

So getting back to information encoding mechanism. I am assuming that if you’re going to encode some information in time-chains… It already exist in probabilities… But you need to computing it to get it…

The different is… We are using our own information encoding algorithms and exactly know how it works… we also know initial state and we know the final structure of the object and last timestamp…

Key here is evolving structure… it has to be in “motion” with time… the structure is always evolving whether you add new information or not. if you don’t add information then evolution structure is easily predictable. Kinda like numbers… if 1 second = 1 and 100 seconds to 100 then what’s at 66 seconds? But complication add up when we add information to structure at certain timestamp, it changes the structure to accommodate that piece of information and continue slightly newer evolution…

so at every time stamp you can store 0 or 1… we can add a predefined locking mechanism and lock-key pares while encoding, which can be used validate at every iteration if prediction is correct… validation itself is probabilistic… a slight bias towards correct answer opens the lock… it’s vague but I’m not sure how else to explain this…

Remember we’re not storing the lock or key in data necessarily… it’s all embedded in the encoding algorithm and structure accounts for that… decoding algorithm is suppose to predicts 0 or 1 and validates the structure as key in predefined lock-key pares by encoding algorithm… One thing I’m sure is that if it works then it has employ some kind of prediction model…

I’ll probably add some drawings… I really want to get through this…

We are looking the amount of information in matter… there’s information in movement and pattern too which evolves in time… I am trying to link motion, position etc in time rather than just matter… I hope i’m making sense…

It’s still hard for me to understand what exactly you are trying to do here. Looking at your code, it is not coupled to time. You think it is because you named it that way and it iterates but that does not mean it links to time.

I think I know where you are getting at. The examples you mentioned (position, velocity, and all quantum states) all carry information. Position and Velocity are represented (in a way) by the wave function. When someone talkes about information in quantum physics (in this context) they really mean all that you can possibly know about a system (observables) and some things that you cannot know in a classical sense.
It is hard to explain it really without getting into the mathematics and first I am trying to make sure I understand what your assumptions are.

Edit: Don’t get me wrong, it is awesome that you are thinking about this. It is just hard to identify where you are going.

1 Like

And I intend to clarify much better in my next reply… I promise. It’s really exciting for me that you trying to help me here… let me draw few examples… i’ll probably do it tomorrow…

I’m using iteration as to emulate time… I don’t think my code is representing exactly what I’m trying to do here…

1 Like

No worries, I enjoy the discussion. May I ask what your background is, so I know what I can draw on for explanations?

The reason is you can’t emulate time (the way it is neccessary here) in code. Anyway, I think that does not really matter, what you are doing could still work, it is just that you are not doing what you think you are doing.

just a creative guy… I’m a coder professionally and huge interest in computers science. I make creative solutions for all sorts of things… most things are potent distractions for me…

Probably… I didn’t try much except do some abstract thinking…

1 Like

awesome

Some advice for that: Do not try to force your thoughts into a piece of code. This limits what you can do a lot.

• Think about the easiest example that you can come up with, that you think would do what you want to.
• Then start poking at it by thinking about all the edge cases (extrema) of your example.
• Try to abstract afterwards.

I can help you with the latter two, the first one you have to do yourself.

1 Like

Awesome. I have a private thread here… I am going to invite you. I think you’ll be interested…

1 Like

thanks, looks really interesting at a first glance. I’ll take a closer look tomorrow, have to get some stuff done.

1 Like

I thought of few examples and one with rubik’s cube… I was writing here but it was getting complicated again… I think it would be best of I made an animation and show steps by step like debugging… Hopefully it’ll make much easier to understand… I’ll make it in night…