Harvard physicists are almost catching up with Mental Relativity

theory
#1

Reading through the following articles, I couldn’t help but smile at how many times they seem be reaching right for certain concepts from Mental Relativity. If you’re only somewhat familiar with Dramatica you may not see all the connections. But if you’re familiar with the deeper theories behind it, or with Mental Relativity, you’ll probably wonder why the Dramatica creators aren’t lecturing the Physicists of Harvard right now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/s/602344/the-extraordinary-link-between-deep-neural-networks-and-the-nature-of-the-universe/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2019/06/28/ai_3d_simulations_universe/

2 Likes
#2

It’s pretty funny that the number of particles in the galaxies used is the same as the number of storyforms available. Per the article:

A total of 8,000 universe simulations, each containing 32,728 particles spread over a virtual space spanning 600 million light years, were produced by traditional software and used to train D3M. In other words, it was taught how particles interact from thousands of traditional universe simulations, so that, during inference, for a given arbitrary input set of particles and displacement vectors,

:slight_smile:

5 Likes
#3

Reminded me of a similar weird coincidence that generated this comment:

Fortunately the author of the newspaper article did his math incorrectly, and the numbers are not actually the same. 32,728 v 32,768.

1 Like
#4

“…Suggest that the brain strikes a balance between encoding as much information as possible and responding flexibly to noise, which allows it to prioritize the most significant feature of a stimulus rather than endlessly cataloging smaller details.”
It’s almost like there’s some kind of filter that sorts information before we even get to it. PRE consciously, if you will!

“It’s like being in the border of fractility” What a discovery!..from thirty years ago.

“Two very similar images could be represented by very different nueral activity” if only there were some sort theory that could describe this, what would you even call it? Internal Relativity? Hmmm…close, but not quite right…

1 Like
#5

According to the new view, spacetime, rather than being fundamental, might “emerge” via the interactions of such bits.

Odd. I’ve already read this before. But it wasn’t in Scientific American, it was on a blog by a story theorist. From several years ago. But it separated Space and Time and said they emerge from Mass and Energy.

Yet intriguingly, “what matters are the relationships” between the bits more than the bits themselves, says IfQ collaborator Brian Swingle, a postdoc at Stanford University. “These collective relationships are the source of the richness. Here the crucial thing is not the constituents but the way they organize together.”

Story theory wins again. It’s almost like there’s something to all this mental relativity, Dramatica stuff…and not just story theory.

And there are still a couple things from that article that I could point too to show similarities between what Physicists are discovering and how Mental Relativity has seemingly already described the process.

2 Likes
#6

My understanding is that we discover these things because it is how we see the world—it’s not that the world is this way, it’s that this is how we understand the world.

Imagine you could only see circles (but did not know this, like the fish who asks what water is). Then, when you found a circle, you’d say, “Look, the world is made of circles.”

3 Likes
#7

I’m aware. I’m posting, I guess, less to say to say ‘see, this is how the universe actually is and Dramatica knew it first’ and more to say ‘the Mental Relativity model of the mind has already predicted that this is how we would see things’. It’s already been predicted that we would observe space and time in conjunction with mass and energy. It’s already been described that the relationships between bits and not the bits themselves would be the important part of how we view the world.

Of course, I’m no expert in either and wouldn’t be surprised if someone who was were to tell me I’m reaching for connections or that I’m seeing similarities here that aren’t really there.

2 Likes
#8

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

Proof that Dramatica has been around since the 17th century…and a great description of why we need all those “you and I” moments, and a great description of how to be an IC to someone.

to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord

Basically, if you want to be an IC to someone, you don’t go in trying to tear down their justifications for their perspective. It is literally impossible to tear down someone else’s justifications. Only they can do that. Instead, you let them see you with your own perspective in a way that influences them to tear down their own justifications rather than in a way that influences them to reinforce their own justifications.

2 Likes