November 16, 2020
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I think one of the basic premises, that I see, would be the idea that the set of null universes is not bigger than the set of things that can exist. I think the set of universes that cannot exist is smaller than the set of universes that can.
Rick Rosner: What do you mean by that?
Jacobsen: By that, if you have a universe, basically, that which cannot exist, so a null universe, makes it not there, like can empty set.
Rosner: OK. That’s different from a universe that can’t exist.
Jacobsen: How so?
Rosner: A null universe is a universe with like no information, like the number of those is very small. A magical universe where things pop into without rhyme or reason. Certainly, , there is many more universes that can exist because you just take a universe that can exist and you do something stupid to it.
Jacobsen: Would it not make it like catastrophically inconsistent if you had this magical universe? If you had a universe where magic was literally possible, so you have a Hogwarts universe, but to the nth degree, wouldn’t that collapse in on itself, completely inconsistent?
Rosner: I don’t know. It would make no sense. Okay, you could argue. If we’re going to get into this stuff off the top of my head, there would be a whole bunch of different semi-possibilities. You could certainly have a universe that’s Hogwarts, but it would be a simulated universe.
That it would be something that was designed from outside the universe, like a video game universe was built to contain the elements that you want narratively in the scope of it. You can certainly have a Hogwarts universe or Call of Duty universe.
But that implies an external agent that makes it possible. You need an external agent, anyhow. But in a naturally occurring universe, there would be ongoing external jiggering around with it, I guess. But that’s a whole field we could talk about.
Obviously, we’re moving into an era, where it’s not an uncommon science fiction thought. That, in the future, video games will have characters who are conscious and they may or may not be aware that there is some video game.
But like a video game universe is a very abridged a Call of Duty universe is one planet or part of one planet. The action takes place over a few days, maybe.
Jacobsen: So then, okay, I’ll take it this way. What I’m trying to get at, since the whole thing just starting from the top, there was reporting originally. What I’m getting into then is the null universe, that which isn’t, as opposed to that which is or that which can be, probabilistically.
So, you take those sets. The one set of that which is or that which can be, which is vastly larger than that which isn’t or can’t be. So, that’s the first premise that existence is favored probabilistically or statistically over nonexistent.
So, it’s not providing a generative functional precise formula of how this is done. It’s providing what I call a statistical inevitable argument.
Rosner: Okay, so, I like it. There is probably a statistical problem with it. I’m not sure that you can apply probability to the set of all possible universes, including the null universe as the zero information element.
Jacobsen: How many know universes are there possible, like one?
Rosner: How many null universes?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: I would think one, but I don’t know quantum mechanics. So, that’s probably a question. How many forms of zero information are there? It seems like there has only been one. But I don’t know what the space, the possibilities would be for universes with just a hint of information, because that’s the whole thing.
If you start with a null universe, what are the states that it can move into? And I know there could be quite a few different states that would have the next minimum amount of information.
Jacobsen: If you’re talking about its moving into something, then you’re talking about a state transition. That, by definition, is in a way of speaking talking about information itself or existence itself rather than non-existence.
Rosner: Yes. So, that’s a universe that has moved from null to something other than null that has some existence.
Jacobsen: So, technically that then falls into the category of the existing universe. It’s not the nonexistent.
Rosner: Yes. But I don’t know if you’re looking at degenerate universes, universes that go the other way, go to zero from having a little bit of information. Maybe, there is more. Maybe, there is a small variety of the general universes that have ended up at zero from someplace else.
Maybe, I don’t know. I’d assume not, but it’s a possibility. Where, if you go from a universe that has some equivalent of an electron and a positron that cancel each other out or something like that and leave just energy, though, energy is exists.
But anyway, I don’t know how all that works, except that it’s safe to assume that the number room to generate universes or null universes is going to be small.
Jacobsen: And if you can orient, there is no information in different ways to get different types. Then you can also orient universes with one bit of information too, in different ways. If you just take that one bit, two bit, out to the nth degree, if you include the one to two to the nth degree bit universe with the inverse exclamation point as a set, I think just looking at it; it would appear far larger as a set than zero.
So, I think that to me seems almost unassailable. Unless, there is some way to do the math that flips the intuitive markers there. So, that’s why, I think, that’s a very base orientation point, as I see none in terms of the math, but in terms of the philosophy.
The set of possible universes is larger, possible existences is bigger, than the set of no existences. You just say, “Okay, therefore, existence is favored over nonexistent. That’s just a general statistical outcome based on looking at the ratio of those two sets.”
Rosner: I agree that numerically, the crazy infinity of possible existent universes is way larger than the number of null universes. But in terms of picking a universe out of that said, I’m not sure that you can do that probabilistically.
[End of recorded material]
Authors[1]
American Television Writer
(Updated July 25, 2019)
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*
According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, Rick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher Harding, Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.
Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.
Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (ISSN 2369-6885). Jacobsen works for science and human rights, especially women’s and children’s rights. He considers the modern scientific and technological world the foundation for the provision of the basics of human life throughout the world and the advancement of human rights as the universal movement among peoples everywhere.
Footnotes
[1] Four format points for the session article:
- Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
- Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
- Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
- This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.
For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
- Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 