Sending strange patterns on the same frequency is a good way to assure that our signal—if received—gets classified as ‘generated by an unknown phenomenon’. Unless we’re transmitting on many frequencies or change the amplitude (signal strength), the Fourier transform would just yield a single number. If all we vary are the times between bursts, it should be quite clear that the information lies somewhere in the time between bursts. I’m no expert in this, though (shrug).
We also need a line break sequence which is guaranteed to never occur outside a line break; that means that the line break pattern has to be a sequence of bits which cannot occur within the line. (not ‘doesn’t occur in this particular image’) That requirement breaks any simple binary encoding.
You’re thinking about establishing the final encoding that can be used for all subsequent communications, but that’s not necessary. These aren’t the Golden Plates which need to contain everything we’ll “ever” communicate (although their approach is relevant to our discussion, it’s a different scenario).
The one thing that (nearly?) any optimizer should be able to do (to ever have evolved in the first place) is to notice patterns in its environment, and to have a tendency to compress those patterns into their simplest representations (model building). Only when arranging the lines such that a circle (and a line on one side representing the ’11′ line breaks) emerges is the pattern simplest to describe.
At some later point we can still move to a more sophisticated line break representation, slowly varying the encoding of that baseline calibration picture, we could even keep the ’11′ for nostalgia’s sake.
I’m also not sure why an image of a particular star or geometric figure would be first;
Using cosmic background radiation introduces new elements to be figured out (e.g. how you visualize frequencies). Anyways, we’re not bandwidth limited in any meaningful sense, so there’s no need to rush things. (Re: circle—see above)
How are you modulating a carrier wave if you aren’t varying frequency or amplitude?
Would you notice a transmission which consisted of a constant illumination equivalent to that produced by a number of lasers with frequencies that were linked to powers of two? Instead of “On, on, off, off, on, off” separated by time, there would be a single signal which would scope to the same wave as “sin(x)+sin(2x)+sin(16x)” or “”sin(x)+1/2sin(2x)+1/16sin(16x)”
Meanwhile, because we’re broadcasting AM broadcasts on many different frequencies, they’re trying to figure out a:Why and how our transmitter is failing intermittently on such a fast scale b:What our baseline frequency is. c:How to decode the vast wealth of information they have.
If all we do is notice patterns and automatically ascribe meaning to them, we end up looking at pulsars. For that matter, what evidence do we have that pulsars aren’t the result of intelligent communication? Can you construct a ‘universal’ encoding which could be communicated using only the properties of pulsars? Could you decode such an encoding?
Sending strange patterns on the same frequency is a good way to assure that our signal—if received—gets classified as ‘generated by an unknown phenomenon’. Unless we’re transmitting on many frequencies or change the amplitude (signal strength), the Fourier transform would just yield a single number. If all we vary are the times between bursts, it should be quite clear that the information lies somewhere in the time between bursts. I’m no expert in this, though (shrug).
You’re thinking about establishing the final encoding that can be used for all subsequent communications, but that’s not necessary. These aren’t the Golden Plates which need to contain everything we’ll “ever” communicate (although their approach is relevant to our discussion, it’s a different scenario).
The one thing that (nearly?) any optimizer should be able to do (to ever have evolved in the first place) is to notice patterns in its environment, and to have a tendency to compress those patterns into their simplest representations (model building). Only when arranging the lines such that a circle (and a line on one side representing the ’11′ line breaks) emerges is the pattern simplest to describe.
At some later point we can still move to a more sophisticated line break representation, slowly varying the encoding of that baseline calibration picture, we could even keep the ’11′ for nostalgia’s sake.
Using cosmic background radiation introduces new elements to be figured out (e.g. how you visualize frequencies). Anyways, we’re not bandwidth limited in any meaningful sense, so there’s no need to rush things. (Re: circle—see above)
How are you modulating a carrier wave if you aren’t varying frequency or amplitude?
Would you notice a transmission which consisted of a constant illumination equivalent to that produced by a number of lasers with frequencies that were linked to powers of two? Instead of “On, on, off, off, on, off” separated by time, there would be a single signal which would scope to the same wave as “sin(x)+sin(2x)+sin(16x)” or “”sin(x)+1/2sin(2x)+1/16sin(16x)”
Meanwhile, because we’re broadcasting AM broadcasts on many different frequencies, they’re trying to figure out
a:Why and how our transmitter is failing intermittently on such a fast scale
b:What our baseline frequency is.
c:How to decode the vast wealth of information they have.
If all we do is notice patterns and automatically ascribe meaning to them, we end up looking at pulsars. For that matter, what evidence do we have that pulsars aren’t the result of intelligent communication? Can you construct a ‘universal’ encoding which could be communicated using only the properties of pulsars? Could you decode such an encoding?