I, Kurt Johmann, am the author and copyright owner of this script (its copyright year is 2020), and I hereby place this script in the public domain.

THE SCRIPT FOLLOWS:

##
One Typo, One Clarification, and One Improvement for my Book

Hello, my name is Kurt Johmann. I am a retired, 64-year-old man as I record this video in October 2020, and I am the author of a book that I completed and published in 2017. The book’s title is *A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind)*, and its subtitle is *These Intelligent Particles are how we Survive Death*. I have placed this book in the public domain, and it is free at my website: *solitoncentral.com*

In this video, any use or appearance of the word *section*, *subsection*, or *footnote*, are all referring to that specific section, subsection, or footnote, in my book. Also, whenever I say the word *quote*, that means I’m about to quote from my book, and when I say the words *close quote*, that marks the end of that quote from my book.

After publishing my book in 2017, making it publicly available, I have since found a single typo in my book, which is in footnote 153: where it says *section 5.1.1*, that should be *subsection 5.1.1*

Also, after rereading much of my book over the last few years since its 2017 publication, there is one place in my book where I think a clarification is needed, and another place in my book where I think an improvement is needed:

The place where I think a clarification is needed, is in footnote 166: Where I say **quote** In total, to produce footnote 23, including all the conscious time needed to work out every detail of the gravity algorithm, took about 6 weeks, working an average of about 4½ hours a day, for a total conscious work time of about 190 hours. **close quote** I have since felt that I introduced an ambiguity, given the way I wrote that quoted text, so that the reader may think that estimate of 190 conscious work hours was spent on just working out the details of the gravity algorithm, when instead that estimate of 190 conscious work hours was for producing the entirety of footnote 23 (everything that is in footnote 23), including not just the thinking that went into the gravity algorithm and the other parts of footnote 23, but also writing footnote 23, and also learning and using enough of *Mathematica* to get the formula given in paragraph p24 and also write and use a short *Mathematica* program to do the testing mentioned in paragraph p25 (both of these labeled paragraphs are in the gravity algorithm in footnote 23). Okay, that is the clarification I wanted to make.

The place in my book where I want to make an improvement, is in section 1.3: I have come to feel very strongly—and this is the reason for this video—that I have to do a better job of justifying why the computing elements are so tiny, beyond what I already say in section 1.3 in my book, and I will do this better justification now:

##
Why are the Computing Elements so tiny?

The *computing-element reality model* in my book states that **quote** the universe is a vast, space-filling, three-dimensional array of tiny, identical, computing elements. **close quote**

And **quote** each computing element runs its own copy of the same large and complex program—called the *computing-element program*. **close quote**

Also, as was stated very early in my book, in section 1.2’s footnote 3, **quote** Thruout the remainder of this book the word *particle*, unless stated or implied otherwise, denotes an elementary particle. An elementary particle is a particle that is not composed of other particles. **close quote** This also applies in this video from this point forward: Each time I say the word *particle*, I mean an elementary particle, and this also applies when I am reading a specific paragraph in section 1.3, which I will be doing in a moment.

In my book, the only place where I give a reason for the tiny size of each computing element is this specific paragraph in section 1.3: **quote** Regarding the size of the computing elements, the required complexity of the computing-element program can be reduced by reducing the maximum number of particles that a computing element simultaneously stores and manipulates in its memory. In this regard the computing-element program is most simplified if that maximum number is one. Given this maximum of one, if one then assumes that no two particles can be closer than 10^{−16} centimeters apart—and consequently that each computing element is a cube 10^{−16} centimeters wide—then each cubic centimeter of space contains 10^{48} computing elements. The value of 10^{−16} centimeters is used, because this is an upper-bound on the size of an electron, which is an elementary particle. **close quote**

Regarding this quoted paragraph from my book, in which I say, in effect, that the required size and complexity of the computing-element program is minimized by making it a rule that a computing element never holds more than a single particle at the same time, I didn’t give any reason or justification for this in my book, but it just seemed obvious to me that, in general, the fewer the number of particles that the computing-element program has to deal with at the same time, the simpler the computing-element program can be. So, here now, in the next two paragraphs of this script I wrote for this video, I will give a better justification than just saying that it’s obvious that the fewer the number of particles that the computing-element program has to deal with at the same time, the simpler the computing-element program can be. Okay, here’s my better justification:

Another way of looking at this, is to ask yourself which would be the easier programming job: Job 1: Write a program that will run on a single computer and, in effect, will run our entire universe and all the particles in it. Or Job 2: Write a program that will run on many separate computers (the computing elements that fill and make the three-dimensional space of our universe), and each computing element has a unique, unchanging, XYZ coordinate that is the exact location of that computing element within the Euclidean geometry of our universe, and, at any instant of time, a computing element is either not holding a particle, or is holding at most only a single particle, and each computing element can directly communicate with (send data to, and receive data from) its adjacent computing elements.

This Job 2 is basically the computing-element reality model that I present in my book, and, to me, with my computer-science background and my decades doing programming work, Job 2 is a much easier programming job than Job 1. Also, besides being easier to program, Job 2 has the additional advantage that the gigantic number of computing elements that compose the three-dimensional space of our universe, will run our universe much, much faster than running our universe on a single computer.

Okay, that’s my argument and better justification for why the computing-element program is most simplified if a computing element can never hold more than a single particle at the same time. And, by assuming that a computing element never holds more than a single particle at the same time, that implies an extremely tiny size for a computing element, because the electron, an elementary particle, has already been measured by physicists to be extremely tiny in size.

##
I’m placing this Video and its Script in the Public Domain

I, Kurt Johmann, am the creator and copyright owner—the copyright year is 2020—of both this video and its script, and I hereby place both this video and its script in the public domain.

The script for this video, which includes the text of what I say in this video, can be found at my website: *solitoncentral.com*

Okay, that’s the end of this video.

END OF SCRIPT