simplify3

You're right. Bignose. I'm 69 pages into the book and one video presentation given by him... and I realized that these are knitting patterns. Nice, amazing - and probably lots of great information will be found through cellular automata (which I remembered studying in '91 playing with Conway's Game of Life in the computer lab)... ... but yeah. I'll finish reading the 1200 pages just to be thorough... (I'm always thorough in my research - I just have trouble with describing in this case) - but yeah, this isn't the "it". Believe me, I don't want to work on this project at all - I just wanted to figure out why it is so difficult to figure out "What is my next best action?" when faced with multiple seemingly equally weighted choices and not having the luxury to use standard methods of scheduling. In other words, figuring out the "now". (I did figure out it's about 6-20 seconds long and not a lot of computational space to work with... that forgetting things and re-remembering while going from room to room had to do with our place memory and that it's possible to 'leave' ideas in a room to pick them up later)..... that part of stuff was easy. Psychology and sociology was always easy for me to learn, grasp and reteach. But this stuff, where there is just pictures in my mind and being unable to draw or even articulate or explain logically... it's quite frustrating. *sigh* this reminds me of when I was looking into holography and ecological systems for inspiration. I'd start going "yes yes good I can stop research - they've got it..." and then I'd find the killer flaws. I'd take what was good and move on. 69 pages and one video and yeah... don't worry. His knitting patterns aren't what I was looking for. Somehow, I ended up here. It's sparse. All I've got is leaky triangles, double-loop for processes, a general process for problem solving (make triangles out of the space, make a home line, start with highest dimensional features and work down to lowest dimension features), some clustering of similars and some notions of time and our how to resolve our problems with it... but that's it really. Thanks for the response - it was well timed. And I should really look at what you guys have been saying here before continuing too much further.

Still haven't had time to go through everybody's amazing responses yet but today, I was walking through the library and saw one of my leaky triangles on the front cover of a book. Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". I flipped through it - page after page of the stuff that's been in my head that I couldn't explain properly. While I may end up taking issue with randomness - nonetheless what I've seen so far about Cellular Automata will certainly fit the bill for a lot of the more difficult things I want to explain. I was a little disappointed at first to see "woah someone saw what I saw before me" - but then excited because he did a lot of the legwork I was afraid I'd have to do. He's done the math. He's drawn the pictures. He gives me a scientific framework to explain things, even if it is unorthodox. And he is an authority. Now I just have to wade through 1200 pages of this book to see what matches my thinking and what doesn't. But maybe it'll give you *some* idea of what I was thinking of. And maybe after I go through it, I'll be able to answer all of your questions in a framework that you might find more acceptable than my ramblings

I'll answer everybody soon. I discovered I was in the wrong place though. It's the engineering people I need to hang out with more than the physics people. Materials engineering. Their view of the Universe is aligned with my way of thinking; http://royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2121/2495 description of lattice structures, the history of humanity as a continuum of working with different materials has a few graphs that give a sense of the direction I'm thinking of. Barriers imposed by limits of nature seen as just things you have to work around in order to accomplish things. They are also more heavily into heuristics, which physics tends not to be. To engineering, doubt is a normal part of the whole approach and attitude. After shutting off the net for three days to concentrate, I read "Why Things Break" and "The Essentials Engineer" (the only TWO books in my library on Engineering philosophy - everything else in the area was science theory) My apologize for wasting the time of science when I belonged in a forum for engineering. Recognizing and embracing imperfection and working around it, recognizing the limitations of our species at our present point in history and seeing human history not as a series of leaps but rather a continuum of discovery of "How can I" vs "Why is it" - this is my way of thinking completely. If nothing else, it should help you understand better our miscommunication. I was ignorant to my audience's needs, and I apologize. You have been a tremendous help. I'll answer each when I get a few free minutes (my real life leaks into my Internet life constantly; running several businesses, having a pesky mother and 9 yr old nephew who always wants me to play with him - and in-laws all around plus dealing with customers and the people online wanting me to fix their problems (with their stuff or their boredom or their emotional turmoil or their misunderstandings) makes it hard to give each the attention it deserves. But I'll give you each the attention you deserve as you have put a lot of careful thought to your questions and answers.

I still have some catching up to do; haven't had the time; but I did discover something I was doing wrong: I was mistaking science and engineering. Engineering - the actual "HOW" can I make this work in reality is more what I am describing and less than the predicting of science. I'm not looking to predict anything, just to describe what already is. That's the land of engineering, CAD, etc. My mistake all of these years (not entirely my fault beause Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics are lumped together - BUT THEY'RE DIFFERENT. I only use MATH when I have to. I use Science when I have to. I use Technology when I have to. But I'm always trying to be absolutely as precise as I *need* to be without going further, taking into account restraints of Time, who I'm doing something for, what tools I have to work with at that time. That's a hacker/engineer personality. Scientists get the glory, but engineers have to make something WORK - over.. and over... and over again consistantly - often without any scientific theory behind them. They don't have the time. I never have the time. Definite revelation to me and apologies to engineers and scientists alike for my misunderstanding.

I'll respond specifically to you guys in a little while - just wanted to say I found a valid quantum mechanical theory I can work with. Coulson–Fischer can describe the unstable triple point, which helps bring the quantum world into the 'real world' better than molecular orbitals, which I wouldn't abandon but I need something practical when I get down to that zoom level. I have to learn a few terms (I'm not a math guy but I'm good at visualizing concepts spatially once I understand what each of the math symbols represent in reality) Professor John Platt describes the spirit of the direction I'm shooting for with this introduction to a text book on Valence from the 60s. "We should not ridicule the ancients for supposing that atoms could be rough or smooth or could have hooks connecting them to each other. The facts of fluidity and rigidity and the characteristic crystal forms of different substances, which require to be explained by some such suppositions, are still the same. These facts were then and are now as obvious to the curious layman or philosopher as to the laboratory scientist. If by “hooks” we mean a small integral number of potentially strong and reproducible linkages around an atom, pointing in particular characteristic directions and resistant to disruption, we are close to the expression in common language of the idea of directed valence or the chemical bond. If by a “smooth” atom—without hooks—we mean one that can be gripped only by weak and non-directional forces, we are close to the idea of a rare-gas atom or any stable uncharged closed-shell electronic configuration." I just came across this a few minutes ago and I hope this helps you understand my goals here. I'll respond to your comments soon - I just wanted to share this with a group who has the best chance of understanding what the heck I'm talking about. -Ken

Ah yes - the zig zag does sound like a fun description. I've used a teacup illustration for Dirac to describe a 720 rotation (it took a few tries to get my shoulder to do what I wanted it to do - I wasn't as limber as the ones I've seen on the videos ) on Vine and also modeled it by pointing the camera at my face and doing a 720 rotation around my own head - that always got a few "how did you do that?" and then I mention that our shoulder upper arm, forearm, wrist can make a 720 degree rotation quite easily - there's nothing strange about it. What I've done in the past and what I *can* do, is something that textbooks _don't do_: bold broad disclaimers: "THIS IS NOT REALITY. These are moving triangles. " I wish a lot of science would put disclaimers on their predictions. "MATHEMATICS IS SYMBOLIC OF REALITY - IT IS NOT REALITY ITSELF". But you get people like Max Tegmark "The Universe Is Made Of Math" fame. The symbols are not the reality. Unless you are a devotee of Pythagoras, they never were the actual reality. They're simplifications that serve practical purposes. I'm taking a different tactic to describe some things but not all things. The background for the movements will be mathematical; I'll use the best formulas I can find and use the shapes to illustrate it. It's simple vector drawings of different processes. That it even generated irritation doesn't surprise me - that's the nature of forum ethos - but mostly due to me trying to describe a work in progress in a rambling way. I'm not adding any math. I'm not taking away any math. I'm using the existing math to draw shapes to describe existing processes. For physics, I'll use the same formulas of interaction that already exist. For other processes, I'll either use formulas of interaction that exist, or mimic static illustrations (the best I can find in each subject matter) symbolically through triangles and movement. If I show a triangle opening up its small end, taking in a large triangle, using smaller triangles to turn the large triangle into smaller ones, then zoom in to little alternating triangles moving the small triangles down a tube into another triangle, I've described chewing and swallowing. Using triangles. I'm not telling people they have triangles inside of them. A zoom into the tongue, and triangles can show the enzymes working on the food particles. Zoom in further, I can symbolize proteins being cleaved by H20. (I'm NOT folding proteins here - too complicated) zoom in further, you can see the H20 molecule. Further in, you see the electrons interacting - not in any new way - but in the same types of ways we already use in our illustrations. By using a consistent set of symbols (keeping it very small and consistent behaviors, the abstraction from reality will be quite clear.

Yes, absolutely. Reality is certainly more than triangles. (apologies to trig lovers everywhere ). They're just useful for my purposes. Just as the use of averages and randomness and probabilities are useful in statistical models of reality, but they aren't reality itself. They're descriptions. Very good ones. I couldn't possibly compete, nor am I competing. Just because I'm choosing this method doesn't take away from other methods. It's not the best. Not even close. But my audience isn't the people who understand the math. Some of them don't even speak English. I'll use this model to describe things as accurately as possible until the model simply can't handle it. I have a lot of systems to describe, not just physical processes. There's thousands. It's not for prediction. It's for quick comprehension of processes and interactions with a minimum of symbols and behaviors. I could have used points or circles or squares I suppose. but notice how the triangles looked like life? Squares look like a game. Points look like something you'd have in school. Circles, well, I find circles boring and they have no "left" and "right". Triangles easily show left right up down moving towards and away - without any words necessary.

Points; No good because they're hypothetical. What we consider a point can be zoomed in on and is a "something". Line: No good. A 1D line doesn't exist in my view. Everything in the Universe has 3 dimensions + Time at the very least. Probably 4 + time. (perhaps more but I decided to go with what we got for now) Square: No good because there's no parallel lines. Spacetime itself is curved. Circles: They're a special form of ellipse with a single radius. Plus the whole "trying to make a line into a curve" and getting ridiculous irrational numbers is maddening. I know It's necessary and again, I'm not taking away from its usefulness in GENERAL. Just not for my purposes. Even a triangle isn't perfect. But it's the simplest I could rationalize in my mind. I can't prove it with words - I've tried - but I should be able to prove it with animations. And Yes. The triangle isn't limited to what you learn in geometry class. I'm glad you saw that - thanks! The triangle is also descriptive of trios of rules or "somethings" that generate a something that goes well beyond what any of the three alone could have done. I'm interested in the science but want to be able to teach it in a very simple form. The way I see things in my mind is a simple form. From chirality, magnetic moment, electron spin, how temperate affects the behavior of an ideal gas... how vision works for humans and how it separates into two parts and how it comes together... the process of chemical reactions -- these things show up as pictures in my mind as I read. Simple interacting triangles. Big and small, opening and closing. flipping, spinning, rotating, skewing... When i see a line, it's just a triangle on its back with the other end pointed away from me, out of my direct sight. Or a triangle whose "top point" is on the same plane as the bottom two points. It's a weird way of seeing the world but it's how I see it. Human interactions, I see the same way. I want to describe all systems in the simplest possible form I can think of. I couldn't go any simpler than a triangle without sacrificing zoom. And since a moving triangle has 4 coordinates - xy yz xz time - it makes them easy to work with. Plus they have volume. AND they have interest (the vectors formed) and the angles. Curve a triangle in the 3rd dimension and you get a geodesic coordinate system. Quite useful thing, triangles.

I just wanted to say thanks to all. I found what I needed. http://system-of-systems.com has an example on top - of flocking birds. I didn't write the flocking birds, but it's exactly what I was looking for: it utilizing Processing, a language written for artists. I'm not an artist but a programmer. I've been looking for something like this for a little over a year but it wasn't until my frustration in trying to explain myself to some pretty tough critics (you guys) that I finally just went ahead and found it. It works how I think. Using it reminds me of being 11 years old with my color computer and hacking my way through BASIC for the first time. I learned more Math by learning BASIC than I ever did in Math classes. It's probably why I went towards Excel rather than Matlab. I have some learning to do, but I gave you all proper credit on the page, which is not ready for prime time but I exposed it to your critiquing. It'll be easier to show rather than tell. I'm a writer who was trying to write about what I see in my mind and I was at a complete loss of words to describe it accurately. I knew I needed to draw and animate but I can't draw or animate well. Now I have the proper tool. I won't justify thousands of triangles verbally. I'll just have to make it work and I'll show you when its ready. Might take a while. Thanks again! -Ken

The future can't be predicted with absolute accuracy. We approximate using calculations but then REALITY happens when we put them into play and unexpected things happen. The interface between idea and making it real. I'm trying to simplify a very complicated concept: What you think you'll see and what you actually see are often two different things. It doesn't matter if I'm speaking about the predictions of math, or predicting what your neighbor will be dreaming about tomorrow night at 3:02am. We learn to expect it to be that way and take it for granted that 'that's the way things are' but nobody but children and simple people like me ever seen to question it. *sigh* as the product I'm working on is geared for kids and non-technical types, I'll just have to show it when its done. Then perhaps it will make more sense. I've got an online waiting audience of 5600 kids and mostly non-technical adults, many with extreme learning disabilities, and I haven't much time and not much money to work with. -Ken

It's not an overcomplicated model though. It's triangles and their interactions. Human brains see solid lines best. We perceive the world in mental lines before we fill them in with another part of the brain. We see in 2D but extrapolate into 3D in our minds, at varying degrees of ability. (optical illusions play with that brain feature). One basic shape, different sizes. Different interactions depending on what's being described. It's an abstraction to its simplest form. It's not "our Universe"; its an abstraction of our Universe. But Mathematics itself is an abstraction of our Universe. So is language. How do we generate shapes on the computer? How do you project 3D to 2D? Meshes. Triangles. I'm not inventing something new here. It's already being done today. I'm just repurposing it for a set of products and hoping for some help from people far smarter than I. Whether it's "worth doing" is a value judgement. It's being done. Whether I can do it *better* is why I came here - and you have all been quite helpful so far. Versions of "Your idea is stupid and wrong (and here's why)" - well, that's commonplace and easy to find. What's *uncommon* is, "Ok, I see what you're trying to do here. Maybe I can help you do it better." That's why I'm here, while my 9 yr old nephew is hanging on my shoulder begging me to play the new Minecraft map he made. Think of things from a first person point of view. I'm looking out to the world. I am the point of a triangle where they meet. I witness something happening as I travel by at a high rate of speed. Is it not unreasonable for the Doppler effect to be described by a triangle connecting you, the reference frame and the object you're looking at, as the triangle skews? I'm not looking for perfection (one of the points of the leaky triangle idea is that a perfect model *is* impossible) - just a reasonable approximation using the least amount of features to describe a system without words while being accurate to their interactions as best as possible. The system isn't just for physics. It's for describing human interactions - how misinterpretatons form... how to handle bullying. How to learn new things - how to not forget. How to solve problems when you don't have enough information, etc. It's a learning system. Physics is a part of it, not the entirety of it.

It helps because I believe that a lot of our teaching methods are oversimplified. The oversimplification gets carried forward from schooling through to adult life and affects decision-making that can ruin lives. One example: Heredity. In schools, they still tend to teach the idea that four grandparents with brown eyes can't have a grandchild with blue eyes. We know that that's not true, when you zoom into the level of RNA/DNA transcription. Anybody who has seen large families knows that's not true. Of course it's possible. But we still teach it because it's simple and lots of textbooks are written using it - based on the assumption that further refinements will come later. Unfortunately, such refinements don't always come. One of the litmus tests for custody in ... oh gosh is it Scotland - England? I don't remember where - involves social working looking at the color of the eyes as a metric to identify parentage. Long story short, children are taken away from parents based on systems put together based on very old science still taught in schools for simplification purposes, ignoring modern knowledge for the sake of expediency. No system is isolated. You all know far more physics than I do. I'm a lifelong Dr. Who fan, wrote my first paper on black holes in the 8th grade (before Hawking wrote his Brief History of Time - the year before it) - it still holds up against what I've read (I didn't have hawking radiation because I didn't know about it but I was describing gravitational effects using analogies as best my 12-13 year old mind could. But I got a D in Calculus. Anything beyond basic Trig, I simply don't process the math. I've tried. I wrote up a Life Simulator in Microsoft Excel and VBA translating code from an old paper into a useful format. But I can't do Calculus or comprehend mathematical formulas when I read them.. I'm also a musician who can barely read music but I can hear and play anything you throw at me, given 5 minutes of figuring out the chords and notes. I don't think like most people. Adding a near infinity of triangles is important to me for education purposes. If someone wants to know: "Ok what is happening here?" they can zoom in and find out. There's no reason calculus can't be learned conceptually at 7 years of age through the use of triangles, colors, movement and interaction, even without words or math - just interacting with a visual computer system.. That's my belief.

The triangles would be demonstrating the interactions, much like other analogies are used to describe interactions. In the past, gears have been used for example. A gear can be simplified to a collection of triangles. It's all basic computer graphics, my gosh. The forces being described are the leaks. They could be represented by lines or arrows - just as we do when we describe processes visually. Interactions that involve the observer simply be a triangle connecting the observer's vision as an angle in the triangle, connecting with the observed material or energy - which forms a triangular shape (a loop really but a loop can be represented by a triangle just as easily). but since it is not an isolated system (no system is isolated except perhaps for the universe as a whole) - the environment can interact with the loop or triangle that's formed; that's part of the leakiness. It's ok. I'll just use a basic javascript physics library to do the math. I explain very complicated things to children on a regular basis; part of what I do. They understand and branch off in their own directions creatively and come up with mental models of the way things work that's not limited to one particular worldview. The drama here is very similar to the drama I see working with kids and with women. I have a high level of patience with them, so I'm used to it. Ophiolite - a nice ragequit by the way I'm more into marketing, advertising, psychology, sociology and historical development of various systems over time, especially regarding fads and trends. Science and mathematics contain many systems equally influenced by fads, cliques, and current (rather than historically developed process) thinking as fangirls do with One Direction or boys with Minecraft. I'll do the best I can with what's available on the 'net for my project - taking into account all that you've said and further researching. I had hoped to find somebody who wouldn't over-react dramatically here, although I expected as such; its the norm for youtube commenters and most forums alike. I DON'T have the answers, but I'm developing a product or products. The more input I get, the more accurate it will be to reflect reality as best we understand it. and you've all helped. Thanks!

The golf ball is drawn by a series of triangles, including the dimples. The air molecules drawn by spinning triangles, including their electron holes and electrons, also spinning. What you see, depends on the level of zoom you choose. The earth would be series of triangles built together until they form an ellipse. Forces we can measure but not see would be represented by a different color triangle than visible objects or measurable objects. Gravity would be represented by a different colored triangle *as if* it was visible, connected to the centers of mass (other triangles of the same color) within the Earth and the golf ball. Conceivably the moon and sun could also be included on a further out zoom. Time would be represented by a different colored triangle, "clicking" the system forward, step by step and the user would have control over Time, to witness each part of the process. The amount of each "step" in Time could also be controlled and linked mathematically to the other parts of the system. The magnitude of the effects would be represented by changes in triangle size or deformations of the triangles. All of the math would hidden from the user - all completely there, all completely accurate as much as is possible. And with a click, it could be revealed and described, or links provided for those who want to understand more of how the processes work.

Bignose, I wouldn't dream of eliminating math. It's completely necessary and works wonderful when you need to quantify (quanta, count) things. But let's say you want to describe processes - not for scientific purposes but rather for a basic level of comprehension. In other words, yes, tell a story. Even mathematics is telling a story, using numbers and algorythms bu it is still a story, with many constraints to facilitate mutual understanding, In other words, it is a language with a grammar. Would it be possible to tell the story of the Universe, or why people don't always understand each other using simple shapes? I believe at its most basic, interacting triangles can be used. But not perfect triangles - triangles whose angles open up with elastic sides that contort to form other triangles. So yes, it's for storytelling purposes; a descriptive language that is not comprehensive but which is as accurate as possible, for those who will never delve into the worlds of higher mathematics; perhaps those for whom basic Algebra proves to be too much of a brain squeeze... but can understand moving triangles with music and sounds and words quietly appearing on the side if they wish to research further.