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.

You're right, Ophioite. I'm a visitor to your playground; a single thread, no introduction, completely rude of me. Social grace was never one of my strong points, even online Thanks again for the tips. -Ken

Here. I'll give an example of the leaky triangle as analogizing: When we describe systems for purposes of education, many times things are reduced from three dimensions to two dimensions. They are drawn on a piece of paper or a computer screen. Our brains do not handle 3D very well; mentally rotating objects in 3D space in the mind over Time, for example, is a skill that people have to different degrees (somewhat built-in, somewhat learned - I don't see a nature/nurture distinction but they're complementary). So, we eliminate a dimension to explain things more easily. Information is lost in the process but its considered acceptable. You have a point. (the "point" is a leaky triangle and can be described further but I'll leave it out for the moment) You have a moment. (a "fixed point" in Time, another leaky triangle that is not static but I'll leave it out for the moment) You have magnitude - scalar - the scale - two vectors intersecting on a reference frame, forming an angle. You have a Force, which has magnitude and direction. Direction, which is the relationship between a point on a reference frame and another point, often representating the center of inertial mass - and how it has changed from one point in time to another (or two states) Inertial mass: Where things get wonky. Inertia: a body's resistance to change. Easy enough on Earth - Easily enough for situations on Earth where the air doesn't move much and the object does most of the moving. You've got the relationship of mass to gravity to velocity on a reference frame over time (usually a rate - a fixed measurement of state change using a standardized reference frame for Time) But then... what's inertia? What's mass? What's gravity? What is the true difference between gravity and acceleration? What's a point? What's Time? What can be used as a steady set of coordinates? - what's the 'fixed point?" to attach these things to? We can safely make a lot of assumptions because things tend to behave, in general, as Newton set them out. Certainly enough to get us to the moon -- but not enough to coordinate the effect of gravity to Time when trying to synchronize GPS satelittes to GPS receivers in relationship to the electron jumping within a cesium atom. But Newton made a distinction within Inertia between acting from within and acting from without - ie - what is the source of the change? He had it as an innate quality, "built-in" - an impetus - whereas now we tend to think of think of it as a thing that happens. Einstein had to reformulate all of space, time and gravity to reconcile Special Relativity to include acceleration of reference frames or coordinate systems. A deforming coordinate system - bending the paper we draw on - was quite a stroke of genius and seemingly obvious once it was done (at least conceptually - I wouldn't dare to attempt the math of Tensors or beyond but I can certainly picture it in my mind via elasticity of forms) I'm not claiming to have answers to any of these things. But I think a lot of these concepts can be described, in two dimensions over time, through the use of triangles leaking out their forces to other triangles and showing their interactions on animations and such, combined with descriptions, building one upon another until quite complicated phenomenon can be described at different scales. I'm sure I'm riddled with holes here. This is all top-of-the-head; I'm not used to talking about these things I only think about - I didn't check my facts here. That's why I need help with some who understand what I'm trying to get at here and can help interpret what I'm trying to accomplish with the necessary corrections for accuracy's sake. thanks for taking the time to read this. ah Roads to Reality - I looked at a description of it: Yes, yes, that does seem right up my alley. Thank you.

Thank you Ophiolite. for your time in responding. Yes, it's active leaks - extraordinarily active leaks. For a metaphor, triangles and leaks are certainly quite weak - terrible in fact. I paraded my ignorance in the place where I expected to find the most intelligent group of people I could think of: I chose the most active science forum on the 'net. I expected to get quick responses by people who could quickly point out my flaws accurately and decisively and was not disappointed. A two day turnaround. You listened and responded and dismissed me but not before responding. You were each more helpful than you may realize. Thank you - I'll give you each credit when the time comes. (by forum and username but I won't quote anybody - what you helped me do is give me an intelligent wall to bounce my ideas off of and helped me clarify my own thought processes, as I had reached an impasse). One thing about the world of writing: you don't have to be completely right to get published and sell books I'm sure I'll find my science consultants somewhere but you have each helped quite a lot. Thanks! Kenneth Udut - oh, I exposed about 700 of my hard to read notes on http://kennethudut.com 'til I got bored of scanning a few months back. Completely illegible and total nonsense but life is too short to have to be completely precise before acting. Thanks again guys/gals. Oh I'm going to research further, based on your responses. Mordred. That's why I said that you've been more helpful than you know. It's going to take a lot more research on my part: I came to what I perceived as experts - and none of you disappointed me. Each of the ideas you each presented, I'm going to research carefully and perhaps come back in a few weeks or months when I get some better understandings and more ideas - ones more intelligent than the ones I presented so far. Thank you again - I have a lot of work ahead of me. Re: I am a strange loop. Yes - the conclusion I came up with how the "I" works is best summarized in http://www.cognitivedesignsolutions.com/images/Learning_double-loop2.png I've seen this darn pattern in so many systems (and in so many patents!!) and across different fields of knowledge,, I figured it's got to be right. Also, yes - degrees of freedom is a big part of my thinking as well. I just started writing my incoherent notes down on that site two days ago; hardly started yet. http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2006-09/msg02000.html is a more complete thought I wrote out about 8 years ago; the system of systems site is currently babble because its train of thought and none of the "how I got there" is incorporated yet. Plus I have a lot of research to do (oh nvm that old usenet article - my thinking was so basic 8 yrs ago - hah, it still is) Anyway, thanks again; hopefully I'll be able to come back in a few months with strong revisions or a complete overhaul that can better pass the firing line of educated opinion

Thank you, Mordred. I shall - no sarcasm intended. The "us" "not us" way of thinking has been found even in the behaviors of bacteria. They don't act until there is a high enough density of their own - comparing chemical signals from their own kind, to a shorter, more general "I am bacteria" signal. Then they act. As an isolated prokaryotic evolved to human form, I've got no "us" group. The rest of the world is smarter than me in their own fields and the little I'm able to comprehend of this vast experience of being human, is a constant challenge to express to the world outside. I'm only 133 IQ and while I got 99.9% on most standardized testing (Math, most of English), the areas related to "context" (or "what is the authors intentions") I'd always get 60% or so. I genuinely *don't* think like most people. I ask questions most would think are stupid, "What if everybody was right about everything? What would have to change in our perceptions of reality?"; yet, I find philosophy droll. Linguistics fit more closely, Chomsky a personal hero yet the allure of the predictability of future events given by Physics always makes it intriguing. But then I ask questions. "Is our perception of Time correct?" and the deeper I dig, the more I find we depend upon a deterministic view of Time - our very clocks synchronized to a Cesium atom who was calibrated by observations of the moon while they used Ephemeris Time for a short while. Yet all clocks are wrong. Time is relative but we use it as if it is deterministic. I appreciate the Time you have each given to me, but I understand that this is your playground and I'm on your equipment. I'm honestly hoping for help in fleshing out my ideas; I need people with experience and inelligence in areas that I lack But I know it will be difficult to find those with both the knowledge and the interest in trying to understand what I'm getting at at the core.

Yes, thank you. You are all giving me good examples of leaky triangles. I'm not trying to contradict what's already been done and what continues to be done. I find the history of different approaches to truth to be interesting. Each of these systems are necessarily imperfect. They are attempts at "the perfect triangle" - the self-enclosed system that needs nothing from the outside and all facts within this triangle are all that are necessary for completeness. I'm aware of the search for the ToE in physics. I think it is a fantastic effort and great strides are made with each generation of Theoretical Physicists. But it rests on an assumption that many great systems of thought, such as Physics rests upon: That it is possible, with any ONE system, to explain Everything. Let's say the best ToE possible is revealed. Every known interaction accounted for. Let's even assume we end up living in a deterministic Universe and our computers have the power and agility to wade through the calculations and predict the exact Weather 175 years from now. Then it should know my next thought in 24 hours time. Thinking is a physical process. It should be possible to do so. But will it? It may come up with best guesses, approximations, but at the moment, even to say "These are the 7 most likely things that Kenneth Udut will be thinking about tomorrow at 12:10am, 24 hours from now"... at the moment, the idea of being able to predict human thought with such accuracy is but a pipe dream. Yet we do it all of the time in "real life". Witness the typical gossiping done by regular people all of the time. They're always trying to figure out what someone is thinking or will do in the future - absolutely certain of their answers and usually wrong (unless the person they're gossiping about tends to follow VERY habitual patterns of behavior) Physics has some of the answers but not all of them. A prediction system that can't get you a date on a Saturday night is a system with VERY limited scope indeed. It's useful for what it's useful for. I'm not mocking physics - it gets more and more precise with fewer errors, better accuracy and some of the creative work in making subatomic computing a reality is quite impressive. It's easy to describe things far away from our experience. But the closer to home we get, the harder it becomes. We can't accurately predict the location of the moon in two month's time - we can only approximate. The most accurate lunar and solar calendars involve OBSERVATION rather than mathematical PREDICTION of the locations. But eventually, I imagine we'll get there and be able to predict the position of the moon or sun with enough accuracy to get their true locations at some point in the future. The point of the leaky triangle is just that: reasonable approximations of predicting the future or even of describing past events IS the best we can do. The systems with the greatest complexity in prediction have an amazingly complicated amount of code involved. The systems used to predict the weather - millions of line of code, most of it in FORTRAN because that was the current language used when they started programming computers to predict the weather... it constantly GROWS as new constraints are found for the system. And it's a marveous feat. Imagine the weather predicting system as a triangle - a complete "something". The leak is the difference between observation and prediction. Each line of code is an effort to plug the leak, to make the perfect triangle. 1. Natural selection. 2. Fractional crystallisation. 3. Planetary accretion processes. They are each great examples of leaky triangles. Natural Selection: I don't claim to understand what favors one particular mutation over another. But the leaky triangle comes into play in that there ARE mutations - transcription errors... some say cosmic rays, others use other environmental clues, and some consider it simply a part of the not fully predictable behavior on a quantum scale. I honestly have no idea which best describes the systems as a whole. But the processes are not enclosed processes. They are affected by the environment in SOME fashion. There are leaks. Whether they come from the outside or inside or sideways - an example of sideways would be deviations in, I dont know, the timing of RNA polymerase adding the complementary RNA nucleotides? It's a process that takes place over Time and unexpected things can happen within any process that is not instantaneous. Fractional crystallisation: The area the process takes place in would be the triangle, the temperature changes would be the leak in the triangle. Each of the molecules are not enclosed - they are affected by their environment they find themselves in and exhibit different behaviors when they have different shapes, at different energy levels and what they find themselves next to. Electron meets electron hole that's of a compatible configuration, negative meets positive and they connect like Lego blocks. Or two triangles - the hole of one is just the right size for the body of the other to fit inside of and they connect. The triangle is an analogy for a "bucket" shape. (I'm not talking about Newton's buckets") - how a bucket can fit inside of a bucket one way, but the other way it does not. Perhaps incompeted triangle would be better than leaky Oversimplification? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Probably. Planetary accretion processes. I like the electrostatic --> large enough chunks where gravity can take over model, and gravitation instabilities lead to some parts breakng off, others clumping together. If < is a leaky triangle (see the whole back end of it is leaking its inside and can be influenced and influence its environment) then a negative and positive charge would be << - the point meets the open end of the triangle. Two positive charges would be >< two negative charges would be <> Things work one way at one scale but work differently at different scales. But I believe they're all the interaction of shapes - whether the shapes be wavelengths or the shapes formed in Spacetime as the Universe continues to expand, affecting Gravity. I see the shapes in spacetime formed by mass and experienced as gravity formed by mass as triangular dents in spacetime - and again, leaky. They affect things that pass by and are affected by things that pass by. I can't do math. I can't draw. I can't form a logical argument. But I do see in pictures and visualize processes. Explaining what I see in my mind when I try to understand the nature of "how" and "what" isn't easy, because I think differently than most. I don't expect agreement. I expect to be seen as a kook. Religious people I talk to see me as an atheist scientist. Science people keep waiting for me to switch to a religious argument. But I'm neither scientific nor religious. I'm just a guy trying to piece together how things work, not in a perfect way but rather to show how the imperfections of our human understandings of things can both get in the way of progress and also propel us in new directions, as long as we remain aware of the prejudices of our thinking processes.

Acme - Leaky logic - thank you Two contradictory things, in the *real world* can be true and are often true, leading to a lot of confusion when we're taught from an early age that it's possible to eliminate contradictions with the right logical framework I have been greatly inspired by topology - my references are all here - and research into topology is a large portion of it. I *almost* thought I had found the answer in topology a few months back until I reached here: "The empty set is in ." And there it was. The leaky triangle in topology. It's not a flaw per se but that the foundations of each system has, at its base, a set of assumptions. Topology, which is a favorite pasttime - a professor of mine at college inspired interest in it with his obsessions with the Tourus and Fractals. We tend to avoid looking at the "paradoxes" - but the paradox at the heart of much study isn't the problem. It's the assumptions that creates the idea of a paradox that might be the issue. What is the nature of a paradox? Quite simply, from my perspective, the point where the system of assumptions being used breaks down and no longer works. Therefore, there may be greater rule that governs it. I do enjoy topology.

My summary of responses: Hoola - "Triangles? Summary" Ophiolite + ajb - "Summary" Strange: "Everything Leaks", Summary Mordred: My point about black holes is that they don't have perfect boundaries. They leak. In your correction, you restated it in more specific terms and I appreciate that. You also provide some excellent launching points and I appreciate those as well. You took the time to read it and understand it and gave a detailed response. My response to the responses: I believe there is a basic flaw in assumptions that is hidden underneath a lot of how we tend to approach knowledge. I'm not saying it's "wrong" but rather incomplete. We bump our heads into it over and over again. it's the idea of perfection. In science (which is primarily mathematical in this point in history, due to the great successes of matching physics and mathematics), there is a search for a greater decimal point or a more accurate pattern prediction method. In religion, there is usually a perfect "something" called God, or some place you go after you die, or some state of mind you can achieve with the right training and practice. In Business - specifically mass production, methods such as the Six Sigma is a very useful method of maximizing the elimination of errors using some of the best statistical methods available - a very profitable use of statistics for companies like GM and such (although it rests on a lot of surveys and assumes that people are numbers and don't lie, which is part of its flaw) All of these things are wonderful and these systems are often so involved and complicated - and, well, they mostly WORK quite well for what they're for. But the problem can be best summed up using Engineering as an analogy: In Engineering, blueprints are drawn up in some form (or code), describing a perfected system, often with extreme mathematical precision. On paper, computer models, all of these things work seemingly flawlessly. But then comes the time to bring it into the real world. The real world looks SIMILAR to the best of models of reality that we can come up with, but they DON'T match up perfectly, As we improve, we put further and further constraints upon what we accept as errors but, like trying to find the most accurate Pi or obtaining a perfectly accurate square root of 2, there's always going to be one more decimal, or one more point of precision. These efforts will continue and they should continue. But I'm analogizing all of these things to triangles - as a triangle is the most basic shape representing the least amount of points that can make up a REALISTIC structure in the Universe but a triangle that leaks. A circle is a collection of infinite triangles and a circle can also be seen as a special ellipse with a single radius - that's why I don't use spheres - they're just fat triangles to me - or a collection of little triangles all smushed up together, side by side. What is a leak? Damn near anything. You have boundaries. How do we know one thing from another? Boundary. It has a lot of names. Not all boundaries are visible - they be theoretical or measured in other ways but they distinguish one thing from another. But there are always interactions between things on the surface of a boundary with whatever is on one side or another. It always leaks. It may leak in, it may leak out. It may leak side to side within itself, creating different pressures or making for weaker or stronger areas. But it always leaks. There is no perfect triangle, nevermind a perfect circle or sphere. They're theoretical - they are ideas - nice ideas, nice to work with but when the rubber meets the road, its only an approximation to reality. This doesn't take away from their usefulness. So, to answer Strange's very good question: "What's it for?" Prediction itself is flawed and always will be flawed. Every system anybody comes up with will leak, no matter how tight it is. It may be useful and practical but it will always be flawed. It is ALSO a very basic description of physics as an... analogizer? (i'm sure not a word) Trianges = nouns Leaks = verbs It should be possible to describe some of the most complicated systems - in non mathemtical terms - using a series of leaky triangles that have been given names. Quantum mechanics for four year olds, yet scientifically accurate, when the triangles and the leaks are substituted with whatever the popular terminology of the day happens to be. That's what its for. Thoughts? Oh I'm not discouraged at all. I wanted criticism and you have all come through with flying colors. I expect to be summarily dismissed too by some as well. Each response is helpful to me as it forces me to clarify furthur, not to end up with an "airtight argument" - I don't think that is possible. Today's airtight argument is tomorrows folly. But it helps me through a series of successive approximations, come a little closer to presenting my ideas in a form with the flavor and texture that you're more accustomed to. I know I sound like gibberish now - but I don't want to always. I'm working to improve.

I'll reply to each in kind but first I wanted to say thank you to all who have responded so far. To those who have taken a moment either ask for a summary or clarification or who have broken it down into pieces, wihch is all on this thread, I appreciate it. I'm accustomed to, "Wow, you sure are smart Ken!" when I make posts in various places (G+, FB, Vine, wherever) because I have a habit of getting thousands of followers on networks. But I only ever get one or two critcal thinkers on each network who really take the time to do much more than a "wow, you sure are smarter than me!". Great for the ego, terrible for honing analytical skills. That's why I brought it here. I expose my unreferenced, first draft, train-of-thought, unpolished thing to you all and I am grateful for the time spent so far. I'll be back in a few hours (after the insanity of real life settles down and the house goes to sleep) and begin then. Ken

Hi all. My name is Kenneth Udut. I'm 42 years old, been online since 1988 (started with BBS's and the beginnings of the 'net and never stopped. Otherwise, I'm nobody special). I started working on my own theory of everything - a systems of system of systems. Yet another middle aged guy trying to find the meaning of life I guess. Anyway, I started putting it together and I want people to poke holes in it. I don't know how to write scientifically but I do have all my references saved. I think I may have found a different way to view the nature of physics and such that's not mathematical or numerical but rather kind of geometrical: The Leaky Triangle. After a year of staying up 'til 5am of studying to finally crack this nut to my own satisfaction, I think I'm there and I just have to keep writing. But I want people to poke holes in it, ask questions, challenge the hell out of it. There's no math, just unedited stuff on a quick website I threw up to start collecting it. Thanks - it's http://system-of-systems.com - and it'll just take a couple of minutes. Appreciate it! -Ken, Naples, Florida USA