Proposal: ASD and ToE

[tylers100]

Introduction

The ASD is an acronym for Adaptive Semi-Determinism, which will be defined and explained starting on next section. I made threads or topics regarding the ASD thing on other sites in past, but nearly have forgotten all about it until today.

The reason for this topic is that I noticed there is no concrete case (eg. Being complete) of unified theory of everything (ToE) of everything to define and explain everything or even each individual sentient being for that matter due to qualia or freewill.

For any action such as an act of smoking a cigarette overrides the logic reasoning, thus existence of freewill. Yet, we can be influenced by our genes effected by consumable food, drink, communication, environment, history, belief, etc – thus freewill is in question. The existence of contradiction between these two things, but how do both mutually work out apart from each other and / or even altogether as demonstrated on daily basis? The answer could be ASD.

 

ASD - Definition

ASD stands for Adaptive Semi-Determinism. It bridges both determinism and in-determinism concepts, to solve the duality problem or multi-concepts that are mutually incompatible with each other.

The ASD is a concept, a non-material structure and function. It is not there but “is there” when things meet or have a form of relationship with each other. It “solves” and / or “resolves” things as per situational dependent, making these “appropriated” as these are (eg. particle/wave duality).

 

ASD – “Mechanism”

Law: Adaptive semi-determine between a and b or more toward equilibrium.

When either a or b or more is less or greater than the sum of both or more, a change undergo between both or more until equilibrium is reached.

Since if the ASD is true then that means some things while asding can be perceived to be good, bad, or neutral as situational dependent.

 

ASD – Reason why behind ASD “Mechanism”

Primary answer: Coherent actualization.

 

ASD – Examples

Equalizer. Differentiation. Equilibrium of human body, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

 

How can ASD be useful (eg. Being applicable)?

Snipped quote from ToE wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

“To resolve the incompatibility, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of general relativity and quantum mechanics into a seamless whole: the TOE is a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.”

A further understanding of ASD could potentially solve / resolve the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics, not just that but also could be useful in other fields such as philosophy, psychology, etc.

 

Other Thoughts

The ASD just seems to make sense at least to me.  I just thought I’d share it because it might be helpful, if not then its better than nothing.

[Strange]

You appear to have described what your "ASD" is like, but not actually said what it is.

How is it useful? Can you use it to calculate known results in general relativity and quantum theory? You haven't shown any mathematics. If you can't do that, then it isn't a theory of anything, and certainly not a theory of everything.

 

[swansont]

You appear to be mixing science and philosophy. 

[tylers100]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You appear to have described what your "ASD" is like, but not actually said what it is.

How is it useful? Can you use it to calculate known results in general relativity and quantum theory? You haven't shown any mathematics. If you can't do that, then it isn't a theory of anything, and certainly not a theory of everything.

 

I think it is the "ghost mechanism" with much needed name of it own (I used ASD as starting point), the mechanism responsible for the.. say, coherence or framework of reality. It is still kind of bit difficult to say what it is exactly is, but somehow my mind "see" it.

You are talking mathematics. The ASD proposal is still at abstract or philosophical concept stage, a starting point that perhaps there might will be mathematics formed to define and explain it. However, I'm no scientist or mathematician - I'm just posting the ASD thing so maybe you or someone might could understand what I am talking about and maybe come up with math proof of its existence or something like that. I said ASD could be understood better and used as application to understand both general relativity and quantum theory.

I don't really know details behind both GRT and QT and still don't. But.. my mind 'see' ASD as a way of bridging between both and potentially much more for some reason.

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

You appear to be mixing science and philosophy. 

Without philosophy as root, no science.

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Without philosophy as root, no science.

Then this philosophy already must exist, since science exists. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

The ASD proposal is still at abstract or philosophical concept stage, a starting point that perhaps there might will be mathematics formed to define and explain it. However, I'm no scientist or mathematician - I'm just posting the ASD thing so maybe you or someone might could understand what I am talking about and maybe come up with math proof of its existence or something like that. I said ASD could be understood better and used as application to understand both general relativity and quantum theory.

I don't really know details behind both GRT and QT and still don't.

Then you have absolutely no reason for claiming that this vague half-formed thought can combine two deeply mathematical theories that you don't understand.

I can't see any point to this thread.

[tylers100]

On 4/7/2020 at 6:25 PM, Strange said:

Then you have absolutely no reason for claiming that this vague half-formed thought can combine two deeply mathematical theories that you don't understand.

I can't see any point to this thread.

Ok, I will put ToE (and GR / QT) aside for now, and talk about just ASD on this post.

Expansion of Elaboration on ASD “Mechanism”:

1 - “Adaptive semi-determine between a and b or more toward equilibrium.”

and:

2 - “When either a or b or more is less or greater than the sum of both or more, a change undergo between both or more until equilibrium is reached.”

I said ASD is the ghost mechanism. Because it is not there as a separated entity but “is there” when things meet or have a form of relationship with each other. When there is no any form of relationship in existence (eg. Between / in-between sub-atomic particles), then no universe (no relativity, no relation, no relative, etc).

So, I guess.. to understand ASD better, is to understand the nature of relationship and its forms (including terminologies such as relativity, relation, relative, etc).

The learning process (from gradual slow to fast or vice versa) is a perfect example of ASD relationship at work: How do one experience and acquire knowledge? One must have something external outside of himself / herself / itself such as an universe, to experience what it is like and what to do with it. One and universe, a form of relationship. Without universe, how does one know anything when there is nothing or zero example to set forth for one to gain an experience and understand?

Law example in use: Adaptive semi-determine between experience (a) and understanding (b) toward knowledge (equilibrium).

I interpret equilibrium as not just a state of balanced system between two or more, but also as end-result product (a coherent or defined shape and form of something). This statement could means ASD is occurring itself (create / form / deform / decay / etc).

I’m not fully sure, but the ASD could be the mechanism behind all fundamental interactions. Because rest of fundamental interactions are essentially relationships between (eg. Atoms, sub-particles, planets, solar systems, etc) and ASD seems to be the natural definition of relationship of all, at least how I see it.

With the above on mind, one have to remember it is situational dependent. While everything seemingly is asding, some things can be good or bad or neutral depending on situational dependent.

3 - “Since if the ASD is true then that means some things while asding can be perceived to be good, bad, or neutral as situational dependent.”

A few examples as follow:

Good:

• Positive Learning Process
• Clean and Safe Environment
• Natural Healthy Human Body

Bad:

• Virus
• Cancer
• Sickness

Neutral:

• Not on a side
• On fence between sides
• Perceivable as no apparent form of relationship between something and another something

The ASD is based on an inference made by myself, from some patterns in everyday life. I’m just pointing it out and while it is true I talked at lengthy about it now and in past, but that still don’t mean I fully know it. There could be much more experience and understanding needed to actualize knowledge about it.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, tylers100 said:

Expansion of Elaboration on ASD “Mechanism”:

1 - “Adaptive semi-determine between a and b or more toward equilibrium.”

and:

2 - “When either a or b or more is less or greater than the sum of both or more, a change undergo between both or more until equilibrium is reached.”

These sound like the basic ides of thermodynamics, which do drive a lot of interactions in the world. But with the advantage that they are quantified (ie. mathematical laws) so they are useful. 

Your ASD concept sounds a bit too vague to be useful, to me.

[swansont]

Plus good and bad are subjective. Making them situationally dependent sound a lot like having the ability to define them so that your premise works, no matter what.

 

 

[tylers100]

What I think ASD is

An adaptive system.

It is starting to look as if the ASD is a concept used to describe an adaptive system, for to deal with objects and their various types of relationships (including interactions) between each other in an adaptive way. Its mechanism is always toward equilibrium via averaged out or cancelling effect aka change itself, quoting:

“When either a or b or more is less or greater than the sum of both or more, a change undergo between both or more until equilibrium is reached.”

The ‘change’ function of an adaptive system, quoting: “... This statement could means ASD is occurring itself (create / form / deform / decay / etc). The ‘change’ function within ASD context describes creation, formation, deformation, decay, etc - the transition or transformation between.

How is ASD useful?

Maybe ASD could be useful in a further improvement and / or understanding of an energy mechanism, formation and decaying of matter, the transition between phases of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma), and decision or choice making in either philosophy or psychology field, and evolution in biology.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

What I think ASD is

You are not really engaging in a discussion here. I was trying to be helpful and provoke discussion by pointing out that this sounds like the basic concepts of thermodynamics (eg. heat will flow from a hotter to a cooler body, leading to equilibrium).

This also leads to things settling into a minimum energy configuration, which is why planets orbit stars and water flows downhill to the sea.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, tylers100 said:

“When either a or b or more is less or greater than the sum of both or more, a change undergo between both or more until equilibrium is reached.”

What does this even mean? What are a and b? States of a system, or two objects/systems? What does “Or more” refer to? 

[tylers100]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

You are not really engaging in a discussion here. I was trying to be helpful and provoke discussion by pointing out that this sounds like the basic concepts of thermodynamics (eg. heat will flow from a hotter to a cooler body, leading to equilibrium).

This also leads to things settling into a minimum energy configuration, which is why planets orbit stars and water flows downhill to the sea.

Maybe does look alike.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What does this even mean? What are a and b? States of a system, or two objects/systems? What does “Or more” refer to? 

Generally speaking, A and b refer to any object and potentially any system too. 'Or more' refers to more objects or potentially systems too.

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Generally speaking, A and b refer to any object and potentially any system too. 'Or more' refers to more objects or potentially systems too.

So I have an atom, whose mass is less than the sum of its parts (individual neutrons, protons, electrons). You say this atom will change until equilibrium is reached?

[tylers100]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

So I have an atom, whose mass is less than the sum of its parts (individual neutrons, protons, electrons). You say this atom will change until equilibrium is reached?

If ASD is true, then yes. It must, there is no else way. The action of reaching an equilibrium seems to be the strict law (coherent reason), this means the atom must will undergo change (eg. Possible outcomes such as creation, formation, deformation, decay, etc as situational dependent) in the reaching process toward an equilibrium.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, tylers100 said:

If ASD is true, then yes. It must, there is no else way. The action of reaching an equilibrium seems to be the strict law (coherent reason), this means the atom must will undergo change (eg. Possible outcomes such as creation, formation, deformation, decay, etc as situational dependent) in the reaching process toward an equilibrium.

But atoms reduce mass to form a stable state. ADS is wrong.

[tylers100]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

But atoms reduce mass to form a stable state. ADS is wrong.

A stable state could mean atoms reached equilibrium. Equilibrium = stable.

Reduce and form = forms of change.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, tylers100 said:

A stable state could mean atoms reached equilibrium. Equilibrium = stable.

Reduce and form = forms of change.

You are just defining what "equilibrium" means: a stable state. Obviously if things are not in equilibrium then they will tend to move towards an equilibrium state. The difficult bit (that you have skipped) is tho explain why.

You can't tell us which atoms are going to be stable and which aren't, can you? (Except by a circular argument that only those that are not in equilibrium are not stable.)

So you don't have a theory, you just have a statement of what happens. A post hoc description.

[tylers100]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are just defining what "equilibrium" means: a stable state. Obviously if things are not in equilibrium then they will tend to move towards an equilibrium state. The difficult bit (that you have skipped) is tho explain why.

You can't tell us which atoms are going to be stable and which aren't, can you? (Except by a circular argument that only those that are not in equilibrium are not stable.)

So you don't have a theory, you just have a statement of what happens. A post hoc description.

Skipped? I didn't. In fact, I already stated why:

quote 1:

"ASD – Reason why behind ASD "Mechanism"

Primary answer: Coherent actualization."

quote 2:

"I think it is the "ghost mechanism" with much needed name of it own (I used ASD as starting point), the mechanism responsible for the.. say, coherence or framework of reality. It is still kind of bit difficult to say what it is exactly is, but somehow my mind "see" it."

quote 3:

"If ASD is true, then yes. It must, there is no else way. The action of reaching an equilibrium seems to be the strict law (coherent reason), this means the atom must will undergo change (eg. Possible outcomes such as creation, formation, deformation, decay, etc as situational dependent) in the reaching process toward an equilibrium."

 

Other comment:

Coherent actualization seems to be best answer I can could come up with, but there could be some more research and understanding needed to address it.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, tylers100 said:

ASD – Reason why behind ASD "Mechanism"

Primary answer: Coherent actualization."

If that is a mechanism, show how you would use it to tell us which isotopes of atoms are stable and which are not.

2 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

quote 2:

"I think it is the "ghost mechanism" with much needed name of it own (I used ASD as starting point), the mechanism responsible for the.. say, coherence or framework of reality. It is still kind of bit difficult to say what it is exactly is, but somehow my mind "see" it."

In other words, there is a mechanism but you can't describe it because it is just a vague feeling at the back of your mind.

2 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

quote 3:

"If ASD is true, then yes. It must, there is no else way. The action of reaching an equilibrium seems to be the strict law (coherent reason), this means the atom must will undergo change (eg. Possible outcomes such as creation, formation, deformation, decay, etc as situational dependent) in the reaching process toward an equilibrium."

Again, just a description of what happens: if things are not in equilibrium, they will move towards equilibrium. We know that. That is why the word "equilibrium" exists.

4 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Coherent actualization seems to be best answer I can could come up with

But it is meaningless. And, more importantly, useless.

Unless you can show a specific example of how "coherent actualisation" can be used to define what the equilibrium state of a system is, or which systems are in equilibrium and which are not.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, tylers100 said:

A stable state could mean atoms reached equilibrium. Equilibrium = stable.

Reduce and form = forms of change.

But we have a condition you have defined as not in equilibrium. A system being less than the sum of its parts.

[tylers100]

On 4/11/2020 at 5:41 AM, Strange said:

If that is a mechanism, show how you would use it to tell us which isotopes of atoms are stable and which are not.

In other words, there is a mechanism but you can't describe it because it is just a vague feeling at the back of your mind.

Again, just a description of what happens: if things are not in equilibrium, they will move towards equilibrium. We know that. That is why the word "equilibrium" exists.

But it is meaningless. And, more importantly, useless.

Unless you can show a specific example of how "coherent actualisation" can be used to define what the equilibrium state of a system is, or which systems are in equilibrium and which are not.

Coherent actualization = makes real and sustained, or sustainability.

By knowing that things tend to move toward equilibrium because of coherent actualization as potential reason why, we could use that to indicate which object(s) and / or system(s) that are in a process (forming, bonding, decaying, etc) toward equilibrium or at equilibrium (coherence or sustainability).

An example:

Heat flows from a hotter to a colder body as long there is a type of relationship being maintained between both [in a progression or "change"], once completed then both are at equilibrium (coherence or sustainability).

Understanding sustainability is the key word.

23 hours ago, swansont said:

But we have a condition you have defined as not in equilibrium. A system being less than the sum of its parts.

Take away a leg (an attribute) from a human being (atom). What do you think will happen?

Or

Give a superpower (an attribute) to a human being (atom). What do you think will happen?

Additional definitions:

Less or greater = a quantifiable value or visual / spatial measurement of an attribute, object, or system that is comparable to be less or greater than the sum of both or its parts.

Sum of both (or sum of its parts) = An equalize between.

Change = Any form of action or process.

Level of Speed in Change = From slowest to fastest or instantaneous, or vice versa depending on situation.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, tylers100 said:

 

Take away a leg (an attribute) from a human being (atom). What do you think will happen?

Or

Give a superpower (an attribute) to a human being (atom). What do you think will happen?

Additional definitions:

Less or greater = a quantifiable value or visual / spatial measurement of an attribute, object, or system that is comparable to be less or greater than the sum of both or its parts.

Sum of both (or sum of its parts) = An equalize between.

Change = Any form of action or process.

Level of Speed in Change = From slowest to fastest or instantaneous, or vice versa depending on situation.

Coming up with examples where your hypothesis works doesn’t cover up for cases where it doesn’t

[tylers100]

On 4/12/2020 at 10:37 AM, swansont said:

Coming up with examples where your hypothesis works doesn’t cover up for cases where it doesn’t

If ASD doesn’t, then maybe could it be used as a conceptual tool to understand any varying degree or type of relationship between objects/systems and another or other objects/systems in terms of real time and situational dependent?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, tylers100 said:

If ASD doesn’t, then maybe could it be used as a conceptual tool to understand any varying degree or type of relationship between objects/systems and another or other objects/systems in terms of real time and situational dependent?

Of what use is it as a conceptual tool, if it doesn't work? How do you assess whether or not the idea applies to a specific situation? You need an objective way of determining this.