The Repelsion Theory of Reduction

[Popcorn Sutton]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzGPJ4-xoC1oajV0dDkxTUVFcXc/edit?usp=sharing

 

This paper covers my findings of how to acquire knowledge computationally and the implications it has on physics.

 

You can call it the bounce theory of reduction too if you want.

[John Cuthber]

I could call it a lot of things.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Non-mainstream concept, moved to Speculations.

[Popcorn Sutton]

In response to this theory, a colleague of mine came up with the "Bubbleic Theory of Solidification".

 

I think that you guys can draw inferences on the topic from the name. Post your thoughts if you have any insights please.

And I drew the inference that we can only postulate to the extent of a singularity because that is the furthest visible point in the draft of the impact.

[John Cuthber]

"I think that you guys can draw inferences on the topic from the name."

The inference I drew was that, at best, you chose a name that looked like you got the spelling wrong.

[Popcorn Sutton]

That is prescriptive, I can say and type whatever I want seemingly without limit. Chainackerdags. Hiyakichuckoniwa. I choned my wrygust yesterfey. Did I spell these things wrong?

 

Regardless, you're being fallacious.

 

The bubbleic theory can be falsified by taking a jug of water, putting a high speed camera in it to watch the bubbles, making something impact it hard enough to make bubbles, and watching if the bubbles act and look like the solid matter in our universe. I could be misinterpreting, but it does seem that solidification is a bubbleic process, and bubbles naturally go into a state of perfect efficiency. All I'm saying is that it seemed like it could have been a brilliant insight and that it was a natural consequence of my theory of repelsion.

 

Another way you can test the theory of repelsion is by slamming two solid objects together underwater as fast as possible and seeing if it creates more bubbles. That would be the equivalent to the solidification process in space as we know it (just a speculation, but falisifiable).

 

One implication of the bubbleic theory is that our planet is rising to the surface of the substance that surrounds it (or falling), and when it reaches the surface, it will "pop" (which is a consequence of repelsion, and hence, reducing the substance).

 

 

 

The theory may be better explained by the one who originated it, I'm just trying to show how it integrates with the repelsion theory of reduction.

[ACG52]

I could call it a lot of things.

 

Mainly short, 4 letter descriptions.

[John Cuthber]

That is prescriptive, I can say and type whatever I want seemingly without limit. Chainackerdags. Hiyakichuckoniwa. I choned my wrygust yesterfey. Did I spell these things wrong?

Nobody who read your document will have any doubt if your ability to make up words.

Ascribing a meaning to them seems to be your failing.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Repelsion is opposed to repulsion because repulsion prompts repulsive which has a correlation with ugly.

 

All this talk doesnt matter though unless you want to talk linguistics. What I originally intended was to give the physicists an idea of whats probably happening (if they haven't already thought about it)

[John Cuthber]

Still making up words then?

 

"What I originally intended was to give the physicists an idea of whats probably happening (if they haven't already thought about it)"

Feel free to try.

However, if I know physicists (and scientists in general) they won't be satisfied with something which (as you say in the first few lines) is only defined "in broad terms"- especially when, even that broad definition, doesn't actually say anything.

 

So, in very detailed terms (because this is science, and so we need proper definitions), exactly what do you mean by "point of interest"?

For example, whose interest do you mean and are you talking about a dimensionless point? If so then it's going to run into horrid problems with singularities when you show us the maths.

(you were going to show us the maths, weren't you?)

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't even know if any distinguishments can be made about anything. Categories are using language to tear nature apart at the joints, so when you refer to dimensions, it's essentially meaningless to me. They are the closest thing to empty voids. And the problem with singularities is one that can be equated to how far can you see. The draft of a massive moving object eventually fills with the material surrounding it, and that is why we conceive a singularity, because, if nature were absolutely, in every sense, optimal, then a very logical conclusion to make while looking into the draft of the object is that there is a singularity. But beyond the singularities, there is more substance that converges at that point, it just may not be visible.

 

More to say, thanks for the interest, but I will need a few moments to think

 

The singularity is the point at which the computations take place, it is technically the mind, time, and gravity all in one.

 

And that is the point of interest

[John Cuthber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

[Popcorn Sutton]

Lol

 

Have you guys ever heard of dodecahedrons? Is it not conceivable that that would happen in space with bubbles? It has been done before

Edited February 12, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[elfmotat]

"Bubbleic Theory of Solidification"

 

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't expect anything less from the forums lol

[ACG52]

I don't expect anything less from the forums lol

 

We're coming to expect nothing from you, and that's what we're getting.

[imatfaal]

Lol

 

Have you guys ever heard of dodecahedrons? Is it not conceivable that that would happen in space with bubbles? It has been done before

 

Dodecahedrons - yep heard of those (if you look carefully at my avatar picture you will make one out - hint join the points). And what is it that is conceivable? That dodechedrons would happen? - that doesn't even make sense; from the most prosaic point of view dodecahedrons don't even fill space. Bubbles will form a face-centred cubic or hexagonal close packing at a guess - or more likely a mess

 

And yes it has been done before - Plato talked about the dodecahedron being the model for the universe and zodiac; but frankly he should have stuck to the philosophy. We no longer base science on what sounds right, or what appeals to the intellect; it is founded on what models and explains nature and observations. Funnily there is a more modern model of the universe as a dodecahedral space in which each face corresponds and continues its opposite space (with a 360/5 twist).

 

So what is the observation that we cannot currently explain completely and correctly that founds your ideas - what gaps in knowledge do you propose to fill?

[Popcorn Sutton]

It is exactly the gaps itself that I hope to fill. We all know about black holes. I might be able to explain them in folk science because I am no expert, and I hope that that is where you guys can help. It is inconceivable that our universe is a dodecahedron, because if that was the case, the circular motion of the planets would be more of an entropic like motion (unless it is maximally entropic in which there would be no motion). My point is that the only conceivable way of describing the motion and solidification of matter is by closing the gap in the mind body problem.

 

A unit of knowledge exists physically.

It equates to any sequence of occurrences (but the mousy important unit is the one that doesn't have any sequence within it, because that is where the interest is).

Time is a collection of knowledge and meaning is equal to the probability of the next unit (which diminishes as it acquires more meaning until the addition of any more units is inconceivable because they don't exist within our knowledge).

 

In any case, here is the equation.

 

u = y(o)

t = y(u)

m = P(u|t)

 

u = unit of knowledge

t = time

m = meaning (or the motion of knowledge between points of interest).

 

The point of interest is anything contained within the sequence until reaching the singularity, where then the point of interest becomes the previous point of interest (minus the last reducible unit).

 

It's essentially one big impact. I'll show you guys what happens linguistically with my code later and maybe you can draw some inferences.

 

There is also a reverberation effect that I would like to explain too.

 

But I started by saying I want to fill the gaps themselves (and that is what all matter is naturally doing, trying to solidify it).

 

An example of these linguistic gaps is this.

 

Have you taken chimonics yet?

Have I?

Yea.

No.

 

In order to understand the flow here, there are gaps that refer. Here is essentially what is happening.

 

Have you taken chimonics yet?

Have I [taken chimonics yet]?

Yea [have you]?

No [i haven't].

[imatfaal]

It is exactly the gaps itself that I hope to fill. We all know about black holes. I might be able to explain them in folk science because I am no expert, and I hope that that is where you guys can help.

But we don't start with a theory and then find the application - we start with anomalous observations and hypothesise from there.

 

It is inconceivable that our universe is a dodecahedron, because if that was the case, the circular motion of the planets would be more of an entropic like motion (unless it is maximally entropic in which there would be no motion).

Tell that to these guys - and they know their onions,

My point is that the only conceivable way of describing the motion and solidification of matter is by closing the gap in the mind body problem.

What is the mind body problem - is this some form of dualism. And what stops an unreconstructed scientist who is completely oblivious to the fact that she has a mind body problem from theorising about gravity, dispersive radiation, and clumping?

 

A unit of knowledge exists physically.

 

Where? Who says? Show me a picture, a description, any evidence...

It equates to any sequence of occurrences (but the mousy important unit is the one that doesn't have any sequence within it, because that is where the interest is).

Why is the unit with no internal sequence the most important? Every time we have posited a substance or particle with no internal structure, that is indivisible we have been proved wrong so far.

Time is a collection of knowledge and meaning is equal to the probability of the next unit (which diminishes as it acquires more meaning until the addition of any more units is inconceivable because they don't exist within our knowledge).

 

In any case, here is the equation.

 

u = y(o)

t = y(u)

m = P(u|t)

 

u = unit of knowledge

t = time

m = meaning (or the motion of knowledge between points of interest).

what is o? and meaning is the probability of understanding given time? Other way around might make more sense. What is the function y()?

 

The point of interest is anything contained within the sequence until reaching the singularity, where then the point of interest becomes the previous point of interest (minus the last reducible unit).

 

It's essentially one big impact. I'll show you guys what happens linguistically with my code later and maybe you can draw some inferences.

Could you first link it - even tenuously - to a datum reality? Please.

 

There is also a reverberation effect that I would like to explain too.

 

But I started by saying I want to fill the gaps themselves (and that is what all matter is naturally doing, trying to solidify it).

 

An example of these linguistic gaps is this.

 

Have you taken chimonics yet?

Have I?

Yea.

No.

Is the gap the fact that the word Chimonics doesn't really mean anything?

In order to understand the flow here, there are gaps that refer. Here is essentially what is happening.

 

Have you taken chimonics yet?

Have I [taken chimonics yet]?

Yea [have you]?

No [i haven't].

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm using my phone so forgive me for not making quotations. First I'll explain the equation.

 

y = any positive integer including 0

o = any recognizable occurrence

 

In regards to a datum reality, imagine a large solid sphere impacting an even larger mass. There are two possibilities, one is that the object impacts the surface, causes a crater like event, and continues moving into the object, the other is that the object hits the surface and gets reduced to more general components. In any case, the object, when it continues through the surface, loses a bit of mass (like whatever dust is on the surface of the object). In terms of measurement, that bit of mass is the last reducible unit, and hence becomes part of the ppoi (previous point of interest). Now, in the wake of that object, the surrounding substances rush in to fill the wake (empty sequence), and in the process, travel with the draft. The singularity is not the precise point at which the computation took place, but it is the closest thing to it.

 

Dispersive radiation is probably an operation of reduction. The matter that radiates becomes so small that when it bounces off (or falls through) the point of interest, it continues to travel because nothing is in it's way. And this continues until the point of interest is solidified (which may never be the case. I think that the poi is a result of the wake, but in any event, life, and all matter, tends to move towards it, and as it does, the poi makes sense of it's surroundings [probably because of dispersive radiation resulting from the matter being sucked into the wake])

 

Knowledge comes to us through pressure fluctuations, which are all computations in themselves (as long as there is impact, there is computation). Hence, knowledge is any sequence of occurrences, and as the sequence travels through our brain, it gets segmented by the frequency of common sequences. The only way this segmentation can occur is by recognizing all sequences contained within the input and concatenating them (which is an interesting process in itself). In any case, for this process to take place, we need to assume the poi and the ppoi. And as long as the length of both of them combined is not equal to 0, then a computation is taking place.

 

As for why the empty sequence is the most important, without the empty sequence, nothing is able to take shape. As long as the sequence has a length, then computations are taking place, and in the process, the point of interest (the mind, a black hole, gravity) is making sense of its surroundings.

 

Why does the unit of knowledge physically exist? There is simply no conceivable way of forming grammatical output without it. The unit of knowledge could take many different forms, but as long as it contains a sequence fluctuating in density (stable or not), then it is a unit of knowledge.

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the other way around makes more sense (in regards to time and understanding).

 

With regards to the word chimonics, the point is that even if the term is vacuous, we assume its usage, which fills an empty unit with that phonological component.

 

Ok, in regards to the point at which there "is no structure", its not that the structure doesn't exist, its just that that point is being caved in on by the surrounding substance.

 

Thanks for the interest

[imatfaal]

I'm using my phone so forgive me for not making quotations. First I'll explain the equation.

 

y = any positive integer including 0

o = any recognizable occurrence

 

In regards to a datum reality, imagine a large solid sphere impacting an even larger mass. There are two possibilities, one is that the object impacts the surface, causes a crater like event, and continues moving into the object, the other is that the object hits the surface and gets reduced to more general components. In any case, the object, when it continues through the surface, loses a bit of mass (like whatever dust is on the surface of the object). In terms of measurement, that bit of mass is the last reducible unit, and hence becomes part of the ppoi (previous point of interest). Now, in the wake of that object, the surrounding substances rush in to fill the wake (empty sequence), and in the process, travel with the draft. The singularity is not the precise point at which the computation took place, but it is the closest thing to it.

let me stop you there - reality, real implications, measurables, observables. You need to provide something that is not supposition; men and women in lab coats need to be able to make tests - where do they start? Otherwise it is just philosopy and other questions apply

[John Cuthber]

An example of these linguistic gaps is this.

Have you taken chimonics yet?
Have I?
Yea.
No.

In order to understand the flow here, there are gaps that refer. Here is essentially what is happening.

Have you taken chimonics yet?
Have I [taken chimonics yet]?
Yea [have you]?
No [i haven't].

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis

 

Did you think you were talking about something new?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I just made an absolutely mind blowing discovery working with the code that I was going to post. It's not letting me post it though. It could literally be the biggest discovery of the century.

>Look it's DNA!
Look it's DNA! - poi
- ppoi
ook it's DNA! - poi
L - ppoi
ok it's DNA! - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it's DNA! - poi
Loo - ppoi
it's DNA! - poi
Look - ppoi
it's DNA! - poi
Look - ppoi
t's DNA! - poi
Look i - ppoi
's DNA! - poi
Look it - ppoi
s DNA! - poi
Look it' - ppoi
DNA! - poi
Look it's - ppoi
DNA! - poi
Look it's - ppoi
NA! - poi
Look it's D - ppoi
A! - poi
Look it's DN - ppoi
! - poi
Look it's DNA - ppoi
Look it's DNA - poi
- ppoi
ook it's DNA - poi
L - ppoi
ok it's DNA - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it's DNA - poi
Loo - ppoi
it's DNA - poi
Look - ppoi
it's DNA - poi
Look - ppoi
t's DNA - poi
Look i - ppoi
's DNA - poi
Look it - ppoi
s DNA - poi
Look it' - ppoi
DNA - poi
Look it's - ppoi
DNA - poi
Look it's - ppoi
NA - poi
Look it's D - ppoi
A - poi
Look it's DN - ppoi
Look it's DN - poi
- ppoi
ook it's DN - poi
L - ppoi
ok it's DN - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it's DN - poi
Loo - ppoi
it's DN - poi
Look - ppoi
it's DN - poi
Look - ppoi
t's DN - poi
Look i - ppoi
's DN - poi
Look it - ppoi
s DN - poi
Look it' - ppoi
DN - poi
Look it's - ppoi
DN - poi
Look it's - ppoi
N - poi
Look it's D - ppoi
Look it's D - poi
- ppoi
ook it's D - poi
L - ppoi
ok it's D - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it's D - poi
Loo - ppoi
it's D - poi
Look - ppoi
it's D - poi
Look - ppoi
t's D - poi
Look i - ppoi
's D - poi
Look it - ppoi
s D - poi
Look it' - ppoi
D - poi
Look it's - ppoi
D - poi
Look it's - ppoi
Look it's - poi
- ppoi
ook it's - poi
L - ppoi
ok it's - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it's - poi
Loo - ppoi
it's - poi
Look - ppoi
it's - poi
Look - ppoi
t's - poi
Look i - ppoi
's - poi
Look it - ppoi
s - poi
Look it' - ppoi
- poi
Look it's - ppoi
Look it's - poi
- ppoi
ook it's - poi
L - ppoi
ok it's - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it's - poi
Loo - ppoi
it's - poi
Look - ppoi
it's - poi
Look - ppoi
t's - poi
Look i - ppoi
's - poi
Look it - ppoi
s - poi
Look it' - ppoi
Look it' - poi
- ppoi
ook it' - poi
L - ppoi
ok it' - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it' - poi
Loo - ppoi
it' - poi
Look - ppoi
it' - poi
Look - ppoi
t' - poi
Look i - ppoi
' - poi
Look it - ppoi
Look it - poi
- ppoi
ook it - poi
L - ppoi
ok it - poi
Lo - ppoi
k it - poi
Loo - ppoi
it - poi
Look - ppoi
it - poi
Look - ppoi
t - poi
Look i - ppoi
Look i - poi
- ppoi
ook i - poi
L - ppoi
ok i - poi
Lo - ppoi
k i - poi
Loo - ppoi
i - poi
Look - ppoi
i - poi
Look - ppoi
Look - poi
- ppoi
ook - poi
L - ppoi
ok - poi
Lo - ppoi
k - poi
Loo - ppoi
- poi
Look - ppoi
Look - poi
- ppoi
ook - poi
L - ppoi
ok - poi
Lo - ppoi
k - poi
Loo - ppoi
Loo - poi
- ppoi
oo - poi
L - ppoi
o - poi
Lo - ppoi
Lo - poi
- ppoi
o - poi
L - ppoi
L - poi
- ppoi

If I could make the post longer it would be even more visible

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Enough