A lingual theory of everything

[sheever]

simulations of 8000 body.

the other picture is chaos visual

 

 

Edited January 31, 2014 by sheever

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, Beautiful.

 

makes my artistic sketch look a bit ....sick or something

 

Your different simulations seem to be derived from different systems. presumably more from the bottom up using different Algorithms as the root code. although the automata though presumably based on a simple rule, although coming from a bottom up soon develops a life of its own and grows into interesting final shapes. I remember reading part of ( forget his name ) [ just looked up Wolfram ] who developed an alternative math based on this principle

 

Not sure if any of those were Top Down ? You will have to put me right on that. The chaos is a candidate. all depends whether it repeats itself , I suppose. I would suggest the universe we interact with is mainly ,though not all, by any means , Top down. Whereas the underlaying unseen structure [ the lego bricks ] atomic and chemical is more bottom up. Prof Laughlin did some work on Emergent phenominon . As indeed do genetic .Algorithms

 

 

must say I am very impressed with the simulations .

 

In this picture I was Abstractly trying to illustrate ( Top Down, Bottom Up and Where the action is ,in between )

 

The Top down ... from the Top an abstraction of the existing Universe.

 

The Bottom up Big Bang initial particles and up to the matter across the Universe ( lego Bricks )

 

The in between Where all the action is. Our Living Universe complete with Many Many Tubes of Opportunity

 

 

mike

Edited January 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[sheever]

you may would like to watch these lectures Mike

 

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

you may would like to watch these lectures Mike

 

 

Well I have now listened as carefully as I can at first pass these lectures.

 

As far as I can tell , in the main , they support my ideas of non predictability being an issue , even from the micro level. As well as the definite lack of accurate predictability at the macro level . Obviously there are individual steps that are very predictable, but as soon as the quantum uncertainty is invoked by observation , uncertainty appears.

 

The subject of emergence being a mechanism of operation , certainly at the large universal macro level. The speaker indicates that emergence is a major player even at the micro level when time is incorporated so as to move from

 

Certain Past To uncertain future thus he says emergent adaption dictates in the main. The future.

 

Clearly this is not a comment on the subject of this thread as " a lingual theory of everything" and the recent prediction of "tubes of opportunity " but there are reasonings that can be invoked from the speakers two lectures that impinge both the "theory I propose" and the particular prediction (of "tubes of opportunity") .

 

I notice interestingly in lecture one he touches as to the issue of " initiative " to start various processes off.

 

Mike

Edited February 2, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[sheever]

[tar]

Sheever,

 

For some reason, on my computer, your links are gone. I do not know with what lecture or link you responded to Mike with.

 

I did remember "causation in complex systems" and George Ellis, so I was able to watch a hour lecture in which he touched on many topics. Some very many of them along lines I have been considering. He talks very fast and covers many things, but I was, in reference to this thread, interested in his use of the term "channels", and as well, the top down, bottom up considerations we have been talking about.

 

Abstraction though, is one of his themes, and one of my "problems" in looking at the great attractor as if we are on the outside looking in, which we are not.

 

I personally am stumped at considering such a pattern as walls of galaxies "moving" in a certain overall dance, "at the same time" as I eat my supper.

 

One of George Ellis' considerations, when talking about hierarchies, was a "decoupling", where things on one level were not discussable in the same language as things on an other, where what is going on on the machine language level, for instance is not important to the programmer writing in Java. He used Mike's "black box" analogy. Also in the adaptive feed back type loops he was discussing there was a focus, or purpose, or pattern or goal at a high level, where the "parts" on the lower levels were interchangable, and basically non-determinants of what was "going on" at the higher levels.

 

Here I have a general reluctance to assume any control or understanding of that which is on a grain size, or level, that is too far "decoupled" from our human time and size scale.

 

Complexity is indeed, complex.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Easier to consider things at lower levels than us, than to consider things like universes.

 

On the lower level, they do the thing they do, we see it start and progress and finish and repeat.

 

On the higher levels, the galaxy spins abstractly, but not on a time scale that means anything to us. I do not know how to "make the timing correction one should make when considering a thing a light year away, and a hundred thousand light years away, and a hundred million light years away, as undergoing a unified motion.

Edited February 3, 2014 by tar

[sheever]

the videos were

George F.R. Ellis on existence

George F.R Ellis on nature of causality in complex systems

and Chaos and Reductionism lectures

 

i can see the link are working on my computer.

 

Chaos is very precise in terms of fractals where the "noise" of the system is THE SYSTEM.

 

regards to causality once we take computing on account we always have top down causation constantly involved thats why is hard to eliminate consciousness problem

Edited February 3, 2014 by sheever

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Chaos is very precise in terms of fractals where the "noise" of the system is THE SYSTEM..............................

 

.............................................regards to causality................

 

 

Interesting The Stanford University Lecture on Complex Systems. [ few posts back ] and the inherant difficulties with predictions and reductionism

 

. link to post #480 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72758-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/page-24#entry789898

 

He well demonstrated the point of how most of the natural universe works with complex systems which have solutions that emerge from circulating ( after breaking from ordered behavior ) , around "strange attractors.". This being surely an emergent top down solution. Rather than the very ordered investigations of much of modern physics, in its attempts at a Theory of Everything , based on the behavior of elementary particles in a Bottom up approach ! [ Particles and Upwards ]

 

mike

 

I wonder , if this has any connection with the " Great Attractor " from a few posts ago , up in the cosmic arena .

 

Edited February 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[sheever]

hey Mike,

 

glad you found the lectures useful.this topic is very complex and causes lots of problems

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

One of George Ellis' considerations, when talking about hierarchies, was a "decoupling", where things on one level were not discussable in the same language as things on an other, where what is going on on the machine language level, for instance is not important to the programmer writing in Java. He used Mike's "black box" analogy. Also in the adaptive feed back type loops he was discussing there was a focus, or purpose, or pattern or goal at a high level, where the "parts" on the lower levels were interchangable, and basically non-determinants of what was "going on" at the higher levels.

 

Here I have a general reluctance to assume any control or understanding of that which is on a grain size, or level, that is too far "decoupled" from our human time and size scale.

 

, TAR

 

The lectures that Sheever brought to light in the last few posts are very enlightening . Very enlightening indeed.

Credit to Sheever. He certainly locates some good reference presentations for consideration.

 

I think what George Ellis and the other presenter from Stanford university and your comments give me is an endorsement of much of what I have been attempting to reason out over a lot of this thread. That we cannot look to the granular form to explain the large scale structure of the universe as we now see it in all it's current developments. Namely we will not find the explanation of every minutiae of the bigger universe within the elementary particles, much as these do indeed provide the ' Lego Bricks' to build the universe.

 

And certainly not to minimise the spectacular investigations of the Lego bricks, as indeed we have received knowledge in recent years . However !

 

.-- We need to look elsewhere, to find what causes the universe to emerge the way it has ? --.

 

Mike

 

the videos were

George F.R. Ellis on existence

George F.R Ellis on nature of causality in complex systems

and Chaos and Reductionism lectures

 

regards to causality once we take computing on account we always have top down causation constantly involved thats why is hard to eliminate consciousness problem

.

That is an interesting statement .

 

Surely that is where the ' initiative ' aspect that I have brought up on many occasions fits in ?

 

" Initiative " " Causation " Have a similar ring to them don't they?

 

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

Quote from Post #1 and other posts throughout this thread

 

link to 10 Feb 2013 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72758-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/#entry728327

 

and earlier post in quantum physics 2011 " Do you have a new Theory "

 

link to 11 March 2011 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/12534-do-you-have-a-new-theory/page-10#entry595067

 

Mike

Edited February 5, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike,

 

There is a certain dualist approach it seems one has to take, to be both the subject and object of a consideration.

 

I am wondering, along this line, if consciousness is not such a hard problem as it is made out to be.

 

The problem becomes less of one, in my consideration if one does not consider consciousness a thing that needs an explaination, but considers instead what one is conscious of.

 

The thing one is conscious of is already apparent, and in this, needs no explanation.

 

Thus one can accept the model of the thing as a model, and the thing as the thing, both, in a dualist manner.

 

When it comes to the forces and causations of motion and forms, it is both the context and the content which are important. There is not a way to have the one, without the other. We can take a stance, hold a thing constant and describe other things in reference to it...but we know we are holding the thing constant, in a somewhat arbitrary or conventional fashion, for the sake of being able to say something about everything else.

 

Regards, TAR

After all, if the first maker of a globe would have been from the Southern Hemisphere, she would have put the South pole on the top, and had the Earth spinning and revolving in a clockwise direction...then again her brother might have made the first clock, and based it on the movement of the shadow around a stick during the day, which I presume is the opposite of the direction of motion that such a shadow would take in the northern hemisphere...which would make "clockwise" the opposite of what we now consider it, and the Earth would still be spinning and revolving "counter-clockwise".

Everything would still fit exactly right, even though the entire universe would be upside down.
If we both are standing next to each other, and facing the same direction, both of us, can not be "on the left". One of us is, and the other is "on the right". "You are on my left" I say. "No, you are on my right" you retort.

Seems you can only describe things well to each other if you agree on which way you are facing.

Which way is up, which way is left, which way is forward.

 

The equations and models of science depend on conventional agreements on these things, and knowing when a dimension is dropped from consideration, so you can visualize another variable in its stead.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

After all, if the first maker of a globe would have been from the Southern Hemisphere, she would have put the South pole on the top, and had the Earth spinning and revolving in a clockwise direction...then again her brother might have made the first clock, and based it on the movement of the shadow around a stick during the day, which I presume is the opposite of the direction of motion that such a shadow would take in the northern hemisphere...which would make "clockwise" the opposite of what we now consider it, and the Earth would still be spinning and revolving "counter-clockwise".Everything would still fit exactly right, even though the entire universe would be upside down.If we both are standing next to each other, and facing the same direction, both of us, can not be "on the left". One of us is, and the other is "on the right". "You are on my left" I say. "No, you are on my right" you retort.Seems you can only describe things well to each other if you agree on which way you are facing.Which way is up, which way is left, which way is forward.

 

The equations and models of science depend on conventional agreements on these things, and knowing when a dimension is dropped from consideration, so you can visualize another variable in its stead.

 

This contortion has given me a headache ! I need an aspirin !

 

Mike

Edited February 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hoola]

interesting to read about tar's "consciousness not being such a hard problem"...I have been thinking that consciousness is a result of the 3 lobes of the brain, reptilian, mammalian and human being in tension as each attempts dominance over the other. This "tension" allows new and enhanced functions of advanced awareness neural pathways to develop within the brain, leading to the somewhat illusory thing called consciousness. This also may explain some psychological illnesses as the brain stresses if the internal struggle is not kept in check by internal hormonal feedback circuitry. Beyond a certain point of stress, the internal feedback circuits fail and illness ensues. This tension is partially a result of the brain simply outgrowing it's nutrient supply, each domain competing for blood and glucose as overall brain mass increases. This I think is the root of the rather jealous nature of each domain, simply needing what it takes to function. The "self" is the internal communications, running to and fro down the neural pathways, keeping the competition down to a reasonable level, as all three are required for a human life to continue existence. Certainly more than crude nutrient/oxygen needs are causing this proposed tension. As the intellect can observe the other two brains reacting to enviornmental situations with a more primitive assessment of a given situation, a sort of extra stress is induced by the more primitive brains as their evolutionarily older "tried and true" reaction/decisions are vetoed by the intellect. I wrote before about the "3 bodies" orbiting problem being a further analogy to the 3 brains. With only two bodies orbiting, they have regular, predictable orbits. With three, predictibility is lost quickly. I think the same thing happens with the humans having 3 brains "in tension", and perhaps why humans are inherently unstable organisms in constant need of "internal fine tuning" to mediate each of the 3 lobes into a sort of begrudging truce. .....I further see the 3 brains being internally identified by the intellect as the Spiritual, Moral, and Human....edd

Edited February 6, 2014 by hoola

[tar]

Hoola,

 

Not unlike the ID, Ego and Super Ego of Freud. The animal, the mediator and the law.

 

Regards, TAR

Mike,

 

I came upon the southern hemisphere map maker insight after a class I taught on copier repair. I was standing infront of a machine asking a student which way a shaft was turning. He kept saying it was going counter-clockwise, and I saw it clearly rotating clockwise. I thought he had identified the wrong shaft, 'til I went around and saw that he indeed had the right shaft, and it indeed was rotating in a counter-clockwise manner. Even a watch rotates counter-clockwise, if you look at it from behind the face.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Even a watch rotates counter-clockwise, if you look at it from behind the face.

 

 

Does this invoke a similar actual perception of time itself if seen from another perspective. ?

 

This reminds me of the Late Comedian Spike Milligan singing,mumbling :-

 

 

" I'm walking backwards to Christmas , over the irish Sea ,

I'm going out with a Mountain, But it w'ont go out with me "

 

 

mike

Edited February 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

On the higher levels, the galaxy spins abstractly, but not on a time scale that means anything to us.

 

I often wonder if our time. tic tic tic every second is just our perception of Change / Time not ABSOLUTE TIME .

 

We can handle a Tic Tic second just although nothing much is percieved to have changed. A Day, a single rotation of the sun , is a memorable change by anybodies reconing. " that was a nice day we say, when we have gone to the beach, changing our position several miles so as to have a swim. a human lifetime of 70 or 80 circles of the earth about the Sun, feels a long time. [ so 1 sec to 80 years] is our perception. two swing changes of a pendulum to a lifetime of change from the second world war to the technological changes that make up today's society..

 

A fly i was once told only lives a day. So no doubt its lifetime sees a thousand changes in its lifetime of a day

 

A Sub Atomic particle , say a muon can have a Life or half a life to only go from the top of the atmosphere down to earth in fractions of a second.. we say what a short life, but if the muon were conscious perhaps the changes crossing the atmosphere would seem like a lifetime.

 

WHOEVER sees the Galaxy turning ONCE in a few million years. the whole of human civilization has seen all the changes of human existance come to this moment 2014 , in less than ONE TURN of the galaxy. To whomever sees the galaxy change by turning ONCE perhaps perceives this one turn as no more than we perceive one turn of the Earth as a day of changing.

 

Thus maybe time is not absolute but it is the changes perceived by the beholder that are the slices we perceive as TIME . We all perceive our Experiences of change , whatever they are ( The turning of a galaxy, Human civilization in its total history, a lifetime of achievement , a day of buzzing about in a field , a journey through the atmosphere). Be we a muon,fly,human, or Godlike being or whatever . OUR PERCEPTION OF CHANGE ARE TOTALLY TOTALLY DIFFERENT. So MaYbe there is NO absolute Ticking clock. No TIME , Just CHANGE that we can relate to. Whoever the WE is

 

Maybe the 'WE' be it a Muon, fly,human, Godlike being , slices change [not literally, but by recognition] cut up into manageable chunks for themselves, to observe , and experience that particular span. I know this perception can change, like when you fall off the top of a building . I know because I fell off the top of a squash court once, and lived to tell the tale. Time perception changed , it was like slow motion all the way down.

 

Mike

Edited February 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Popcorn Sutton]

I have to ask, after 25 pages of deliberation and over 11 thousand views, can we sum up in a paragraph or two the conclusions that have been drawn from this thread?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have to ask, after 25 pages of deliberation and over 11 thousand views, can we sum up in a paragraph or two the conclusions that have been drawn from this thread?

 

Sure, But remember it is a fairly big subject ' EVERYTHING ' .So it is likely to be a bit of an ongoing battle , Unless of course, I get it totally cracked ! And if I did that, well I could turn up my 'toes' and RETIRE.

 

However , as you have asked Popcorn, and been a supportive contributor to the thread. I will go away, and have a BIG THINK and try to sum up to date, where I feel we are at this time, in this tread. I Hope that is a suitable answer. Incidently I am quite excited , as to where this thread has brought us [ or if it is only me hanging on ], brought me to.

 

Mike

Edited February 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Popcorn Sutton]

I know that recently you guys have been on the topic of the path of least resistance, or "tubes of opportunity", but it seems that we're steering away from that at this point. I don't know what the great attractor has to do with a lingual theory of everything.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I know that recently you guys have been on the topic of the path of least resistance, or "tubes of opportunity", but it seems that we're steering away from that at this point. I don't know what the great attractor has to do with a lingual theory of everything.

 

Well the answer to that , is in the answer that you want me to sum up the whole ideas of the thread.

 

But to just answer this specific question , and go away and do my thinking over the next day or two, i will say something toward this point you ask as to the great attractor.

 

The essence of the Lingual Description of a word based Theory of everything is that :

 

I have proposed, and believe it still holds good , that:

 

provided there in nothing, absolutely nothing getting in the way of a particular thing happening, Then it will happen . So the Universe I believe is going about its business doing everthing that is NOT being obstructed. from doing.. That is ,{ apart from one exception at the beginning of the whole, the very very beginning of the whole Shebang } PROVIDED there exists some impetus, nudge, or initiative for certain things to occur, Then the whole Universe is in the midst of OCCURING. . However there does exist certain priorities. .

 

1. THE VERY BEGINNING, [A special Case ]

 

2 REST of THE TIME Where certain things find themselves or are put at the mouth of a " Tube of opportunity" which is as clear as a whistle . , An initial small or large impetus, initiative. Then it will go away to the other end of the Tube of opportunity. [near,far,short distance ,time whatever] .and occur.

 

3. Where things [ which is in fact nearly everthing else ] are in the Path, Tube or NO tube just bumbling along through all sorts, I am saying, left with NO outside Extra help., , the occurance { things happening } will follow the course of least resistance or least energy.

 

Now the one you are asking about " TheLarge Attractor " i would think is in category 2. There would appear to be some Possible Tube, or just a general opportunity for regions of the Universe near to us in the Local group of Galaxies including the MilkyWay And Andromeda to be moving gently toward the Great Attractor. [ may be thats why its called the great attractor. ] it really will be some very large time before it gets anywhere near. but it appears to be going anyway. At the moment that is all I can say about it. . Do not dismiss the Initial nudge. initiative or whatever. [ sometimes caused by massive supernova, gamma ray blast ]

 

Now within this post is a partial answer to both your questions . but I still need to go and think to put things in a more ordered non-specific way . Hope that ok for tonight . Popcorn

 

mike

Edited February 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Popcorn Sutton,

 

We have strayed a bit from the tubes, but only in an effort to understand if they are preexisting pathways, "current" constraints, or after-the-fact judgements...or somehow a combination of the three.

 

Path of least resistence would obtensibly be through or down or along or in such a tube. Suggesting that the "walls" of the tube, would offer some resistence...as that it is easier to follow the tube, than attempt to make it through the wall.

 

Such in a fibre optic cable, where a particular strand or fibre, made entirely of the same substance, middle and edge, will coax a photon along down its length because of some refraction or reflection that occurs at the boundary between glass and non-glass. Turns out it is easier for the photon to travel in the glass, then to broach the boundary.

 

And since this IS Mike's theory of everything, that we are testing, and a lingual one at that, it is within the scope, to consider the structure and form of the human brain and mind...what we are considering a model, and what we are considering the thing as it is. In this, the size and shape of time and space are different when considered in the model, and considered as being actual...so its "alright" to stray a bit, inorder to come to a better understanding of the one, in reference to the other, with the constraint being that for a thing to be true it must fit and make sense in more than one way. And in this case, must work in the model AND in actuality.

 

Once you have the two working in concert, and thusly have a "working" model built...then the premises of Mike's theory can be tested against the model, with logic alone, within the confines of the member's brains.

 

Or so I figure.

 

Regards, TAR2

Then we can determine if Mike is "saying" something true about everything, or not.

Edited February 8, 2014 by tar

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

And since this IS Mike's theory of everything, that we are testing, and a lingual one at that, it is within the scope, to consider the structure and form of the human brain and mind...what we are considering a model,

 

Once you have the two working in concert, and thusly have a "working" model built...then the premises of Mike's theory can be tested against the model, with logic alone, within the confines of the member's brains.

 

 

Members brains are full of " Micro Tubules " according to Roger Penrose. These were introduced in his thick Book some years ago. I have looked high and low for my copy of this book, but I seem to remember I used it to prop up a bed somewhere, as it was a really thick book. This is in no way to underestimate the contents , its just that i found the Maths a bit heavy, and left it for a while.

 

These micro tubules were based in/near the synaptic gap , at the extremity of Brain Neurons, I believe his proposal, not too popular when first introduced, was I believe to be part of human consciousness . It would be interesting if the human brain has used this method , because the Micro Tubules do provide thought impulses with an efficient ( Tubes of Opportunity ) for carrying out the sophisticated task of Thinking and being conscious.

 

mike

Edited February 10, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Popcorn Sutton]

It's been proposed that Micro Tubules actually ARE knowledge. I don't know how we would even be able to test that statement, but if we find a way and prove it right, I will be celebrating to say the least. We should make the day of this discovery a holiday if it is proven.

The type of test that I am thinking about requires A LOT of assumptions that also haven't been proven. IMO, I think that they would need to be magnetic, or at least resonate magnetically for unification purposes. I also think that they need to be radioactive, but, like I said, these are two assumptions that haven't been proven, but I do believe that they are supported with analogies.

[tar]

Mike,

 

Makes sense in another way as well. Seems fitting that the "recording" would match a number of the characteristics of the sound. That is, it would be "easier" for the brain to evolve in a way that mirrored reality, than to develop in some odd way, that didn't fit well.

 

In that the brain must be something like the thing it is conscious of, and if there are tubelet and channels and such in the brain, there very well could be an analogous "something like it" among the things the brain senses and remembers.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I am reminded of a thought I had a few years back, of the surface of a still lake having an exact reproduction of the mountains and trees and clouds reflected off its surface. Take the surface and fold it all up into a skull and you have something like a brain. A model of the outside, on the inside of the skull.

[tar]

Popcorn Sutton,

 

We cross posted. I wrote that last in response to Mike, not seeing your post. Still, not completely different and without similarity. 'Cept I don't quite see the magnetic and radioactive requirement.

 

Regards, TAR