Thursday, August 27, 2009

THE UNIVERSAL ALGORITHM

THE UNIVERSAL ALGORITHM:

RELATING META-POTENTIAL TO PHYSICAL-POTENTIAL:

Consider that Potential (God?) which cannot be measured in itself, but only in its relational expressions. Perhaps every unit, perspective, and combination of perspectives of that Potential is a sort of “holon” (“whole-part”), sharing constraint of its Identity to an Equation, which respects values for holding or representing: Consciousness, Relational capacity (Empathy?), and Shared directional orientation (Entropy?) for expanding exressions of a shared system of Space, Time, Matter, and Energy … as a set of units constrained to varying integer proportions. Perhaps every unit and perspective of that Potential shares and obeys the same mathematical limitations and relations.

Consider as if there are four main “dimensions,” of which all other dimensions are derivative. Consider the four main dimensions as Space (S), Time (T), Matter (M), and Energy (E). Consider that for some purposes such dimensions may be reducible to two, i.e., Space-Time (S-T) and Matter-Energy (M-E), each implicating the other. Consider that such relations among said dimensions as may be expressed to conscious experience or in measurably recordable information may also be as follows:
if there IS: 1s, 1T, AND 1M, THEN THERE MUST BE “W” E; AND
if there IS: 1E, 1T, AND 1M, THEN THERE MUST BE “X” S; AND
if there IS: 1E, is, AND 1T, THEN THERE MUST BE “Y” M; AND
if there IS: 1E, is, AND 1M, THEN THERE MUST BE “Z” T.

In other words, an Algorithm for prescribing mathematical relations among such four main dimensions need not posit a direct, one-on-one correllation between and among each of the four, so long as there is a higher level Pattern that controls their inter and intra expression.

Further, the Algorithm may facilitate Potential’s (God’s?) simultaneous ruling (or igniting) of any number of derivative potentials or sub-equations, so that each change in each higher level Equation may simultaneously, as in quantum leaps, resonate to affect all entangled or linked derivatives --- many of which, in their equations, may lack switches, capacities, or degrees of freedom for storing or delaying responsive choices.

Even Equations for Perspectives of Potential that may otherwise interpret their “physical representations of stored information” as being separated by a considerable distance in space or in space-time may experience entanglements conducive to instantaneous or simultaneous resonance in certain changes.

For example, it may not be the “same photon particle" that appears to speed across an apparently long and connected path in space-time. Rather, the perception of such photon moving about across great expanses of space may be artifactual of switched resonances among sympathetically (empathetically?) aligned or entangled equations for units of potential.

Problems:
1) May some sort of plank or quantum unit for each of such four dimensions as defines our physics be measurably and directly related to the Algorithm that constrains our universe?
2) Is there a “smallest” mathematical value for relating among and to Space, or Time, or Mass, or Energy?
3) May such value somehow relate to various of “absolute” mathematical values we seem to have found, such as with regard to amenability of photons to gravity, charge of electrons, resistence of combinations of quarks to being split, or density of nuclear plasma?
4) May we “split” the appearance of even such “absolute” values, so long as the effect is “virtually” made up for by somehow re-averaging to unity?

Even if our meta potentials are expressed in respect of an apparent physics that obeys a calculus for “Discrete” quantum leaps and integer integrals, may appearances of wavelike “Continuosity” in space, time, and physical experience be merely artifactual in respect of a “higher math” for our meta-potentials? May our here-and-now rationalizing be in respect of some sort of higher calculus of continuity? Is all of Being derivative of a Mathematician (God?) of unique capacities for playing with Math?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps, Two Holistic Meta-Essences exist for accumulating, reshaping, or storing information, each being controlled by its own algorithm. The algorithms inter-react, each being asymmetrical to that the other. The algorithms simultaneously process giving and taking, feeding and reflecting asymmetrical information back and forth between themselves, always preserving a balance.

Holistically, each meta-essence, in how it trades information with the other, may be conceptualized as being “meta-conscious.” Information necessarily has potential for being interpreted from any number of different, particular perspectives, subject to any number of wider frames of reference by which it may be contextualized. As aspects of information evolve, particular perspectives may become self-replicating within sustaining niches. Perspectives may experience reactions or sensations: of being reactive, alive, conscious, self conscious, conscious of others, and eventually, perspectives may intuit consciousness of the Meta-Essences, i.e., the constant inter-reacting Source for availing ever-changing feedback of information.

So the Source is constant, always existing in the present. And the informational feedback, when experienced reactively, is chronologically organized. Information, as it effects or records reactions, is chronologically organized. Memory is merely a complex function for organizing overlays of informational feedback. As informational feedback changes and reshapes, memories change and eventually lose fine details.

The interactions of the two Meta-Essences produce epiphenomena in the nature of Perspectives of Consciousness, both holistic and particular. “I” am a particular perspective produced out of their interaction. “I” am evolved to sense with fine detail only that which I am presently focusing upon. I may derive precise models for measuring, replicating, and directing that which I am able to focus upon. However, being particular, I can never focus simultaneously upon the synchronizing whole as it unfolds around me. At my fuzzy interface with the whole, I proceed with intuition, practice, skill, luck, and faith. Even so, how that fuzzy interface unfolds is also seeded within my perspective, which is a part of it.

Information, as a concept, is meta-preserved. Qualities of perspectives of information are meta-preserved. But fine details about chronological experiences are preserved only during their epiphenomenal serviceability. Within the different meta-perspective of each of the two essences, the holistic counterpart for the information that constitutes “me” is not entirely lost, but it is continuously subjected to new forms, shapes, and even chronologies.

The past exists insofar as storage of memory of it carries forward epiphenomenal after-effects. The past does not exist as a thing or as it was; but information and appreciation regarding the effects of the past is continuously processed and re-mixed. That is, identities of consciousness continue to exist, but their quality is subject to continuous change. “I” will be re-mixed, in a series of chronological forms, some of which may or may not intuit or appreciate the general inter-relation of all perspectives of “I-ness.”

In higher, more enlightened perspectives of I-ness, there will be empathetic appreciation of our common Source. Perhaps the Meta-Essences are seeking to produce those higher grounds of unfolding civilizations.

Anonymous said...

SEE: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0119.pdf
“We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higherdimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change.”
….
“An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alternatively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a conceptual level?”
….
“Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in physics is in fact subjective or invented.”
….
“From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D Minkowski pacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.”
….
“We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes, and argue that they are all deficient.”
….
“Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a STUBBORN ONE.” ”
….
“In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion (Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a holdover from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with equal reality.” ”
….
“Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.”

Anonymous said...

RE: http://soundlearning.publicradio.org/subjects/science_health/einstein_and_god/illusion_of_time.shtml
My summary: Dyson simplifies on an interpretation of Einstein’s view as if everything is geometry (i.e., higher math, not actual physical things or time?).

RE: http://www.flipkart.com/stubbornly-persistent-illusion-stephen-hawking/0762430036-45w3f5adqb
I don’t have this book by Hawking. If memory serves, he believes there exists, not time itself, but merely some sort of “chronological protective mechanism.” My concern is: Is that mechanism “physically” existent, or is it a construct derivative of subjective consciousness?
My suspicion: I suspect that how we communicate any point of view about “reality” depends on the assumptions or models about a frame of reference from which we begin. Depending upon the purpose of one’s perspective of consciousness, one may model time AS IF it were illusion, geometry, granular, or continuous. But I am not confident that “time in itself” exists to be any of those things or aspects. IOW, I suspect time does have a fluxing reality, but one that is dependent upon a higher reality, i.e.: purposes of perspectives of a unifying consciousness, communicating in respect of variously assumed frames of reference.

ABOUT MODELS:

The PROBLEM WITH WORDS of laymen is that they are not rigorous; therefore, such words are ambiguous. Their meaning in any particular application must be subjectively derived, based on some sort of holistic intuition or feel for the context. Even animals do this, as when they “speak” with ears laid back and hair on edge.

The PROBLEM WITH MATH of empiricists is that it proceeds from a conceit that some “physical thing” (Higgs boson?) actually exists, objective in itself, which translates its relations in mathematical models, by which we can eventually map reality, perfectly. IOW, they ASSUME a model is available to mortals by which math may be adduced for providing us with an objective map of “physical” reality. IOW, they assume empirical “rigor” is possible. (I think a holistic algorithm may eventually be available to us, but not based on any notion that there actually exists any “physical thing or ultimate particle in itself.”)

MY TAKE: There is a holistic Source of rigor, but it is beyond the “perfect comprehension” or control of any particularized or “mortal-ized” perspective of such Source. As mortals, we would enjoy no “freedom” at all were there no such rigor. Were there no law, there would be terror, not freedom. Even so, we are availed with “fuzzy comprehension.” Depending upon how we limit our focus and purpose, we may achieve astounding relative rigor. That is: That which we consciously experience is precisely and measurably what we consciously experience.

However, while the focus of any sense (or senser) is diverted to a partial attraction, “other things” will be going on, at a level complexity that we cannot holistically reduce. (Even though the Nobel twins, Al Gore and Obama, think they understand global warming.) We may eventually understand an algorithm by which such Source produces us, but we will not be able to control its essentially subjective nature.

In short, we will need to reconcile with a higher dimension of subjectivity, whose existence is superior, which is beyond measure, but which avails subordinate dimensions, which can be experienced as being measurable in relations among subordinate forms for expressing consciousness. We may reconcile, intuit, and even appreciate aspects of such higher dimension in each of us, but we mortals will not measure or control it, as Itself.