What do all things have in common?

Big Data

Is the P=NP Problem an NP Problem?

What I’m going to say is going to be unpopular, but I cannot reconcile my own well-being without giving you an answer to this problem from my perspective.

My only reason for reluctantly writing this, knowing what kind of reaction I could receive is, because I abhor that some of the best minds on our planet are occupying themselves with this problem. It pains me to no end to see humanity squandering its power for a problem that, as it is currently framed, is unanswerable. It goes further than this though. There will come a time when questions such as this one will be cast upon the junk heap of humanity’s growth throughout history. It will take its rightful place along such ideas as phrenology.

Here’s why I say this:

The problem is firmly and completely embedded in Functional Reductionism. I say this, because the problem’s framing requires us to peel away the contextual embedding of the problems for which it is supposed to clarify.

This is just one of its problems. Here’s another:

Since the data for this problem (and those like it) are themselves algorithms, they are compelled to be functionally reduced versions of mind problem solving (varying types of heuristics and decision problems) which reduces the problem’s causal domain and its universe of discourse even further. How can a specification based upon functionally reduced data be again used as data for the problem’s solution in the first place?

That means that this problem has no independent existence nor causal efficacy. Everywhere I have looked at this problem, the definitions of NP-Hard and NP-Complete do not lead to proving anything useful. We cannot ‘generalise’ the mind by reducing it to some metric of complexity. Complexity is also not how the universe works as Occam’s Razor[1] shows.

I am prepared to defend my position should someone have the metal to test me on this. Another thing: I wish I could have left this alone, but we all need to wake up to this nonsense.

[1] http://bit.ly/2GHbRkW How Occam’s Razor Works

[Quora] http://bit.ly/2EuRdP3


Getting Hypertension About Hyperreals

HyperReals(Links below)

This system is quite interesting if we allow ourselves to talk about the qualities of infinite sets as if we can know their character completely. The problem is, any discussion of an infinite set includes their definition which MAY NOT be the same as any characterisation which they may actually have.

Also, and more importantly, interiority as well as exteriority are accessible without the use of this system. These ‘Hyperreals’ are an ontological approach to epistemology via characteristics/properties we cannot really know. There can be no both true and verifiable validity claim in this system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWe1BunlXI (Part1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBmJWEQTl1w (Part2)


Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?

fly-by

Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?

Answer: Philosophy is more fundamental than mathematics.

This is changing, but mathematics is incapable at this time of comprehensively describing epistemology, whereas, philosophy can.

Hence; mathematics is restrained to pure ontology. It does not reach far enough into the universe to distinguish anything other than ontologies. This will change soon. I am working on exactly this problem. See http://mathematica-universalis.com for more information on my work. (I’m not selling anything on this site.)

Also, mathematics cannot be done without expressing some kind of philosophy to underlie any axioms which it needs to function.

PROOF:

Implication is a ‘given’ in mathematics. It assumes a relation which we call implication. Mathematics certainly ‘consumes’ them as a means to create inferences, but the inference form, the antecedent, and the consequent are implicit axioms based upon an underlying metaphysics.

Ergo: philosophy is more general and universal than mathematics.

Often epistemology is considered separate from metaphysics, but that is incorrect, because you cannot answer questions as to ‘How do we know?” without an underlying metaphysical framework within which such a question and answer can be considered.


HUD Fly-by Test

vlcsnap-2016-08-21-22h18m14s161

Link to video.

Don’t take this as an actual knowledge representation; rather, simply a simulation of one. I’m working out the colour, transparent/translucent, camera movements, and other technical issues.
In any case you may find it interesting.
The real representations are coming soon.


A New Kind of Knowledge Representation Is Coming to Be!

VideoImage

Link to video

The project is now coming to conclusion (finally). In this video I show an example knowledge molecule being ‘examined’ by the knowledge representation.

I’ve hidden the other actors in this demonstration and have simplified the instrumentation to preserve my priority on my work.

Be patient! It won’t be long now… I have the theoretical underpinnings already behind me. Now it’s only about the representation of that work.


Obfuscation In A ‘Nut’ Shell

Obfuscation In A ‘Nut’ Shell
Distinctions that are no differences, are incomplete, or are in discord.

In knowledge representation these ‘impurities’ (artificiality) and their influence are made easy to see.

 

In groks you will see them as obfuscation fields. That means darkening and/or inversion dynamics. The term refers to the visual representation of an obfuscated field, and can also be represented as dark and/or inverted movements of a field or group. I concentrate more on the dark versions here and will consider the inversions (examples of lying) in a future post.

They bring dynamics that are manipulative, artificial, or non-relevant into the knowledge representation. Their dynamic signatures make them stand out out like a sore thumb.

Cymatic images reveal these dynamics too. There are multiple vortexes, each with their own semantic contribution to the overall meaning to a knowledge molecule or group.

Here is an example of a snow flake (seen below) https://www.flickr.com/photos/13084997@N03/12642300973/in/album-72157625678493236/
From Linden Gledhill.

Note that not all vortexes are continuous through the ‘bodies’ of the molecules they participate in. Also, in order to correctly visualize what I’m saying, one must realize that the cymatic images are split expressions. That means to see the relationship, you must add the missing elements which are hinted at by the image.

Every cymatic image is a cut through the dynamics it represents.
We are in effect seeing portions of something whole. Whole parts are dissected necessarily, because the surface of expression is limited to a ‘slice’ through the complete molecule.

(Only the two images marked ‘heurist.com’ are my own! The other images are only meant as approximations to aid in the understanding of my work.)


Men And Their Semantics – Turning Meaning into Legos

language

Semantically speaking: Does meaning structure unite languages?

This work is a dead end waiting to happen. Of course it will attract much interest, money, and perhaps even yield new insights into the commonality of language, but there’s better ways to get there.

What’s even more sad is that they, who should know better, will see my intentions in making this clear as destructive criticism instead of a siren warning regarding research governed/originating through a false paradigm. These people cannot see or overlook the costs humanity pays for the misunderstandings research like this causes and is based upon.

It’s even worse in the field of genetic engineering with their chimera research. The people wasting public money funding this research need to be gotten under control again.

I don’t want to criticize the researcher’s intentions. It’s their framing and methodology that I see as primitive, naive, and incomplete.

I’m not judging who they are nor their ends; rather, their means of getting there.

“Quantification” is exactly the wrong way to ‘measure/compare semantics; not to mention “partitioning” them!

1) The value in this investigation that they propose is to extrapolate and interpolate ontology. Semantics are more than ontology. They possess a complete metaphysics which includes their epistemology.

2) You cannot quantify qualities, because you reduce the investigation to measurement; which itself imposes meaning upon the meaning you wish to measure. Semantics, in their true form, are relations and are non-physical and non-reducible.

3) Notice also, partitioning is imposed upon the semantics (to make them ‘measurable/comparable’). If you compare semantics in such a way then you only get answers in terms of your investigation/ontology.

4) The better way is to leave the semantics as they are! Don’t classify them! Learn how they are related. Then you will know how they are compared.

There’s more to say, but I think you get the idea… ask me if you want clarification…