What do all things have in common?


Universal Constants, Variations and Identities #13 (Knowledge)

Knowlege Is What Awareness Does

Universal Constants, Variations and Identities
#13 Knowledge is what awareness does. (Knowledge)

I’ve published this before elsewhere, but it must be restated now for what is to follow (I’m starting a new octave).

#Knowledge #Wisdom #Understanding #Learning #Insight #Constants #Variances #Metaphysics #Philosophy #MathesisUniversalis #ScientiaUniversalis #PhilosophiaUniversalis #LogicaUniversalis #MetaMathematics #MetaLogic #MetaScience #MetaPhysics #MetaPhilosophy #Awareness

Universal Constants and Variances

Constants and Variances 1 Constants and Variances 2

#6 Reality is composed of whole parts. (Holons)
Arthur Koesler coined the term ‘Holon’ that refers to entities as both wholes and parts of some other whole.

For example: a whole atom is part of a whole molecule, which is part of a whole cell, which is part of a whole organism,… Each of these entities are neither a whole or a part; rather, a whole part or Holon.

There’s a 2000 year old philosophical squabble between atomists and holists: “Which is ultimately real – the whole or the part?” The answer is neither or both, if you prefer…

There are only ‘whole-parts’: Holons.

[More are coming soon in a new post…]


Universal Constants and Variances

Constants and Variances 1 Constants and Variances 2 Constants and Variances 3 - muKnow Constants and Variances 5 - We are the ones we have been waiting for! Constants and Variances 4 Constants and Variances 7 - Example

Universal Constants and Variances
#1 Awareness is primary and fundamental. (Substrate)
#2 All awareness is non-dual unless it is dual. (Duality)
#3 There is no inside without an outside nor outside without an inside. (Interiority/Exteriority)
#4 Duality is bounded, non-duality is boundless. (Boundary)
#5 Boundaries arise in a spectrum from diffuse to concise. (Crossing)

[More are coming soon in a new post…]

A few of those who have followed my posts have been asking for more information about my work. Towards that end, I’m going to start publishing my growing list of universal constants and variances. It is these constants and variances that form the foundation of my work.

There are about as many of them as there are stars in our universe (if you count the primary and derived together), so I don’t think I’ll run out of them! Most of them are self-explanatory, but if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask in the appropriate thread. The numerical ordering is not yet important, as I’m still collecting and collating them as I discover them.

I have no tolerance for trolling or people who abuse others in my threads; especially on these threads about the constants and variances! So if you plan to wreak havoc here, you’ll get bumped real fast. I don’t mind criticism or skeptical opinions at all, but please be civil with everyone (including me).

See http://mathesis-universalis.com for more information.

Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?


Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way.  The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.

I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.

Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.

With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!

The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!

It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.

Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).

Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.

Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?

Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)

Complexity At the Cost of Being Simple

Computational ComplexityComplexity At the Cost of Being Simple
There are grievous problems with complexity ‘science’. Some of those problems are apparent here. I will note a few of them.

Reductionism at @13:00 is completely annoying. Epiphenomenological aspects of the problem are completely missing when you reduce into pure binary! It’s like taking you and your emotional life (with its incipient impact on your immune system) and reducing it down to DNA!

“There are way more problems than there are solutions.” @17:00!Sure! When you peel away the contextual embedding of any problem (via reductionism), then you’ve just committed a sort of lobotomy!

The definition of NP at @23:00 while correct, reveals how misguided this theory is. Not all choices are guesses, and correct answers aren’t always ‘lucky’.

Check out the response one receives from the system (algorithm) at @25:11.Did you notice something’s wrong or what?

@26:51 Does anyone notice who is supplying the criterion for the value of ‘correct’? The algorithm is being falsely attributed with properties it can only be endowed with and not arrive at on its own!

@30:00 The rules to Tetris are known by both (algorithm and human) however, the proof of a truth value cannot be computationally arrived at in NP, yet the proof – via a human being AND the skills necessary to ‘prove’ anything can do it in P! It should be obvious that we are going about the whole thing in the wrong way by now!

@31:00 the P<>NP Problem is described. The problem is meaningless and yet you’ll get a Millenium Prize for solving it! (Even sane and not sane find themselves in the balance! Whoa!) If you continue listening to the justification, you might want to be near a bathroom.

@32:27 Check out how NP is being determined to be ‘more’ than P! “Nobody in their right mind…”, “Obviously insane…”,… so naturally NP must be more than P!
Sounds reasonable? I don’t think so…

@32:37 Watch the disappointment: “…very annoying…” and I wonder why? The question is meaningless! Other phrasings of the P<>NP Problem are nothing special and are completely obvious: “You can’t engineer luck.” (Excuse me, but isn’t that the definition of luck in the first place?) and “Solving problems is harder than checking them.”

@34:17 “What could we possibly say… this is all kind of weired…” I don’t know anymore either and I sure hope you don’t tell me! Are we at the end of the lecture already?

@35:53 Now we are getting to the ‘meat of the potato’. If we just “believe in… have faith in…” P<>NP, then Tetris is within NP-P! Wait a minute? That doesn’t sound like any proof to me… perhaps it’s an axiom? We’ll see. It sure looks like begging the question, but I want to be convinced so I’ll just have to wait.

@36:43 He then moves on to a ‘proof’ that looks more like a set of definitions! NP-hard and NP-complete are correctly defined, but they do not prove anything! Tetris and chess act like a definitions, as well!

@40:33 Now he wants to talk about reductions. Wait, weren’t we talking about them already? Let’s take a look…

Yes, we stand upon giants [Authoritarianism]@46:15(Karp’s 3-Partition) and don’t need to think about it anymore and just reconfirm that all NP-complete is reducible to each other! You find some problem that was defined by a “giant” to be a member of your classification and then show that yours is at least as hard @48:47.

If we happen to find a better solution to a member of NP-complete, then either the whole house of cards falls down or we simply reclassify (by reduction) it to P! Now believe it or believe what you want, okay?

There will be a time when we have to revisit mathematics and do a house cleaning of this ‘cuddle muddle’.

Music For the Ears… and Eyes!

Music RepresentationThis is one of a growing number of representations for music. Listen, see and enjoy the wonder.

This isn’t the only kind of sound representation being done. I will be publishing my own in the near future.

Here is another source that is just as significant: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2zb5cQbLabj3U9l3tke1pg

Good News! It’s Not Just Particles! It’s Properties and Patterns of Particles! – Max Tegmark

Max Tegmark - Cosmic Explorer“Consciousness is a mathematical pattern.”

Is it possible to explain the phenomenon of purpose away with another phenomenon of emergence?
I wonder how he defines purpose itself?
Isn’t consciousness more than our senses?
Why are we only looking at states of matter and leave out stages, lines, levels, types,…?
Who is doing the “feeling” he’s describing?
Who gives the particles their work to do?
How are the particles different between dead and living beings?
So we are to replace our questions with a certainty of the phenomenon of consciousness and then explain that in terms of an interpretation of same?

I’m not a religious person, but the video is starting to sound like I should be one!
Is this what we get when a physicist tries to do philosophy? Oh my!

I Really Want To Agree… But I Just Can’t! – Max Tegmark – Cahners Theater

I Really Want To Agree… But I Just Can’t!
I did it again (for a friend) and tolerated another hour of this man’s presentation (see my post following this one where I cover the one I watched on August 31st).
I do NOT report this in a spirit of cruelty or meanness, rather to help others recognize when concepts and causality are being confused. I’m just as shocked as anyone else that this is possible.

Beyond the Higg’s Boson, which is not a convincing ‘discovery’, is his claim that the universe is mathematical at (31:00). “In the sense that it [universe] is a mathematical structure.”

Mathematics is simply a precise language!

Here’s one avenue, but I can give others, that may help understand why mathematics cannot be the universe, rather a means to represent it.

Patterns and shapes can be described mathematically just as they are now being described with my words. When he widens his definition to include them (shapes and patterns, structure,…) they represent literally everything and become part of his definition!

He also assigns humanity as a whole as the designer for technology that our amok running corporations have made (and have led the rest of us who ‘enjoy’ employment with them to build for them). The Cuban Missile Crisis isn’t a problem created by humanity as a whole, rather was created by corporations who work for banksters to further their ends.

Causality is all wrong throughout his presentation. Believe me, I wanted to be enthralled by his wisdom, but I’m left disappointed for many reasons… many for which I’ve made no mention.

Knowledge Is What Awareness Does – Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define Meaning Precisely

Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define Knowledge Precisely

Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define Knowledge Precisely

Video is finally here!

Self-referential Paradoxum In Knowledge Representation

ilusion-optica-16-I'm so confused Talking twist of logic

What do these two pictures share in common?

They represent structure and dynamics (continuity, connectedness, and boundary [of which topology is only ONE example!]) distributed over multiple and partial dimension. That’s why they interest me and are of use. I use them to represent knowledge, because they are found in our knowledge!
They always have a concealed twist (internal dynamics). You need to leave our 3D rational domain to capture their meaning though. I’ve studied these shapes for a long time now and use them in my work. Break the figures or logic apart and notice how you can tuck the parts into a cloud shape (ambiguity) and make the systems work.