Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cybernetic Kernel

  1. Dec 28, 2003 #1
    This thread is my point of view on us as Self-Award-Complex-Systems (SACS), which are part of their universe, therefore active participators in it.

    I think that one of the most important properties of SACS is their ability to associate between opposite things in non-destructive ways.

    The result of this kind of association can be a new level of complexity based on deeper simplicity.

    To be a SACS is first of all to be a Cybernetic-Information-System (CIS).

    I have found that Complementary Logic can be used to construct the fundamental model of CIS.

    First Please read this:

    1) http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/GIF.pdf

    2) http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf

    3) http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/4BPM.pdf

    4) http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ET.pdf

    5) http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CK.pdf

    From the above we can learn that when there is association between
    {__}(=fullness) AND {}(=emptiness), there can be two basic directions for any information's flow: {__} to {} and {} to {__}.

    {__} to {} creates the environment and {} to {__} creates the awareness to the environment, until it becomes self-award and then can fulfill its deepest connection with the environment through itself.

    This thread is another point of view on http://207.70.190.98/toe.pdf
    (by Max Tegram) that can be found in the thrad of phoenixthoth in:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11429
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 28, 2003 #2
    Organic, please stop making up new names for things. If you're going to make up a name, make up just one and stick with it.

    It only makes your posts more confusing and difficult to follow. Any time we try and focus on one of your ideas, you start a new thread with a new name and a new pdf. We're not accomplishing anything this way.
     
  4. Dec 28, 2003 #3
    Dear master_coda,


    This thread is the goal of my work, which aims at developing a simple and comprehensive model about us as participators in this universe.

    Only pdf number 5 is a new one, but now, when you read the list of pdf files, you can see the whole puzzle as an organic work.


    Yours,


    Organic
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2003
  5. Dec 29, 2003 #4
    i think SAS's will have to involve fuzzy logic.

    consider how equivalently imprecise the following statements are:
    x is intelligent
    x is tall
    x is self-aware
    x is aware of y
     
  6. Dec 29, 2003 #5
    Dear phoenixthoth,

    When we have a fading transition between 0 XOR 1 and 0 AND 1 then Fuzzy Logic is included.


    By the way, http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATheory.pdf based on ({},{__}] .
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2003
  7. Dec 29, 2003 #6

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    May I suggest, Organic, that your ideas might be better suited for the philosophy forum? You seem only interested in talking about your idea, and not the rigor to turn it into a mathematical theory... you might be able to do so over there.
     
  8. Dec 30, 2003 #7
    Dear Hurkyl,


    It is a mathematical theory and from now on I need your help to address it in a formal rigorous way.

    Please read all of my first post, and let us try together to address it.

    I am not going to add more ideas, until this thread is fully addressed.


    Thank you for your help.


    Yours,


    Organic
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2003
  9. Dec 30, 2003 #8
    Dear Hurkyl,

    The total order has two levels.

    1) The first level is the standard definition of total order.

    2) the second level is the fading transition from multiplication to addition, where the quantity remains unchanged.

    I need your help to address the second level in a formal way.

    Thank you.

    Organic

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second level example:

    Number 4 is fading transition between multiplication 1*4 and
    addition ((((+1)+1)+1)+1) ,and vice versa.

    This fading can be represented as:
    Code (Text):

    (1*4)              ={1,1,1,1} <------------- Maximum symmetry-degree,
    ((1*2)+1*2)        ={{1,1},1,1}              Minimum information's clarity-degree
    (((+1)+1)+1*2)     ={{{1},1},1,1}            (no uniqueness)
    ((1*2)+(1*2))      ={{1,1},{1,1}}
    (((+1)+1)+(1*2))   ={{{1},1},{1,1}}
    (((+1)+1)+((+1)+1))={{{1},1},{{1},1}}
    ((1*3)+1)          ={{1,1,1},1}
    (((1*2)+1)+1)      ={{{1,1},1},1}
    ((((+1)+1)+1)+1)   ={{{{1},1},1},1} <------ Minimum symmetry-degree,
                                                Maximum information's clarity-degree
                                                (uniqueness)
    ============>>>

                    Uncertainty
      <-Redundancy->^
        3  3  3  3  |          3  3             3  3
        2  2  2  2  |          2  2             2  2
        1  1  1  1  |    1  1  1  1             1  1       1  1  1  1
       {0, 0, 0, 0} V   {0, 0, 0, 0}     {0, 1, 0, 0}     {0, 0, 0, 0}
        .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .
        |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |
        |  |  |  |       |__|_ |  |       |__|  |  |       |__|_ |__|_
        |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
        |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
        |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
        |__|__|__|_      |_____|__|_      |_____|__|_      |_____|____
        |                |                |                |
        (1*4)            ((1*2)+1*2)      (((+1)+1)+1*2)   ((1*2)+(1*2))
     
     [b]4 =[/b]                                  2  2  2
              1  1                        1  1  1          1  1
       {0, 1, 0, 0}     {0, 1, 0, 1}     {0, 0, 0, 3}     {0, 0, 2, 3}
        .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .
        |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |
        |__|  |__|_      |__|  |__|       |  |  |  |       |__|_ |  |
        |     |          |     |          |  |  |  |       |     |  |
        |     |          |     |          |__|__|_ |       |_____|  |
        |     |          |     |          |        |       |        |
        |_____|____      |_____|____      |________|       |________|
        |                |                |                |
    (((+1)+1)+(1*2)) (((+1)+1)+((+1)+1))  ((1*3)+1)        (((1*2)+1)+1)

       {0, 1, 2, 3}
        .  .  .  .
        |  |  |  |
        |__|  |  |
        |     |  |
        |_____|  |
        |        |
        |________|
        |    
        ((((+1)+1)+1)+1)
     
    Multiplication can be operated only among objects with structural identity, where addition can be operated among identical and non-identical (by structure) objects.

    Also multiplication is noncommutative, for example:

    2*3 = ( (1,1),(1,1),(1,1) ) , ( ((1),1),((1),1),((1),1) )

    3*2 = ( (1,1,1),(1,1,1) ) , ( ((1,1),1),((1,1),1) ) , ( (((1),1),1),(((1),1),1) )

    More about the above you can find here (the first 9 lines defined by Hurkyl):

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ET.pdf

    More about Complementary logic, you can find here:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/4BPM.pdf

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CK.pdf


    More about the order concept can be found here:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CL-CH.pdf
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2003
  10. Dec 31, 2003 #9
    There is a question: does 'everything' is 'one' OR 'infinitely many ...'?

    Let us examine this question from simplicity point of view.

    What is simpler, 'one' or 'infinitely many'?

    'one' cannot be defined as 'many' and 'many' cannot be defined as 'one'.

    Does 'one of many' = 'one'?

    By quantity concept they are the same.

    Is there another point of view where they are not the same?

    If there is, then it is not a quantitative point of view.



    A structural point of view:

    First of all 'one' and 'one of many' are something (non-empty set's contents).

    Therefore, if we translate them to the simplest existing structural representation,
    we must get at least these two forms {.} , {__}.

    {.} is 'one of many'.

    {__} is an infinitely long line, representing 'one'.

    When we have these two existing and simplest structural representations, we want to examine them also by quantity concept.

    Quantity by set's concept, is the cardinality of some set's content.

    There can be 3 basic kinds of some set's cardinality:

    |{}| = 0

    |{.}| = 1

    |{__}| = 1

    Let us say that power 0 represents the minimal power of some non-empty set's content.

    When {__} is infinitely long line that represents 'one', it means that by structural point of view, 0 points included in it, but unlike {} content, {__} content exists.

    Therefore its cardinality > 0.

    When we combine between structural and quantity properties of {__} content, we can find its cardinality by this expression: 0^0 = 1 or |{__}| = 0^0 = 1.

    In {.} content there are at least 1 point, therefore according to the above:
    |{.}| = 1^0 = 1

    Now we have:

    |{}| = 0

    |{.}| = 1^0 = 1

    |{__}| = 0^0 = 1

    And we can clearly distinguish between {.}(=1^0*1 or {. , . , ...}=1^0*n>1)
    and {__}(=0^0).

    By structural point of view the connective between . and __ is: . XOR __

    Let us return to the first question, but now instead of OR we are using XOR.

    Does 'everything' is 'one' XOR 'infinitely many ...'?

    By more fine examination we find that there are at least two XOR connective levels:

    1. ( {}XOR{.} ) OR ( {}XOR{__} )

    2. {.}XOR{__}

    Level 1 is invariant but in level 2 we can change XOR by AND connective.

    As a result we get the new finite set's content {.__.} which is the minimal association between {., .}(= some pair) AND {__} .

    -->(or <--) is approaching(but cannot become closer) to

    And we get this general sets-structure: {} <--{.}AND{._.}--> {__} .


    Now we have:

    1. ( {}XOR{.} ) OR ( {}XOR{__} ) OR ( {}XOR{._.} ) OR ( {__}XOR{._.} ) )

    2. {.}AND{__}

    Level 2 connective is the base of Complementary Logic, which introduced very briefly here:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/4BPM.pdf

    Now, by Complementary Logic the answer is:

    'everything' is the balance of {} <--{.}AND{._.}--> {__} .



    Organic
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2003
  11. Dec 31, 2003 #10
    Organic,

    What attract me mostly
    in your new definition of number is that
    a*b is not b*a
    not in group theory
    but in natural numberS.

    And This is very nice organic !!!


    2500 year's in the history of the universe
    is maybe less than one hour in one year

    so let’s celebrate
    this last's hours of this year
    with this new nice understanding
    and with the memory to Hipasus.

    your's


    Moshek

    :smile:
     
  12. Jan 1, 2004 #11
    Dear moshek,

    By Complementary Logic multiplication is noncommutative, but I think that another interesting result is the fact that multiplication and addition are complementary, and as much as I know this point of view has a very deep influence on the question: "What is Number?"

    A second level example:

    Answer: Number is anything that exist in ({},{__})

    Or in more formal definition:

    ({},{_}):={x|{} <-- x(={.}) AND x(={._.})--> {_}}

    Where -->(or <--) is ASPIRATING(= approaching, but cannot become closer to).


    If x=4 then number 4 example:

    Number 4 is fading transition between multiplication 1*4 and
    addition ((((+1)+1)+1)+1) ,and vice versa.

    This fading can be represented as:
    Code (Text):

    (1*4)              ={1,1,1,1} <------------- Maximum symmetry-degree,
    ((1*2)+1*2)        ={{1,1},1,1}              Minimum information's clarity-degree
    (((+1)+1)+1*2)     ={{{1},1},1,1}            (no uniqueness)
    ((1*2)+(1*2))      ={{1,1},{1,1}}
    (((+1)+1)+(1*2))   ={{{1},1},{1,1}}
    (((+1)+1)+((+1)+1))={{{1},1},{{1},1}}
    ((1*3)+1)          ={{1,1,1},1}
    (((1*2)+1)+1)      ={{{1,1},1},1}
    ((((+1)+1)+1)+1)   ={{{{1},1},1},1} <------ Minimum symmetry-degree,
                                                Maximum information's clarity-degree
                                                (uniqueness)
    ============>>>

                    Uncertainty
      <-Redundancy->^
        3  3  3  3  |          3  3             3  3
        2  2  2  2  |          2  2             2  2
        1  1  1  1  |    1  1  1  1             1  1       1  1  1  1
       {0, 0, 0, 0} V   {0, 0, 0, 0}     {0, 1, 0, 0}     {0, 0, 0, 0}
        .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .
        |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |
        |  |  |  |       |__|_ |  |       |__|  |  |       |__|_ |__|_
        |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
        |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
        |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
        |__|__|__|_      |_____|__|_      |_____|__|_      |_____|____
        |                |                |                |
        (1*4)            ((1*2)+1*2)      (((+1)+1)+1*2)   ((1*2)+(1*2))
     
     [b]4 =[/b]                                  2  2  2
              1  1                        1  1  1          1  1
       {0, 1, 0, 0}     {0, 1, 0, 1}     {0, 0, 0, 3}     {0, 0, 2, 3}
        .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .
        |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |
        |__|  |__|_      |__|  |__|       |  |  |  |       |__|_ |  |
        |     |          |     |          |  |  |  |       |     |  |
        |     |          |     |          |__|__|_ |       |_____|  |
        |     |          |     |          |        |       |        |
        |_____|____      |_____|____      |________|       |________|
        |                |                |                |
    (((+1)+1)+(1*2)) (((+1)+1)+((+1)+1))  ((1*3)+1)        (((1*2)+1)+1)

       {0, 1, 2, 3}
        .  .  .  .
        |  |  |  |
        |__|  |  |
        |     |  |
        |_____|  |
        |        |
        |________|
        |    
        ((((+1)+1)+1)+1)
     
    Multiplication can be operated only among objects with structural identity, where addition can be operated among identical and non-identical (by structure) objects.

    Also multiplication is noncommutative, for example:

    2*3 = ( (1,1),(1,1),(1,1) ) , ( ((1),1),((1),1),((1),1) )

    3*2 = ( (1,1,1),(1,1,1) ) , ( ((1,1),1),((1,1),1) ) , ( (((1),1),1),(((1),1),1) )

    More about the above you can find here (the first 9 lines defined by Hurkyl):

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ET.pdf

    More about Complementary logic, you can find here:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/4BPM.pdf

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CK.pdf


    More about the order concept can be found here:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CL-CH.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2004
  13. Jan 1, 2004 #12
    Organic,

    Every big change
    must start only
    with the most little thing
    like Einstein did
    in the question
    how you measure length.

    In mathematics
    number is a very fundamental concept
    so it you look on a number
    in a different way
    and you real you that ( ab<>ba)
    you are doing good work.

    This is way i think
    that you are one of the 10 in the world
    who create today
    the new non-Euclidean mathematics
    despite the fact
    or maybe because...
    your really don’t anything
    about Euclidean mathematics

    now do you want to know
    about the forest of the monkey?


    Moshek
     
  14. Jan 2, 2004 #13
    Hi Moshek,

    I really hope that there are more then 10 persons that examine Math from its most simple concepts.

    Please tell me what is the meaning of 'the forest of the monkeys'?
     
  15. Jan 2, 2004 #14
    Dear Organic,

    I agree with master_coda:

    "Organic, please stop making up new names for things.
    If you're going to make up a name,
    make up just one and stick with it".

    well in my opinion Organic,
    you are talking only
    about one thing...

    The creation that will take many years
    of : "New mathematics" as a positive interpretation
    to Goedel theorem by looking on numbers
    in there inherent duality.
    It will call "The general relativity of mathematics",
    a vision that was first declared by Hilbert in 1900.
    That will be also the solution to his 6th problem.

    So i will answer on sandy to your question about
    "The forest of the monkey" but i will do it on your:

    Combinations.


    maybe you are right and 100 mathematicians
    are working today on this amazing voyager.

    your's
    Moshek
     
  16. Jan 4, 2004 #15
  17. Jan 6, 2004 #16
    Hi phoenixthoth,

    I thing I understand
    http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=34;st=0;&#entry717

    If i understand it then from my point of view any kernel is only a platform for understanding, like a well tuned piano before we play on it.

    The player does not want to deal with (to spend its talent on) piano’s technical problems.

    So the first step before we play is to solve our technical instrumental problems.

    We have to play on the piano whan we tune it.

    This kind of playing is in the kernel level, and when it is tuned, we can go to the next step, which is the playing itself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2004
  18. Jan 6, 2004 #17
    and what melodies will be played when the piano is tuned!

    my understanding is that you in particular know exactly what i'm talking about and i know exactly what you're talking about. if i understand this thread at all, then this thread and that post are the same subject. that's why i called it kernel, partially to show it to you so that you might gain something out of it. we're very much on the same "wavelength" on quite a few things so maybe i can be the hardy to your ramanujan, except i'm no hardy and you may be no ramanujan.

    writing is the passport (partly) to a symphony of well-tuned instruments. the music is in the master, not the instrument but who is the true master?

    now when we tune our instruments, maybe, just maybe, we can forumalate a cybernetic kernel mathematically: self aware structures.

    you may find my last post under "concretes and abstracts" on that board interesting; i wonder if logic itself is the fundamental SAS. it is located under philosophy/spirituality under miscellaneous. the basic idea is that fewer axioms and constants, like +, x, and &isin;, lead to more abstract and general theories. by abstract, i mean that a smaller structure is contained in a larger structure implies the larger structure is more abstract. for example, all rings are groups means that the group concept is more fundamental and abstract than the ring concept. not all structures are comparable, of course, though rings, modules, vector spaces, groups, semigroups, and fields can all be ordered in this hierarchy. well, if you go all the way, you get logic itself. logic is a basis for category theory and set theory. you just add constants to the language, permitted in logic, and axioms and you have different mathematics.

    i think that with SAS's, there must be a quality of presence and consciousness. on one end, you have something that may be less present and conscious and more nebulously aware of what it contains and when you add structure, you have something with more presence and consciousness with less nebulously aware of what it contains and what its surroundings are. less nebulous and less aware. i'm not sure about any of this.

    i wish the mind theorists like steve pinker and searle would get together with the people working on SAS's and maybe those masters can come up with something that concretes the abstracts i'm getting at.
     
  19. Jan 6, 2004 #18
  20. Jan 6, 2004 #19
    that first picture may be the best picture i've ever seen. infinity is like the green path with no beginning and no end, except that the center of the circle is the beginning and the end. the green path is longer than all other numbers, all other paths. that picture is a divine harp. what tunes can we play on it?

    thomas 18:
    The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
    Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.
    Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

    edit: it also makes sense if the numbers and paths represent alephs with the green path being the cardinal number of the universal set which i would like to give cardinal number capital omega and capital alpha, alternatively.

    another edit: it also shows how the green path is inaccessible from the other paths, ie, the other paths will never reach the green path.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2004
  21. Jan 7, 2004 #20
    The cardinality of the spine of the divine harp is stronger then any form of infinity, which described as "infinitely many ..." .

    Therefore when we in the level of the spine of the divine harp, we have no alternatives but to accept it as "the non-factorized-one".

    The power of the continuum is the divine harp spine.

    The power of the Euclidian Mathematics cannot deal with it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?