___
Today I invested a few hours of work into an old and new theory.
My initial intention was to "Give everyone the same power of understanding".
By what means?
My first guess was a human language framework (HLF) which can be taught to people. This framework unifies all human intuition in three language realms: common language, computer language and mathematical language.
I began to work based on this intention, but found that:
You can classify experience by examining the components of sensory experience. Human sensory experience (HSE) has 5 components. These are sight, smell, taste, touch and sound.
In life, we don’t actually compute what a sensory experience will be like AND THEN experience it. Instead, we imagine what that experience will be like before experiencing it. Based upon whatever language we use to conceptualise and subsequently analyse this future sensory experience, we determine whether or not we will allow ourselves to experience this future sensory experience.
From this perspective, I seek to create a language in which the conceptualisation and analysis of any future sensory experience is greatly facilitated, and moreover, greatly aided.
A sensory experience, like “Physics class”, is expressed MOST ACCURATELY as a set of physical parameters computed over a given time interval,
for example:
“My physics class is in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M.”, really: “My physics class is in (place) over (time interval)”
NOTE: (Notice how “every Tuesday and Thursday” doesn’t matter. The fact is that “physics class” takes place somewhere for a certain amount of time.)’
This may leave you thinking: “Well, all I know about Jorge’s physics class is where it takes place and for how long…what I really want to know is what’s ACTUALLY HAPPENNING in Jorge’s physic s class IF I WERE IN IT.”
If, by chance, this is what you really want to know, then you’re in trouble. Thankfully, I am attempting to create a language to aid you in this time of need. Let us continue; now introducing the concepts of quality, quantity, case and event.
There exists a quantitative explanation for every physical case.
Every physical case is a set of physical parameters computed for a given time interval.
Hence, the quantitative explanation for a physical case can be expressed as Pt{ } = a set of physical parameters computed for a given time interval.
Further, there exists a qualitative explanation for every physical case WHICH AVOIDS THE MATHEMATICAL RIGOR OF DEFINING AND COMPUTING PARAMETER VALUES FOR Pt{ }.
For argument, we ask:
“Pt{ } = Physics class?”
The answer to this question, intuitively, will be the space between the brackets of Pt{ }.
Immediately we notice Pt{ } has empty arguments. In other words, we are lacking a set of variables to insert between the brackets of Pt{ }. To determine which set of variables will correctly answer the question, we need to understand the notation Pt{ }.
In Pt{ }, t simply denotes that Pt{ } must be computed over a given time interval.
For argument, we ask:
“What is Pt{ }? = What is physics class?”
1) I argue:
Physical parameterization of “physics class” will result in a quantitative explanation of “physics class”. Furthermore, this parameterization gives us a VERY ACCURATE set of event probabilities IN THE CONTEXT OF “PHYSICS CLASS”. Let us attempt to qualitatively express knowledge about said context by saying: “Physics class lasts 2 hours.”
2) I argue:
Pt{“Physics class”} = P2{ }PHYSICS CLASS
Let us now reintroduce the concept of space which, inevitably, is embedded within the physical parameters of “physics class”.
3) I argue:
“Physics class” = P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS
Now I can say:
“P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS is the symbolic expression of a set of physical parameters with arguments {x,y,z} computed over a time interval of 2 hours.”
There is still an intuitive disconnect in the argument:
P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS = “physics class”.
This is because we have not computed values for x, y and z.
The disconnect persists even given an arbitrary set of quantitative values:
P2{0,0,0 }PHYSICS CLASS = “physics class”.
However, from my first argument, we recall that a physical parameterization of “physics class” (which is essentially what we’ve done in expressing “physics class” symbolically) gives us:
“A VERY ACCURATE set of event probabilities IN THE CONTEXT OF “PHYSICS CLASS””
As such, I can say:
P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS = “A VERY ACCURATE set of event probabilities IN THE CONTEXT OF ‘PHYSICS CLASS’”.
By doing this, I am relating the set P2{x,y,z} PHYSICS CLASS with a set of event probabilities, which I will call E{%}. E{%} is a symbolic expression of the probability of every possible event. Abstractly speaking, it is the most powerful set.
Really, E{%} on its own says “the probability of any possible event happening exists”
Now consider:
If the probability of any possible event happening does not exist, then no possible events exist,meaning no events exist. The fact is: events exist. Further, an event can be qualitatively expressed as: “anything that happens”. As we know, for anything to happen it must be given a place and time for it to happen.
4) I argue:
If E{%} = “the probability of any possible event happening exists”
And “event” = “anything that happens”
Then E{%} = “the probability of any possible ‘anything that happens’ happening exists”
This, of course, is messy and nonsensical. Instead,
E{%} = ”the probability of any event happening”
I hope we agree. Moving on.
We know that the probability of any event happening exists. But what do we know about the probability of any event not happening? There must exist a relationship between the probability of any event happening and any event not happening.
The probability of any event happening
may or may not be dependent upon
The probability of any event not happening.
For my brain’s sake, let us treat any event as a physical case (we know this can be done, since events exist in the same spacetime as physical cases, i.e. The Universe):
The probability of a physical case happening
May or may not be dependent upon
The probability of a physical case not happening.
Let us now reintroduce the physical case that is “physics class”:
The probability of “physics class” happening
May or may not be dependent upon
The probability of “physics class” not happening.
Immediately we see that “The probability of ‘physics class’ happening” is a completely trivial expression. Really, the probability of “physics class” happening depends on how we define “physics class”. For example, if we define “physics class” to be any class in which physics is taught, then “physics class” is happening across world at all times. On the contrary, though likewise, if we define “physics class” to be my “physics class”, then “physics class” is “in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M”. Suddenly, it all starts to make sense, but to feel good about claiming that this is all starting to make sense, let me ask some questions:
P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS = “in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M”?
We know from arithmetic and dimensional analysis that 10:30 A.M. (minus) 8:30 A.M. = 2
Also, by the same principle of argument (2):
P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS = P2{“Physics class”}
5) I argue:
{x,y,z} = {“Physics class”}
NOTE:(But how to convince you?)
Well,
P2{“Physics class”} = “Physics class happening for two hours”
{“Physics class”} = “Physics class happening” = {x,y,z}
NOTE:(What we notice is that solutions to the set of arguments {x,y,z} result in quantitative explanations of what is happening , but what we want is a single qualitative explanation).
Let us try using E{%}, the most powerful set in our language to aid us in this conundrum:
E{%} = “the probability of any event happening”
but furthermore,
the probability of any event happening
may or may not be dependent upon
the probability of any event not happening.
--
E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = “the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening”.
but furthermore,
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
may or may not be dependent upon
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS not happening.
Since P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS = “in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M” for a set of arguments {x,y,z}, we can intuitively determine that:
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
IS NOT dependent upon
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS not happening,
and thus
the probability of P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
or
E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%}
Will always equal 1; hence:
E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = 1
If
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
IS NOT dependent upon
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS not happening.
What we have arrived at an expression :
“E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = 1” iff “not E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = 0”
Or, more generally:
“E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1” iff “not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0” ,
Hence:
“E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0” iff “not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1” ? ,
And thus:
“E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1”
Now, let us revisit argument 5), which brought us here:
If
{x,y,z} = {“Physics class”}
Then
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 1.
Let us translate this into English:
“The probability of event ‘physics class’ happening (+) the probability of event “physics class” not happening (=) 1”
This actually makes sense because it is equivalent to saying:
“The probability of event ‘physics class’ happening (+) the probability of event “physics class” not happening (=) ‘physics class’ happens”
If ‘physics class’ does not happen, then:
“The probability of event ‘physics class’ happening (+) the probability of event “physics class” not happening (=) 0”
And thus:
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 0.
But what does it mean for ‘physics class’ to not happen?
It would mean that:
“ My physics class (which) is in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M.”
Does not happen. This is obviously not the case because we’ve already determined that
“E{Pt{x,y,z}%}” IS NOT dependent upon “not E{Pt{x,y,z}%}”. However, we must show that both these expressions are true:
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 1 = “Physics class” happens
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 0 = “Physics class” does not happen
Back to physical parameters:
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1 = {x,y,z} happens
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0 = {x,y,z} does not happen
BUT I INSIST
WHAT IS {x,y,z} WITH RESPECT TO {“Physics class”}?
THIS IS THE TRICK:
TREAT “Physics class” as an event
But
TREAT {“Physics class”} as an object
How does this make sense?
Events happen in real life.
Hence: Events are a function of time
Objects exist in real life, but also exist abstractly.
Hence: Objects are not necessarily functions of time.
By distinguishing “Physics class” from {“Physics class”}, we finally have the power to define parameters for {x,y,z}.
NOTE: (Just for fun, consider event “x, y, z”…what does this mean to you? Absolutely nothing, right?)
We now treat the set of arguments {x,y,z} as an object {x,y,z} in Euclidean space.
The beautiful, beautiful thing about all this is that since object {x,y,z} exists in Euclidean space,
we can treat object {x,y,z} as a vector
In our new, abstract realm of objects, objects move with respect to each other according to geometric and trigonometric principles (because this is easy for everyone to visualise).
For argument (and also, for thought experiment, and incidentally, for fun):
Consider:
Giraffe<0,0,0>
This is a giraffe with its centre of mass at point (0,0,0) in 3D space. Realise that this fully 3D giraffe is yours to keep. Think deeply. Visualise this giraffe. View it from as many angles as you please. Zoom in and out. (Sadly, the probability that you know what a giraffe looks like from every angle is extremely low…thereby limiting your viewing capabilities…but we will return to this temporary inconvenience later).
As you visualise your giraffe, remember that:
3 lines, all perpendicular to each other and pointing in different directions, intersect at point (0,0,0), the giraffe’s centre of mass.
The fact that we know this giraffe’s centre of mass and where it is in 3D space means that, for all practical purposes, we can treat this giraffe as a point in space.
Hence, this giraffe can be “put” anywhere in 3D space by giving it random arguments
So really, Giraffe<0,0,0> is just Giraffe
Now consider the following:
You have a lapse in memory and totally forget about Giraffe
Hopefully, you have not forgotten the concept of 3D space itself.
Thankfully you haven’t.
Think of yourself as an object in 3D space. As an object you have no body, but you definitely have a mind. Sadly, your mind as an object in an empty 3D space is limited to “where you can ‘put’ yourself”.
I hope this is where this all ties in:
Your experience as an object is not sensory experience.
As an object in empty 3D space, you can only ‘see’ everything around you, which happens to be the same because your 3D space is empty.
The only reason I am personifying this point-like object in empty 3D as you is to assert that
You can experience ANYTHING in this abstract realm.
But this experience will not be sensory because in this abstract realm you are not human. What makes you human is your ability to see, smell, touch, taste and hear. To a human, experience which is not sensory is boring if even understandable.
Instead of imagining Giraffe
The problem is evident: what you are imagining is not you.
Notice we are merely visualising objects.
We are not smelling them.
If you’ve already started “moving” objects, then you’re on the right track.
In this abstract realm, we can move objects with respect to each other according to basic geometric and trigonometric principles.
But in a system (realm) of many objects , what happens when objects touch as you’re moving them??????
We now need to define physical parameters!
We need to introduce a physical framework from which we can establish physical cases that apply to all inertial reference frames!!!!!!
The best physical framework that exists for this purpose is the Standard Model. It is a work in progress, but based upon it, I will conclude that
Life is an event
Which is a set of physical parameters over a given time interval
We live until we die in the space-time of our Universe.
In making decisions, use equations
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1 = {x,y,z} happens
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0 = {x,y,z} does not happen
to determine which decision is best.
Our brains have a very hard time computing these
And often we make the wrong decision, but know
There is always a best decision
Whether or not this is evident to you at the time of decision making
Is a question of how well you understand the situation you’re in.
Either way, if we can sense, we can understand.
+Dump{Analysis of human action plus understanding + productivity/efficiency problems in all cases limited to human action}
No comments:
Post a Comment