Google announced this week that it had achieved "quantum supremacy", in reference to a new quantum computer that can perform calculations far faster than a conventional computer. An ordinary computer uses magnetic bits, which can store information by representing either a binary 0 or a 1. Basically, a computer making use of quantum physics can calculate much faster, because bits in quantum states can represent either a 0 or 1 at the same time.
I just want to remind readers that there is another breakthrough development in computing. Developments in computing are all about technology, but what about language? Suppose that there was a major breakthrough to be made on the language side that cannot be done with technology?
Physicists always tell us that everything is basically numbers. This means that there must be a way to break words down into their corresponding numbers. If that could be done then the computer would automatically understand all text data without any further instruction as to what the words mean, just as it can do now but only with numbers.
If this could be done then a computer, or any information device, would be able to understand words just as it understands numbers. As it stands now, a computer understands numbers but it doesn't understand words at all unless keywords are coded in. It understands numbers because numbers form a logical linear sequence while words don't.
Computers are designed around use of numbers, but do not actually understand words at all. Words cannot be understood by a computer without additional keyword instructions. To a computer, as it stands now, a word is just a mass of byte code that is recognizable to us but meaningless to the computer. We can organize words by alphabetical order, or parts of speech such as nouns or verbs, but there is at present no way to organize words in logical order by meaning in the same linear way that numbers are organized.
But, again, physicists tell us that everything is really numbers in manifestation. This must mean that all words actually are numbers that any computer or communication device could understand if only we could break words down into their corresponding numbers.
This would be a much better way of storing knowledge than at present because the computer or application would actually "know" the knowledge, instead of merely storing and displaying it. The computer or phone could reason and answer questions based on the knowledge that it has, and could readily translate one language into another because all words would be broken down into the same numbers.
Since most physicists agree that everything is really numbers there must be a way out there somewhere to arrange words in a logical structure by meaning in the same way as numbers. The computer would then really understand all of the data that was inputted into it. That would be a massive breakthrough in computing.
I have the mathematics all worked out that would have every word in the language broken down into it's corresponding numbers. The process resembles an inverted pyramid with the mathematical operations that the computer or phone device already understands at the bottom and the numerical codes representing the meanings of words built upon that. The result will be the meanings of all words expressed by numerical codes that are broken down into the math that the computer understands so that the computer can then finally understand words as well as it does numbers.
Using this system, suppose that we give the computer a simple statement like "The front of the new school will be made of red brick". The computer will automatically know that red is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation visible to humans. It will know that bricks are made of clay, which is broken-down rock. It will discern that bricks have mass and the school will be bound to the planet by gravity. It will be clear to the computer that the school will get wet when it rains, and will need periodic maintenance. The computer will also know that a decision must have been made to build the school based on economic considerations and that humans must learn their knowledge, and that this is the purpose of the school.
As it stands now, the computer can understand complex mathematical operations but not simple reasoning like this using words, unless such words are encoded, such as with keywords. But with this system, the computer will understand every word and sentence because each word will be presented as part of the overall language structure with the word based on the words below it, which define it's meaning, with all words ultimately based on the mathematical operations which the computer already understands.
This is not as difficult as it may seem. There are only about ten thousand words in common use. Words can be defined by combinations of other words, or else we would not have dictionaries. The most commonly used words are actually numerical expressions such as and, with, without, near and, far. Most prepositions are numerical in nature.
This system makes extensive use of the common patterns shared by so many words. For example, eyes, windows, lenses, cameras, sensors and, antennae are all variations of the same thing, and will thus have related numerical codes. There are very many common patterns between living things and technology, ribs in the body and rafters in a house, for example. Words which are manifestations of the same basic pattern will have related positions in the structure of all words, this will make it easy for the computer to understand the words and to relate them to the mathematics which it already understands.
It is easy to see how the physical universe is all numbers being manifested. There is the +1 and -1 of the basic electric charges in the universe. Atoms are structures that balance positive (protons) and negative (electrons) charges out to zero. Atoms are numbers in that the elements are defined by the atom's atomic number. Atoms + other atoms = molecules. On a large scale in the universe, spheres form by gravity as planets and stars because a sphere has the lowest surface area per volume, and this the lowest energy state. Computers can readily be used to model the physical universe because of how it is ultimately always based on numbers.
But things get more difficult when we come to modeling living things and humans as mathematical models that the computer understands. This system of mine, however, makes any thought or action, as well as any implication of that thought or action, expressible in numbers that fit into a mathematical structure with all other meanings of words.
It is important to understand that this is not at all an issue of technology at all, but of language. This could actually have been done with the technology of decades ago. What is novel about this approach is that it is from the language side, rather than the technology side.
I see this step as inevitable in computer technology, but it has not been done yet. How can real artificial intelligence ever be possible without a step like this? I studied computer programming, but was dismayed by all of the computer languages for different purposes. Why can't we just get the computer to understand ordinary language? We do not have to speak a different language for every different thing that we do, so why should the computer?
There is nothing in AI like this. It is not machine learning or word embedding. I do not see how we could have real artificial intelligence without the computer or device actually understanding words. This system is not actually a computer language that requires compiling or interpreting. Rather, it is the system of mathematics that turns all of human language into a computer language that can then be completely and readily understood by the computer because the language has been broken down into the numbers that it ultimately represents.
Again this must be possible if, as physicists tell us, everything is really numbers. It is not a question of if it can be done, there must be a way to do it. I have thoroughly tested this system of mathematics that I have developed and anything that can be expressed as words can readily be translated into numbers that the computer understands.
Some of my writing about numbers, words and, how information works is in the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Complexity".
This system is complete but I have not yet arrived at what to do with it, and have not decided on a name for it. I do not want to get involved in starting a company myself but could give this to a company or I might make it into a book. if anyone wants to know more about it meekmark174@gmail.com .
Friday, October 25, 2019
New Measurements For Complexity And The Meaningful Word Ratio
This is being reposted because more has been added to it.
I have written previously about what a great breakthrough it would be if we could measure complexity. What I mean by measure is to actually put a number on it. As it is now, we express complexity with vague subjective terms such as "more complex than" or "much less complex than".
This has been added to the compound posting on this blog about my information theory, "The Theory Of Complexity".
The reason that we do not naturally measure complexity numerically, as we do time or weight or distance, is that we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and when we look around us, we are superimposing our own complexity on our less complex surroundings. We have difficulty expressing this complexity as a number because we are literally measuring our own complexity. This is very difficult because, to measure something, we must be able to grasp it's complexity with our own complexity.
I can see how to express the complexity of a number. A number by itself means essentially nothing. Numbers only have real meaning in relation to another number or reference point. My view of the complexity of a number is that of the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. The complexity level of 2 / 5 is 5. A higher number is not necessarily more complex than a lower number because a number like 5 is really 5 / 1, while 26 is really 26 / 1.
But if, as physicists tell us, everything is really numbers, then complexity must somehow be measurable as a number. We just have difficulty seeing it because we are essentially measuring the complexity of ourselves.
Our creation of technology is just imposing our own complexity on our natural environment. I see all examples of technology as being of equal complexity if we add together the internal and external complexity. It may seem that a car is more complex than a cup, but that is only because more of a car's complexity is external. A cup may seem like a very simple device but to fully understand it, and why we would create it, we would have to understand the human body and how it works and why we would need to drink from a cup. All technology is a reflection of our own complexity if we would add it's internal and external complexity together.
My finding is that what it requires is some new and creative ways of measuring. There is a maximum and minimum of complexity between the lower end of inanimate matter and the higher end of our own complexity. If it did exist, we could not measure anything more complex than ourselves.
We can see that humans are more complex than our surrounding universe of inanimate matter. We also know that the more complex something is, relative to it's surroundings, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. So, considering the innate complexity of our surrounding inanimate universe doesn't it make sense that the number of entries in medical textbook, the number of things that could possibly go wrong with the human body, is representative of the difference in complexity between the lower level of inanimate matter and the higher level of human beings?
The reason that people are different from one another is random mutations caused by radiation and other factors in the surrounding natural environment. But humans are clearly much more the same than they are different. So doesn't it make sense that the sameness of humans divided by the differences between humans would equal the higher complexity of humans divided by the lower complexity of inanimate matter?
The fact that humans can recognize each other is a reflection of the fact that our brains must be more complex than our bodies. If our bodies and brains were of equal complexity then we would be able to tell another human being, but not to differentiate one from another.
So this then gives us the measurement perspective that the ratio of the complexity of our bodies, divided by the lesser complexity of our inanimate surroundings, must be equal to the ratio of the complexity of our brains, divided by the lesser complexity of our bodies, which makes it possible for us to recognize each other.
We cannot always recognize everyone from everyone else. Some people look so alike as to be virtually indistinguishable. But this reveals another interesting equality. The number of possible entries in a medical textbook, the total number of things that can go wrong with the body because it is of a higher level of complexity than it's inanimate surroundings, is essentially equal to the total number of different people that we can recognize, with the recognition not being limited to sight.
PLANTS, COMPLEXITY AND, DIET
What about the number of plants required in the soil to keep humans in optimum health? This includes those used as feed for livestock or seafood. My theory is that while humans are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, plants are not. Plants are actually more intricate than the surrounding natural environment, meaning complexity per mass, but are not overall more complex.
But food is what we use to maintain our higher level of complexity against the downward pull of our less-complex inanimate surroundings, our lives and health, being surrounded by the lower complexity of the inanimate universe. This lower level of complexity continuously tries to pull us back down to it's level, and eventually succeeds when we die, and partially succeeds when we get sick or injured. We use, either directly or indirectly through meat, plants to sustain us. But since any one plant is no more complex than our inanimate surroundings, no single plant can really provide a balanced diet for us.
We could thus say then that the number of plants required to provide an optimum diet is equal to how many times more complex we are than our surrounding inanimate environment.
Remember that we see how plants are more intricate than, but not more complex than, the surrounding inanimate universe in that they do not require free will. Free will, such as humans and animals have, only makes sense if the living thing can make decisions. We can only make decisions if we could possibly be wrong. We could only possibly make wrong decisions if we were more complex than our surroundings and there was not enough information in those surroundings to match our own complexity with which we see those surroundings. A living thing can never be wrong about anything if it is no more complex than it's inanimate surroundings.
So we can add this measurement perspective to the perspective above, about the medical textbook and the ability to recognize each other. The number of different plants that we need for an optimum diet, including those eaten indirectly as meat, is equal to the ratio of our complexity over the complexity of our inanimate surroundings. This has never been pointed out before.
THE COMPLEXITY OF SOCIETY
As we impose our own complexity on the surrounding inanimate matter, our society grows more complex. Since this complexity of society must be somewhere in between the base level of the complexity of inanimate matter and our own complexity, that means that it must be measurable.
One way to measure the complexity of society is by the total number of definable job descriptions. Since each job description is a numerator of 1 in a ratio over a denominator, that means that the value of the denominator is a quantification of the complexity of society.
Distance is information also and we can also measure the complexity of society by the total amount of traveling that is done. But we can see that the number of job descriptions and the total distance traveled are interchangeable, different functions of the same thing. When humans settled from being nomadic hunter-gatherers into farming at static settlements, the total distance traveled decreased but the number of definable job descriptions, facilitated by the division of labor, increased.
Suppose that there was an imaginary day in the future when we will know all that we can possibly know, we can call it K-Day. Consider that to express something in numbers we have to completely understand it, we describe with words what we do not completely understand. This means that, the more knowledge we gain and the closer we move toward the day that we know all that we can possibly know, the higher the proportion of our information we will express in numbers, rather than in words.
It indeed seems that we are expressing more information in numbers than in days past and the total proportion of knowledge expressed in numbers should show us how we are progressing toward K-Day.
I am fascinated by the idea of quantifying complexity, actually putting a number on it, and all of the benefits that would bring. We can put a number on complexity but we cannot measure it with a ruler or a scale. It requires some new and creative ways of measuring.
THE MEANINGFUL WORD RATIO
Our alphabet generally has a letter representing each fundamental sound of speech that humans use. The total number of these fundamental sounds of speech is, of course, related to our complexity. Aside from the letters of the alphabet we also use numbers, structured from fundamental digits that function in a way similar to that of letters.
But the difference between letters and numbers is that, while all combinations of digits forms a meaningful number, only a certain proportion of letter combinations forms meaningful words. The number of digits that we use to express numbers, ten, is simply a reflection of ancient people counting on their ten fingers and is not a reflection of our complexity. In any case, the number base that we use would not affect the basic operation of mathematics.
Consider the following potential single-syllable words that possibly could be words. but do not yet have a meaning assigned to them, possibly excluding names:
Kilp
Wun
Bant
Dop
I find that this proportion tells us a lot about where we stand in relation to knowledge. We could call is the "Meaningful Word Ratio".
We have a certain complexity level that is higher than that of our inanimate surrounding universe. My view of all technology is that it is imposing our complexity on that of our inanimate surroundings. Being limited, we cannot ever know everything but there is a potential of what we could know. Since we are always learning new things we can be sure that we have not yet reached that potential which does, of course, depend on our complexity, and this complexity of ours is the same complexity level which governs the number of fundamental speech sounds that we use.
The conclusion that I come to about this is that, if we could perfectly impose our complexity on our surroundings in creating technology, and could know all that we could possibly know, we would have to coin new words that would make a meaningful word out of all possible letter combinations, following the rules of wording such as vowels and consonants and dipthings, without lengthening the average length of a word because that brings about more possible letter combinations.
This does not apply to names became names are a function of words, being secondary to words. We use words to describe patterns because there is not enough information in the universe for everything to be completely different from everything else. We use words for the resulting patterns such as: house, tree, cloud, car, planet and, star because there are many of these patterns, not just one of each.
But yet different examples of such patterns are not identical to one another, and we can thus differentiate between examples of the same pattern and use names to describe this differentiation. There are a number of planets that we can differentiate, as well as different species of trees and of makes and models of cars so we use names to define these differentiations although they fall into the same pattern as described by a word.
Numbers are innate to the inanimate universe around us. Everything is really numbers being manifested. But words are our creation and their usefulness results from our scale and our perspective on the universe. if we were much larger in scale, or smaller, or our senses were different, we would use the same numbers but our words would have different meanings.
What I find so interesting about expressing our present knowledge and technology as a ratio of what our knowledge and technology could, given our complexity level, possibly be is that our use of words themselves are a reflection of the fact that our knowledge is incomplete, or has not reached it's full potential.
Numbers are more precise than words. But, for that very reason, we have to understand everything about something, the calendar for example, to be able to describe it with numbers. We have to know something to be able to express with words, but if we knew everything about it we could express it with the more-accurate numbers instead. In other words, numbers are for what we completely understand and words are for what we partially understand.
That means, once again, that we can estimate where we stand with knowledge, what we know now in comparison to what we could potentially know, by scanning a vast number of documents and counting the numbers relative to words, and than taking comparable measurements on older sets of documents.
I have written previously about what a great breakthrough it would be if we could measure complexity. What I mean by measure is to actually put a number on it. As it is now, we express complexity with vague subjective terms such as "more complex than" or "much less complex than".
This has been added to the compound posting on this blog about my information theory, "The Theory Of Complexity".
The reason that we do not naturally measure complexity numerically, as we do time or weight or distance, is that we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and when we look around us, we are superimposing our own complexity on our less complex surroundings. We have difficulty expressing this complexity as a number because we are literally measuring our own complexity. This is very difficult because, to measure something, we must be able to grasp it's complexity with our own complexity.
I can see how to express the complexity of a number. A number by itself means essentially nothing. Numbers only have real meaning in relation to another number or reference point. My view of the complexity of a number is that of the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. The complexity level of 2 / 5 is 5. A higher number is not necessarily more complex than a lower number because a number like 5 is really 5 / 1, while 26 is really 26 / 1.
But if, as physicists tell us, everything is really numbers, then complexity must somehow be measurable as a number. We just have difficulty seeing it because we are essentially measuring the complexity of ourselves.
Our creation of technology is just imposing our own complexity on our natural environment. I see all examples of technology as being of equal complexity if we add together the internal and external complexity. It may seem that a car is more complex than a cup, but that is only because more of a car's complexity is external. A cup may seem like a very simple device but to fully understand it, and why we would create it, we would have to understand the human body and how it works and why we would need to drink from a cup. All technology is a reflection of our own complexity if we would add it's internal and external complexity together.
My finding is that what it requires is some new and creative ways of measuring. There is a maximum and minimum of complexity between the lower end of inanimate matter and the higher end of our own complexity. If it did exist, we could not measure anything more complex than ourselves.
We can see that humans are more complex than our surrounding universe of inanimate matter. We also know that the more complex something is, relative to it's surroundings, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. So, considering the innate complexity of our surrounding inanimate universe doesn't it make sense that the number of entries in medical textbook, the number of things that could possibly go wrong with the human body, is representative of the difference in complexity between the lower level of inanimate matter and the higher level of human beings?
The reason that people are different from one another is random mutations caused by radiation and other factors in the surrounding natural environment. But humans are clearly much more the same than they are different. So doesn't it make sense that the sameness of humans divided by the differences between humans would equal the higher complexity of humans divided by the lower complexity of inanimate matter?
The fact that humans can recognize each other is a reflection of the fact that our brains must be more complex than our bodies. If our bodies and brains were of equal complexity then we would be able to tell another human being, but not to differentiate one from another.
So this then gives us the measurement perspective that the ratio of the complexity of our bodies, divided by the lesser complexity of our inanimate surroundings, must be equal to the ratio of the complexity of our brains, divided by the lesser complexity of our bodies, which makes it possible for us to recognize each other.
We cannot always recognize everyone from everyone else. Some people look so alike as to be virtually indistinguishable. But this reveals another interesting equality. The number of possible entries in a medical textbook, the total number of things that can go wrong with the body because it is of a higher level of complexity than it's inanimate surroundings, is essentially equal to the total number of different people that we can recognize, with the recognition not being limited to sight.
PLANTS, COMPLEXITY AND, DIET
What about the number of plants required in the soil to keep humans in optimum health? This includes those used as feed for livestock or seafood. My theory is that while humans are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, plants are not. Plants are actually more intricate than the surrounding natural environment, meaning complexity per mass, but are not overall more complex.
But food is what we use to maintain our higher level of complexity against the downward pull of our less-complex inanimate surroundings, our lives and health, being surrounded by the lower complexity of the inanimate universe. This lower level of complexity continuously tries to pull us back down to it's level, and eventually succeeds when we die, and partially succeeds when we get sick or injured. We use, either directly or indirectly through meat, plants to sustain us. But since any one plant is no more complex than our inanimate surroundings, no single plant can really provide a balanced diet for us.
We could thus say then that the number of plants required to provide an optimum diet is equal to how many times more complex we are than our surrounding inanimate environment.
Remember that we see how plants are more intricate than, but not more complex than, the surrounding inanimate universe in that they do not require free will. Free will, such as humans and animals have, only makes sense if the living thing can make decisions. We can only make decisions if we could possibly be wrong. We could only possibly make wrong decisions if we were more complex than our surroundings and there was not enough information in those surroundings to match our own complexity with which we see those surroundings. A living thing can never be wrong about anything if it is no more complex than it's inanimate surroundings.
So we can add this measurement perspective to the perspective above, about the medical textbook and the ability to recognize each other. The number of different plants that we need for an optimum diet, including those eaten indirectly as meat, is equal to the ratio of our complexity over the complexity of our inanimate surroundings. This has never been pointed out before.
THE COMPLEXITY OF SOCIETY
As we impose our own complexity on the surrounding inanimate matter, our society grows more complex. Since this complexity of society must be somewhere in between the base level of the complexity of inanimate matter and our own complexity, that means that it must be measurable.
One way to measure the complexity of society is by the total number of definable job descriptions. Since each job description is a numerator of 1 in a ratio over a denominator, that means that the value of the denominator is a quantification of the complexity of society.
Distance is information also and we can also measure the complexity of society by the total amount of traveling that is done. But we can see that the number of job descriptions and the total distance traveled are interchangeable, different functions of the same thing. When humans settled from being nomadic hunter-gatherers into farming at static settlements, the total distance traveled decreased but the number of definable job descriptions, facilitated by the division of labor, increased.
Suppose that there was an imaginary day in the future when we will know all that we can possibly know, we can call it K-Day. Consider that to express something in numbers we have to completely understand it, we describe with words what we do not completely understand. This means that, the more knowledge we gain and the closer we move toward the day that we know all that we can possibly know, the higher the proportion of our information we will express in numbers, rather than in words.
It indeed seems that we are expressing more information in numbers than in days past and the total proportion of knowledge expressed in numbers should show us how we are progressing toward K-Day.
I am fascinated by the idea of quantifying complexity, actually putting a number on it, and all of the benefits that would bring. We can put a number on complexity but we cannot measure it with a ruler or a scale. It requires some new and creative ways of measuring.
THE MEANINGFUL WORD RATIO
Our alphabet generally has a letter representing each fundamental sound of speech that humans use. The total number of these fundamental sounds of speech is, of course, related to our complexity. Aside from the letters of the alphabet we also use numbers, structured from fundamental digits that function in a way similar to that of letters.
But the difference between letters and numbers is that, while all combinations of digits forms a meaningful number, only a certain proportion of letter combinations forms meaningful words. The number of digits that we use to express numbers, ten, is simply a reflection of ancient people counting on their ten fingers and is not a reflection of our complexity. In any case, the number base that we use would not affect the basic operation of mathematics.
Consider the following potential single-syllable words that possibly could be words. but do not yet have a meaning assigned to them, possibly excluding names:
Kilp
Wun
Bant
Dop
I find that this proportion tells us a lot about where we stand in relation to knowledge. We could call is the "Meaningful Word Ratio".
We have a certain complexity level that is higher than that of our inanimate surrounding universe. My view of all technology is that it is imposing our complexity on that of our inanimate surroundings. Being limited, we cannot ever know everything but there is a potential of what we could know. Since we are always learning new things we can be sure that we have not yet reached that potential which does, of course, depend on our complexity, and this complexity of ours is the same complexity level which governs the number of fundamental speech sounds that we use.
The conclusion that I come to about this is that, if we could perfectly impose our complexity on our surroundings in creating technology, and could know all that we could possibly know, we would have to coin new words that would make a meaningful word out of all possible letter combinations, following the rules of wording such as vowels and consonants and dipthings, without lengthening the average length of a word because that brings about more possible letter combinations.
This does not apply to names became names are a function of words, being secondary to words. We use words to describe patterns because there is not enough information in the universe for everything to be completely different from everything else. We use words for the resulting patterns such as: house, tree, cloud, car, planet and, star because there are many of these patterns, not just one of each.
But yet different examples of such patterns are not identical to one another, and we can thus differentiate between examples of the same pattern and use names to describe this differentiation. There are a number of planets that we can differentiate, as well as different species of trees and of makes and models of cars so we use names to define these differentiations although they fall into the same pattern as described by a word.
Numbers are innate to the inanimate universe around us. Everything is really numbers being manifested. But words are our creation and their usefulness results from our scale and our perspective on the universe. if we were much larger in scale, or smaller, or our senses were different, we would use the same numbers but our words would have different meanings.
What I find so interesting about expressing our present knowledge and technology as a ratio of what our knowledge and technology could, given our complexity level, possibly be is that our use of words themselves are a reflection of the fact that our knowledge is incomplete, or has not reached it's full potential.
Numbers are more precise than words. But, for that very reason, we have to understand everything about something, the calendar for example, to be able to describe it with numbers. We have to know something to be able to express with words, but if we knew everything about it we could express it with the more-accurate numbers instead. In other words, numbers are for what we completely understand and words are for what we partially understand.
That means, once again, that we can estimate where we stand with knowledge, what we know now in comparison to what we could potentially know, by scanning a vast number of documents and counting the numbers relative to words, and than taking comparable measurements on older sets of documents.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Brown Color
I would like to contribute to the controversy over the nature of the color brown. It is yet another example of how we have to consider that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
No color is really "real". Color is just how our eyes and brains interpret different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Outside of living things, color is meaningless. But I have concluded that brown is even less "real" than the other colors. We actually see brown because of the nature of our eyes.
Besides the actual colors, there is black, white and, gray. White is a mixture of all colors and black is a complete absence of any light or color. Gray is a mixture of black and white.
But our eyes are not completely impartial. There are two combinations of what are known as "Forbidden Colors". Our eyes are unable to process a combination of either red and green or yellow and blue. This is basically because both colors in each forbidden pair are processed by the same part of the eye so that we cannot see a mix of both colors from the same place at the same time.
That is where brown comes in. It is not a "real" color. Brown is what we see if it is a color combination that the eyes cannot process.
The color brown is thus an "error message" that our eyes are not able to correctly process the color combination that is being observed.
Brown is not a mix of colors from throughout the spectrum, that forms white, although the pairs of forbidden colors do have some spectral distance between them. Brown can, of course be mixed with black or white to form shades such as tan.
An interesting thought about color is whether we all interpret colors in the same way. Can you be sure that someone else sees red and blue just as you do? We saw in the posting "The Real Alphabet", on the meteorology and biology blog, www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com , the first posting in the Biology section, July 2009, that the "real alphabet" that we use to describe the world around us does not consist of the letters of the alphabet, but of what I refer to as "sense elements".
These sense elements are the most fundamental components of our communication, that are impossible to describe with words. A person has to already know, by their senses, these sense elements before they can participate in any kind of communication with words.
The most important of these sense elements is color. Can you imagine trying to describe your favorite color to someone who is completely blind? I do not mean an object of that color but the color itself.
It cannot be done. It is impossible. Colors must just be experienced by the senses before they can be communicated with words. But what that must mean is that we can never be sure if we all interpret color in the same way, because we cannot describe the color to each other with words.
No color is really "real". Color is just how our eyes and brains interpret different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Outside of living things, color is meaningless. But I have concluded that brown is even less "real" than the other colors. We actually see brown because of the nature of our eyes.
Besides the actual colors, there is black, white and, gray. White is a mixture of all colors and black is a complete absence of any light or color. Gray is a mixture of black and white.
But our eyes are not completely impartial. There are two combinations of what are known as "Forbidden Colors". Our eyes are unable to process a combination of either red and green or yellow and blue. This is basically because both colors in each forbidden pair are processed by the same part of the eye so that we cannot see a mix of both colors from the same place at the same time.
That is where brown comes in. It is not a "real" color. Brown is what we see if it is a color combination that the eyes cannot process.
The color brown is thus an "error message" that our eyes are not able to correctly process the color combination that is being observed.
Brown is not a mix of colors from throughout the spectrum, that forms white, although the pairs of forbidden colors do have some spectral distance between them. Brown can, of course be mixed with black or white to form shades such as tan.
An interesting thought about color is whether we all interpret colors in the same way. Can you be sure that someone else sees red and blue just as you do? We saw in the posting "The Real Alphabet", on the meteorology and biology blog, www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com , the first posting in the Biology section, July 2009, that the "real alphabet" that we use to describe the world around us does not consist of the letters of the alphabet, but of what I refer to as "sense elements".
These sense elements are the most fundamental components of our communication, that are impossible to describe with words. A person has to already know, by their senses, these sense elements before they can participate in any kind of communication with words.
The most important of these sense elements is color. Can you imagine trying to describe your favorite color to someone who is completely blind? I do not mean an object of that color but the color itself.
It cannot be done. It is impossible. Colors must just be experienced by the senses before they can be communicated with words. But what that must mean is that we can never be sure if we all interpret color in the same way, because we cannot describe the color to each other with words.
Friday, October 11, 2019
Numbers And Cosmology
This has been added to the cosmology theory on this blog, described in the compound posting "The Theory Of Stationary Space". If you are not familiar with this theory you can read the introduction there.
Numbers and mathematics are so useful because they are representations of how the reality all around us works. But that means that just the nature of how numbers work might reveal some things about how the universe that it represents works.
We have negative and positive numbers ultimately because there are two electric charges in the universe, negative and positive. This negative and positive also show in the transmission of energy through space in the form of electromagnetic waves. Just as in a bank account, with checks and deposits, the negatively-charged and positively-charged particles equalize each other to balance out to zero.
The way that numbers work, in representing the universe, is reflected exactly in the way that my cosmology theory works.
In that cosmology theory, detailed in the composite posting on this blog "The Theory Of Stationary Space", the matter of the universe began within the pre-existing background space and a two-dimensional sheet of space that, like the multidimensional background space, formed by successive mutual reproduction of adjacent negative and positive electric charges. This two-dimensional sheet of space was within, but not contiguous with, the background space.
This would have been a flat two-dimensional plane, because there would have been no more information to make it otherwise. This flat plane of space, composed of an alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges, is representative of zero. Zero is a real number and it means that there is nothing but there possibly could be something. If there was no possibility of a number other than zero, it wouldn't make any sense to represent something with zero.
In fact, all matter that we represent with numbers springs from this two-dimensional sheet as described in my theory. In that theory, charge migration took place to bring about a lower energy state so that one side of the sheet was negative and the other positively-charged, and the two opposite sides came into contact and then one dimension disintegrated in the matter-antimatter explosion that we perceive as the Big Bang. The lost dimension of this sheet became energy and the remaining dimension became the one-dimensional strings of matter that compose all matter in the universe.
All velocity is actually angles of strings or bundles of strings from the original flat sheet, now shifted at angles due to the energy available. Angles not only create velocities but also form atoms and other structures because the angles of the strings make it possible for them to interact and wrap around one another.
This brings about structures from the fundamental strings of the electric charges. First particles such as electrons, then atoms, then molecules, then structures, and finally large-scale astronomical structures that form by gravity. Each angle can be represented by a number, and that is what actually brought numbers into existence. Without these angles, there would be no number other than zero. But then when the strings combine it also brings other numbers to describe the compound structures.
If countless atoms combine to form an object, meaning that they now share one set of information, instead of counting all of the individual atoms we can now say that there is just one object.
The multiplication and division of arithmetic along with the squares and square roots that appear so frequebntly in our mathematical representations of the universe stem from this two-dimensional sheet from which all matter originated. We perform operations such as 5 + 4 because the numbers represent matter, or the remaining dimension of the sheet, while the addition is made possible by the energy of the other dimension of the sheet.
Most of the numbers that we deal with are low because most of the strings remain relatively near the former position of the two-dimensional sheet. All of the energy released by the other dimension of the sheet did not go into angles of indicidual strings because much of it went into the energy within matter, which we refer to as the Matter-Energy Equivalence, which is there even when the object is not in motion. The other reason that most of the numbers we deal with are low is simply that we best relate to objects of similar scale to ours, which necessarily favors low numbers.
But any angle is no more information than any other angle. This is reflected in how my concept of the complexity of a number works. The complexity of a number, or the information with it, is the value of a number when it is the denominator in a ratio or fraction. A higher number is no more complex than a lower number because any number is really x / 1.
5 is more complex than 1 only if we must select at least one of the 5, then we would express it as 1 / 5.
This cosmology theory also shows that infinity is not really a number. We could express zero as 0 / 1 and infinity as 1 / 0. This means that infinity has a denominator of zero and is thus of no information at all. In mathematics infinity doesn't really mean anything and infinity is not really a number.
In my cosmology theory, infinity is simply a right angle and thus contains no more information than the original sheet representing zero. Infinity contaisn even less information than the numbes between zero and infinity. Mathematics does not really wotk with infinity. In Einstein's Special Theory of relativity, the mass of an object at the speed of light is infinite.
This shows that the numerical representation of reality, which is what makes numbers so useful, very closely matches the way that matter operates in my cosmology theory, and that is further verification that it must be correct. The angles at which strings or bundles of strings in my cosmology theory are aligned is perfectly represented by the numbers that we use because we find them to be so useful.
Numbers and mathematics are so useful because they are representations of how the reality all around us works. But that means that just the nature of how numbers work might reveal some things about how the universe that it represents works.
We have negative and positive numbers ultimately because there are two electric charges in the universe, negative and positive. This negative and positive also show in the transmission of energy through space in the form of electromagnetic waves. Just as in a bank account, with checks and deposits, the negatively-charged and positively-charged particles equalize each other to balance out to zero.
The way that numbers work, in representing the universe, is reflected exactly in the way that my cosmology theory works.
In that cosmology theory, detailed in the composite posting on this blog "The Theory Of Stationary Space", the matter of the universe began within the pre-existing background space and a two-dimensional sheet of space that, like the multidimensional background space, formed by successive mutual reproduction of adjacent negative and positive electric charges. This two-dimensional sheet of space was within, but not contiguous with, the background space.
This would have been a flat two-dimensional plane, because there would have been no more information to make it otherwise. This flat plane of space, composed of an alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges, is representative of zero. Zero is a real number and it means that there is nothing but there possibly could be something. If there was no possibility of a number other than zero, it wouldn't make any sense to represent something with zero.
In fact, all matter that we represent with numbers springs from this two-dimensional sheet as described in my theory. In that theory, charge migration took place to bring about a lower energy state so that one side of the sheet was negative and the other positively-charged, and the two opposite sides came into contact and then one dimension disintegrated in the matter-antimatter explosion that we perceive as the Big Bang. The lost dimension of this sheet became energy and the remaining dimension became the one-dimensional strings of matter that compose all matter in the universe.
All velocity is actually angles of strings or bundles of strings from the original flat sheet, now shifted at angles due to the energy available. Angles not only create velocities but also form atoms and other structures because the angles of the strings make it possible for them to interact and wrap around one another.
This brings about structures from the fundamental strings of the electric charges. First particles such as electrons, then atoms, then molecules, then structures, and finally large-scale astronomical structures that form by gravity. Each angle can be represented by a number, and that is what actually brought numbers into existence. Without these angles, there would be no number other than zero. But then when the strings combine it also brings other numbers to describe the compound structures.
If countless atoms combine to form an object, meaning that they now share one set of information, instead of counting all of the individual atoms we can now say that there is just one object.
The multiplication and division of arithmetic along with the squares and square roots that appear so frequebntly in our mathematical representations of the universe stem from this two-dimensional sheet from which all matter originated. We perform operations such as 5 + 4 because the numbers represent matter, or the remaining dimension of the sheet, while the addition is made possible by the energy of the other dimension of the sheet.
Most of the numbers that we deal with are low because most of the strings remain relatively near the former position of the two-dimensional sheet. All of the energy released by the other dimension of the sheet did not go into angles of indicidual strings because much of it went into the energy within matter, which we refer to as the Matter-Energy Equivalence, which is there even when the object is not in motion. The other reason that most of the numbers we deal with are low is simply that we best relate to objects of similar scale to ours, which necessarily favors low numbers.
But any angle is no more information than any other angle. This is reflected in how my concept of the complexity of a number works. The complexity of a number, or the information with it, is the value of a number when it is the denominator in a ratio or fraction. A higher number is no more complex than a lower number because any number is really x / 1.
5 is more complex than 1 only if we must select at least one of the 5, then we would express it as 1 / 5.
This cosmology theory also shows that infinity is not really a number. We could express zero as 0 / 1 and infinity as 1 / 0. This means that infinity has a denominator of zero and is thus of no information at all. In mathematics infinity doesn't really mean anything and infinity is not really a number.
In my cosmology theory, infinity is simply a right angle and thus contains no more information than the original sheet representing zero. Infinity contaisn even less information than the numbes between zero and infinity. Mathematics does not really wotk with infinity. In Einstein's Special Theory of relativity, the mass of an object at the speed of light is infinite.
This shows that the numerical representation of reality, which is what makes numbers so useful, very closely matches the way that matter operates in my cosmology theory, and that is further verification that it must be correct. The angles at which strings or bundles of strings in my cosmology theory are aligned is perfectly represented by the numbers that we use because we find them to be so useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)