CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Causality & Teleology by Michael Manthey
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Michael Manthey wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:39 GMT
Essay AbstractI address the question, “What is the relationship between causality – the explanation of events in terms of causes – and teleology – the explanation of events in terms of purposes?” by equating distributed computation with the semantics of geometric (Clifford) algebra over Zed(3) = {0,1,2} = {0,1,-1}. I conclude that both explanations are simultaneously and equally true, and that the whole thing is made out of space, whose essence is Void.
Author BioBS Mathematics, Rensselaer; Phd Computer Science SUNY/Buffalo. Have taught computer architecture, operating and real-time systems, and networks at universities in both Europe and USA.
Download Essay PDF File
Author Michael Manthey wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Oops!
1. Page 2: "if-a-then-X-else-Y": it's a dot product with plus/minus a, and "1 dot +-a" = 0.
2. Page 5,: middle: Replace
"Looking at the skeleton above"
with
"Looking at the skeleton below (next page)
Apologies! Friday nite was too short -
-mm
Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 07:14 GMT
Dr Manthey,
Wow! At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.
Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?
Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is...
view entire post
Dr Manthey,
Wow! At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.
Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?
Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is (3+1)-dimensional. A potential problem with this assumption is that it has not been tested inside matter. Almost all of the empirical support for General Relativity derives from observations made OUTSIDE large bodies of matter, which support the Schwarzschild EXTERIOR solution. Whereas the Schwarzschild INTERIOR solution has not been tested.
Specifically, the latter solution predicts that clock rates diminish to a central minimum. Not only has this prediction never been tested, it has never been explained in PHYSICAL terms, how this is supposed to happen. What physical process could possibly make clock rates decrease inside matter? Perhaps they don't. An alternative model of gravity discussed in my essay, Rethinking the Universe, predicts that clock rates would actually increase to a central MAXIMUM.
Most importantly, the prediction is correlated to a more empirically accessible observation: What happens when a test object is dropped into a hole through the center of a larger body? Galileo proposed the idea in 1632. Though the experiment could be done in an orbiting satellite or an Earthbased laboratory (with a modified Cavendish balance), nobody has yet got around to doing it. Instead, the physics community pretends to know what would happen without actually doing the experiment.
This lack of evidence should of itself suffice, I think, to motivate fulfilling Galileo's proposal with a physical test. Further motivation may be gotten from the arguments in the essay referred to above, which include the prediction that (because of the central clock rate maximum) the falling test object will not pass the center.
If this radical, so far untested, prediction should be proven true, profound cosmological implications would follow. Though equating "gravity with the concept of love" would be a stretch, a possible answer to your question,
"What separates systems that are intelligent from those that are not?"
may be forthcoming.
Cheers,
Richard Benish
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 02:59 GMT
Hi Richard Benish -
> Wow!
Thanks for the Up - I've been bakin' this for some time now, and this is the first public tasting.
> At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.
I'm not sure what you mean by "visually" ... superficially? Howsoever, the underlying computational ideas - from which all of this *derives* - came to me in the 1990's. I knew right off that I was onto something, but with software (as with so many things) if you don't have some mathematics on it, you ain't got so much. It just took me this long to figure all the pieces.
> Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?
I agree that this purely mathematical version - namely sans the inspiring computational source - is kinda dense. The two referenced websites,
RootsOfUnity.org (AI slant) and TauQuernions.org (physics slant)
have a more balanced presentation. This essay is a condensed cross-section of the former, along with some unpublished material. My [most excellent] students did three successive implementations in the 90's - it all worked just fine.
> Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is (3+1)-dimensional.
This is as I state. Maybe (re your point ++) you are on to something, maybe not - I don't know. Myself, I'm just very pleased that, coming in from a completely novel point of view, I (or rather, the algebra, and uniquely so) landed me square in the middle of the Standard Model of physics, with a novel QM/GR bridging as a cherry on top. I'm just a humble computer scientist and mathematics 'user' with neither the need nor the desire to overly annoy the physicists ;-)
Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 06:19 GMT
Michael Manthey,
Question: What is objective test of awareness?
You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.
Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).
report post as inappropriate
Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Shaikh Raisuddin -
Thanks for reading my essay.
> Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).
I agree - this is a central theme of the essay in that, as stated, the erection of the hierarchy is entropically favored: Info(a+b) > Info(ab). See
"TauQuernions: 3+1d Dissipative Space out of Quantum Mechanics" for this and related calculations.
I write that awareness is a persistent *resonance*, a more precise statement of your "collective state of disturbance".
> Question: What is objective test of awareness? You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.
I actually explicitly signed up for a different question, namely causality vs. purpose, in the essay's first sentence. The actual Test is, as noted in the last sentence, to be found in
"The Topsy Test for Awareness" ... I didn't have room to include a description of the test in the essay, but wanted to point to it. I'm unsure what "short assumption" you are referring to.
-mm
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Michael Manthey,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher -
I'm all for simplicity!
But I just don't think things can get much simpler than a binary vector algebra that, on a
purely combinatorial basis, hones (and homes) in
all by itself to a
unique set of forms that, Lo and Behold,
exactly match the Standard Model, with a gravitational coda thrown in for free. Oh, and don't forget wave-particle duality, Noether's theorem, and entropic favor - they come for free too.
Plus, as I've described in the essay, Everything can be construed as an entangled, aware, and maybe self-aware, Whole made out of Space.
This from pure mathematics - geometric (Clifford) algebra - interpreted as distributed computation, cf. the original Essay Question!
The apparent divergence from Simplicity lies in the difficulty of communicating said simplicity to the time-like Turing-limited mind that we all inhabit all day long, whilst the prophets weep!
-mm
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Michael Manthey,
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Simple visible surface am not made of complex invisible atoms or complex invisible particles.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
peter cameron wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
Michael,
Very glad to see your work on Clifford algebra here (tho its sophistication far exceeds my grasp), and agree that it provides excellent framework for Standard Model physics and beyond.
Are you familiar with the work of David Hestenes? His geometric calculus web page has a wealth of information.
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/
I much like the FQXi search engine. Searching for any of the three terms 'geometric Clifford algebra' gives what appear to me to be useful links to other essays in this year's Forum Posts section.
In particular I think you might find the essay submitted by Michaele Suisse especially relevant.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2913
While much less elegant and abstract than your remarkable work, it has the beginnings of a good solid grounding in the practical. It appears to me they support each other well.
Best regards,
Pete
report post as inappropriate
Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 00:47 GMT
Hi Pete -
Many thanks for your several comments. I much enjoyed reading your and Michaele Suisse's essay, and am thinking that your impedance is my hierarchy dynamics.
So we are, I think, very much on the same page, not just re geometric algebra but also re the multitude of puzzlements stemming from the lack of *structure* in the formulations of quantum mechanics. I have recently realized - please correct me if I'm wrong - that the whole of physics, not least QM, is formulated as *necessarily* all taking place in 3+1d. The early history of QM explains this "seeing is believing" operationalism, but cannot continue to justify the prejudice.
Instead, I've come to think of the situation via the analogy, "An operating system is to its 'user' processes as quantum mechanics is to the (relativistic) processes in 3+1d". My approach is thoroughly that of a computer scientist trying to figure out how Nature builds her amazing self-organizing distributed systems. That is, my points of departure all lay within computer science, and from there over hill and dale, mountain and valley, to finally meet physics in Clifford City.
One of the first lessons is the realization that there *must* be an underlying (or, rather, behind-the-scenes) agent that supplies the necessary synchronization, one that is cognizant of the potential interactions between processes, and allows them to run as appropriate to maintain given exclusionary constraints. That is, something that is in charge of managing the system's *potential*. So I think this analogy is quite accurate in the context it sets, so long as 'scheduling' is driven by entropy alone!
Re links to Clifford algebras, I can recommend
Stephen Slehar's excellent blog.
-mike
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 08:33 GMT
Nice essay Manthey,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…
1. From a probabilistic point of view, the external behavior generated by the hierarchy, which is governed by, driven by, internal, long-term stability-based goals, can easily and naturally be construed as goal-directed, which it indeed is. But the actual goals - inherently invisible from the outside, and devoted to...
view entire post
Nice essay Manthey,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…
1. From a probabilistic point of view, the external behavior generated by the hierarchy, which is governed by, driven by, internal, long-term stability-based goals, can easily and naturally be construed as goal-directed, which it indeed is. But the actual goals - inherently invisible from the outside, and devoted to maintaining overall resonant stability - and can only be inferred, and that imperfectly.
2. Elsewhere [1] I define persistent awareness as a stable self-resonant state of the spin hierarchy. Consciousness is then defined as awareness of awareness, that is, there exist two sets of resonances, the one more global (higher up in the hierarchy ( = lower frequency) than the other. The persistence and extent of the second, higher-level resonance is then a measure of consciousness.
A Good idea, I fully agree with you, with the help of Dynamic Universe Model a higher level consciousness is proposed …………………………… I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at this essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..
I think consciousness (intension) is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
George Gantz wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 13:37 GMT
Michael -
A fascinating essay! I confess that my mathematics is not up to the details of your essay, but the surprising conclusion is completely consistent with my own thesis - that the intention which moves agent processes in the universe is love.
Regards -
George Gantz (The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention)
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Sirs!
Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.