Hello again

[TinyTree]

Hello all you TOE members. I have been busy with life, but am dropping by to drop a few plugs for the latest additions for "The markov chain universe" website, and hopefully to answer some questions.

If you have not been following the TOE theory "the markov chain universe" you should know that you can find it over on one of the "Your TOE theory" threads, or, you can come by and take a peek at the ongoing web site work here:

https://sites.google.com/site/markov...iverse/welcome

I submitted some of the core ideas to a scientific journal, who after many months of reviewers sitting on it (8 months), suggested the ideas were "not compelling". Perhaps some day I will run that gauntlet again, but it takes a LOT of time to research background papers and frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to do that further any time soon, and am leery of the whole enterprise as well.

I am going to share you with some thoughts which should give you a bit of an insight into the ideas:



The new synthesis of makrov chain theory combines the concepts of the markov chain universe with our current understanding of physical law and observed physical phenomena.

Note that any system which goes through a time series of states can be understood as a markov chain, and regardless of the physical laws which are eventually agreed upon, the markov chain nature of the system holds regardless of the specific form of those laws- as long as the system is going through a series of state transitions.

Therefore one can remain uncommitted to a particular set of physical laws, such as those that combine quantum theory with gravity, and still have a valid and robust interpretation of physical law within the markov chain understanding. Do you subscribe to superstring theory? Do you subscribe to M-theory? It doesn't matter- as long as you believe the axioms that the universe itself goes through a series of states which have a probability dependence on each other.

The markov chain understanding differs radically from the conventional world view in some senses, and integrates other parts wholly.

Evolution itself can be seen instead of as a phenomena apart from physical law, as an integral part of the nature of change of the probability of the system as a whole.

Evolution is one of the most visible ways in which the local system changes its objective probability.

Evolution consists of the changing DNA of organisms through time due to mutation and natural selection. The inherited traits of the population propagate into future generations. The organisms evolving through time functions as a probability differentiator, often pulling the system as a whole into a more improbable configuration. The system as a whole does not necessarily move towards a more improbable configuration but often does in the evolutionary process.

The two main sources of probability changes in evolution are from mutation, and genetic recombination. Both of these processes introduce a random element into the future state trajectory of the system. In genetic mutation, the DNA of an organism is modified due to a random process, such as cosmic rays. In genetic recombination genes are shuffled randomly together to create a new DNA state for the resultant
organism.

Natural selection acts on these random modifications to the underlying DNA, selectively filtering the organisms to preserve those best adapted to the environment. Those organisms best able to reproduce transmit their DNA into the future, those that are unable to do not transmit their DNA into the future. Note as
in the probability differentiator example, the filter itself is critical to moving the system into an alternate probability value for the system as a whole.

Just the pure random modification of DNA would create a system which did not move up or down the probability function with regards to the state, this would function as a flat probability system, or a probability wash. The critical component of natural selection is necessary to cause the system as a whole to change its probability value.

The filter of natural selection serves to allow the overall state to move into a more improbable configuration.

When an organism, or species dies off, the DNA configuration is lost and this represents a loss of information. It represents a movement towards a more probable configuration.

There are many species which go into long periods of non changing stasis with regards to their DNA. There are many others who radically change their DNA relatively quickly. These represent different types of probability changes to the system as a whole.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Is this probability from a quantum wave function, such as when electrons during photosynthesis move at once through all paths, then pick the most efficient one, which has been observed by fermo-lasers of green sulfur bacteria (usually near 95%)?

[TinyTree]

Good question- yes, the probability is that of a particular state, which is defined by quantum wave theory as we understand it. And in fact, we can consider the probability wave function of the universe as a whole, which translates into a specific probability of our current existing state.

[austintorn@aol.com]

As a whole, either now or before the universe's wave function collapsed, if it ever did, all possible paths continued on, in superposition, some, of course getting much further, however that is measured, until one of them evolved a creature that had consciousness, which then real-ized and actual-ized all into being, if indeed consciousness can do that; else, there is no collapse and we are all still within the wave function, evolving to what ever persisted onwards, this being close to the most probable of all possibilities.

[Mikal]

Hello again Tiny Tree...I see you joined way back in 05....holy cow...quite awhile since you dropped in...(no pun intended Mr. Pig...lol) just a chuckle,.... I will check out the website meanwhile nice to talk to you....

Regards Mikal

[TinyTree]

Thanks for the welcome Mikal. It is indeed strange how fast time flies. I remember first posting on TOE quest and realizing how warm and welcoming it is for ideas of an unusual bent, and still is. I really am glad it exists.

[Mikal]

It’s nice to see older members returning to the Toe!

I checked out the website and could not help but notice the section on criticisms more or less about the Standard model of science. For someone like me, not scientifically minded and wanting to learn science I am finding it difficult because I just begin to learn a concept and bang…out comes an article saying the concept is flawed or wrong and wow, I’m back to square 1….smiles….

I’ll have to give a closer read to the site but another member gave me 3 links last night and I’m still plodding through them.

Hope you will stay around and share some of the insights you may have gained in the last five years.


Regards Mikal

[TinyTree]

I checked out the website and could not help but notice the section on criticisms more or less about the Standard model of science.

Thanks for the commentary. The criticisms are really about how probability theory is being misapplied, but I agree the way the criticism is setup is poorly structured and needs some work. Probably I should make a high level view of the criticisms which explains the overall concepts with some introductory material, and then link into specific instances of the problems.

The problems are not so much with the whole of the scientific establishment, but a few of the thinkers mixed probability models without meaning to I believe. Thanks for the constructive feedback I'll see if I can clarify this in some way.

[Mikal]

Hi TinyTree, I’m sorry you took my statements as constructive criticism against the way you presented your work in this site. Gosh, I do not have enough scientific know-how to even begin to give constructive feedback on your method of presentation.
Thank you for clarifying the problem as with the misapplication of probability theory and that it is the thinkers concerned with the probability model.

In my statements I was just pointing out that at this present time it is difficult to learn science and many theorists are stating that the Standard Model of Science is flawed or wrong for many different reasons.

As far as presentation goes and structuring information I rather thought your section on criticisms was already a high level view and I did not find it difficult at all to read this section.

I promise that I will get back in there today and do some more reading….


Regards Mikal