[Mike 5]

Hello - My name is Mike from the UK and I have just joined the TOE forum today.

And here I am posting my first post on the Mathematics Theorems topic. Not yet worked out how to put my avatar here but never mind.

I have for the last three years been working on something. It mathematics, it relates to a Theory of Everything, but is not maths as we know it Jim.

Sir Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal and Master of Trinity College Cambridge, observed that we ASSUME that space and time are like the ocean, basically similar in every place, TO FIT our mathematics. If space and time truly are like landscape, and different in every place, then we simply do not have suitable mathematics to describe it.

Put like that, I became very uneasy that we should think through what form of mathematics could possibly describe heterogenous space and time, and I have a solution that I call Fractal Dialectics.

My instinct is that only really mathematical minds can grasp what mathematics could be without numbers. To present this to non-mathematicians, well I am not sure how to present this at present to anyone. So please tell me, what would be an acceptable way to present a new form of mathematics to TOE. Specifically this involves basically binary asymetric recursion of a finite totality. Much like the way a plant grows a stalk or root that then bifurcates and branches, covering eventually a large area, and appearing as one "thing", say a tree, but in fact having open spaces internally where creatures can climb through it, remaining technically outside it. Every branching point is a left or right choice, and every segment is uniquely individual. So the structure is dendritic, but applying all this to time and space, well the primary concept here is rotation.

So guys, is this the kind of thing for this discussion group or have I posted a little too far off the mainstream here?

[Guille]

Hi, I don't think the topic is out of TOE worries at all, if it trully is a mathematical solution to the problem of heterogenous spacetime. Actually it is an important thing here. I didn't even know there was a problem if space and time are not equal everywhere. Spacetime is basically dimensions, and dimensions are one of the six important things in the TOE: Force, Energy, Matter, Cosmology, Fundamental Particles, Dimensions.

The method of presentation is very variable here, as each chooses his own way. But if it's math, I think the best thing is 1. presenting the problem, 2. giving a derivation to your maths from already existing maths, 3. explaining your math, 4. giving examples of your math, 5. explaining why your math solves the problem, 6. evaluating your math (it's other aplications, it's impplications, ways of visualisizing it....etz).

I know it appears to be a lot, but if your math does explain in a proper mathematical logic the problem you say, then all these will be able to be done directly from knwoing the math itself.

Another thing, I tihnk it's better not to post them in the same post. I have done that several times but I've had always to re-explain each part separatelly, and also I have had myself the problem of not understanding. But also, you shouldn't let a space of time between posts, because readers will forget and have to read agian the first. So, the best thing to do is to write it all up in word, and then copy each point, and post it. And inmediatelly after the neext. And post all of them in a sequence of short time. Then, the reader can read one, think about, understand, and go for the other.

These are just a few hints from a someone who is not a proper mathematician, but at least I tihnk I'm a proper poster and I know about toequest members. If you need any help, post it and I'll see what I can do.

[Mike 5]

Guille - Muchas Gracias! Here is what I felt moved to write after reading you encouragement:

FRACTAL DIALECTICS

ROTATION IS THE KEY TO A THEORY OF EVERYTHING

ROTATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EUCLID AND DESCARTES

HOMOGENEOUS SPACE AND TIME ARE NOWHERE TO BE EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED. OBVIOUSLY SPACE AND TIME AND EVERY THING AND BEING DISREGARD ALL CARTESIAN AND EUCLIDEAN IDEALS.

In our education system, we branch off into "arts" or "sciences" and rarely return to bring back our wisdom and training. This is faintly or brightly ridiculous – Da Vinci was a great artist and scientist, the coffee shops of seventeenth century London were meeting places across academic and professional specialisations that spawned great innovations. The Industrial revolution had not only efficiency but occasionally the aesthetics outshone the functionality. Today we are academically compartmentalised.

My theories of Fractal Dialectics are not fully in any academic field. For several years I have contemplated postgraduate research ideally at my former University, Cambridge, but is it maths made analogue? Is it actually linguistics made digital? Is it philosophy made practical? Is it mechanics made well, esoteric? Is it esoterics made empirical?

All of the above.

My degree is in Social Science, specifically the Anthropology of Religion. My career mainly in computing and bureacratics. My heart is in dance, music, and art. My deepest training experiences are in Neuro Linguistics and Ericksonian Hypnosis. And I first developed what is now Fractal Dialectics as a new form of music and audio synthesis, that clearly would revolutionise data processing. But above all I am a cynic. My degree at Cambridge was a huge disappointment to me, for it was simplistic and truly I nearly got a first with only two weeks work just before the exam. After that I turned my back on all intellectuals and academics to learn what is passion and what is pain and what is joy.

Hm. So who, who can I ask to contribute and finalise this new … mathematics. Why do I call it mathematics when it has flavours of so many other fields. Because in my view the people who decide, in all the educational process, I am a mathematician, these people have the precision and imagination to finalise and complete and understand Fractal Dialectics. But I may be wrong. In fact too many "mathematicians" are involve in the worship of Descartes and Euclid to realise, as proven by Goedel, the axioms of mathematics are arbitrary, they give a bias to all mechanics and even political thought. In a way, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all intellectuals applying a deranged mathematical rigour to bring the messy jungle of people in society into some imagined perfection, and that is the awful truth about mathematics. It has no soul. Logic is everything. Mathematics is about absolutes and absolute truth, and the last hundred years of our species show the terrible suffering and deaths resulting from mathematically perfect weapons, in the hands of people who believe in absolute truth over human life.

Change the fundamental axioms, and you change not only the mathematics, you change the world. So I expect as with all truth, Fractal Dialectics will first be ridiculed, then if it has any value, it will be violently opposed. Finally, if it is in fact truth, it will only be widely accepted after these two phases.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then let us begin.

What is real? What is reality? Fractal Dialectics has a first axiom and that is as follows. All Real Things Rotate.

So here is a definition of material form, that necessarily implies a dialectic, a category that is not material or not formed. There is another version I used for my first book on all this – Discover Speed Intelligence – All Things Are in Motion + Motion is Like The Ocean. OK that book is for ordinary people and so both simplified and sharpened into tools for daily use in a mundane world.

The implications of this simple axiom – All Real Things Rotate – are stupefying. Intellectually, as an exercise, we could play with ideas and say, aha, curious academic research, let’s replace Euclid and Descartes, what possibly would be up to lasting a single round in the ring with these giants?

Well, this is an entrance to a labyrinth that really needs a warning sign BEWARE ALL WHO ENTER HERE.

Assume for a moment something you already assumed, that this planet rotates and every object on the surface is in curving motion. OK. That atoms and neutrinos spin, or have motion that is curving, oscillating, and here is my point. We don’t need Euclid and we don’t need Descartes at all. We can construct a rival theory of what is and what is not.

But clearly, our thoughts seem real. Concepts do not rotate but seem so real. My sense of sky and furniture and my existince within and yet observing all that - my sense of this reality around and within me does not rotate and yet please, please, which now is real? The stillness of what I think, or the motion of mechanical material forms.

My prediction is that through this single doorway, this axiom, we can grow an organic understanding that is inherently dualistic or something that I call analogue dialectic or even analogue recursive binary. Basically the dendritic structure of trees and rivers (or maybe a neural network) that appears to embrace a total space yet topologically remains a skin dividing inside and outside. This skin requires two distinct forms of navigation – internal by left or right branching over and over. And externally by what I call juxtaposition -the leap of a squirrel from branch to branch because they "randomly" are next to each other. Thes two forms of navigation are Fractal Dialectics and Juxtaposition Theory, which resolves the apparent paradoxes of co-incidence.

Of course these structures are not still, in fractal dialectics, but in curving motion that begs the question – why is it that twisting into independent rotation confers separateness? That independent rotation defines the separation of apple from tree? The cut umbilical cord allows separate rotational existence, and we declare, the baby is born, physically, just as a fragment of a meteorite spins independently and is therefore separate until glued back onto some other rotating thing. As humans we clearly perceive that things are separate because they have independence of rotation. But the moment we imagine that could be just our perception in our minds, and from another non-human perspective each thing remains forever connected umbilically to whatever it was previously rotating with... we have an exciting new model of reality that has no possible explanation in terms of Descartes nor Euclid. In fact, it is the "Nombrilic" worldview of some recent French thought and a return to salvage some elements for our Theory of Everything from the tribal witchdoctors of our ancestors, when you run with that flow of thinking until it takes off like a kite.

Duality is the central essence of rotation. Clockwise vs anticlockwise. North and South poles of stillness. Duality may be analogue, but we use language and conceptual thought to digitise and comparementalise all things into this and that, guilty or not guilty, but truly life is not so clear cut at all. Ultimately Nature itself has no need to be digital, and all things just fold back into the pudding of all there is and re-emerge in a complex stuttering analogue flow. To think is to clingfilm this idea from that background of what it is not. That conceptual act of either naming or defining is also a form of conceptual rotation: we wrap conceptual clingfilm around this idea to keep it distinct from other ideas and the background of where it was and is. Rotation defines a skin, here is inside and there is outside. Skin completes rotation whereas the climbing open lattice of a ladder or planetary orbit is rotation unbounaded. So ther DNA helix grabs RNA as it unzips and finally bursts through the walls to become two cells where there was just one.


The ultimate duality, perhaps a subjective guess, but my vote is consciousness and material form.

And that is where and why I think Fractal Dialectics is a seed that will grow and grow and ultimately, as a joint venture of many many minds, it will rival and could even replace both Descartes and Euclid.

And Christ and all the prophets too, I have to say, for the moment you have a single mechanics of consciousness and material form, a better model of their juxtapositions and opportunities than we have today with what passes for science, the moment you have a basis for empirical observation and prediction of what people want and to and think and say, two consequences result.

Firstly we will realise that science was believed, for when we have an alternative, it will be revealed as the matter of faith it truly is in the dimensionless point, in infinity, in zero, in cartesian geometry, in three dimensions, in the flat surface and the straight line and other fictions invented for practical results and comfort and control of a hostile environment.

Secondly we will think at last we have it. That is a joke. We merely have a new set of beliefs, and I should know, if this Fractal Dialectics ever takes off, I invented the axioms myself,. They are not real. They may be effective, and they may stop suffering, I certainly hope so, and allow more people to feel joy. Otherwise why bother. But science is merely the latest and most effective effective religion. And religions were always science to those who devoted their lives to testing their faith.

[Mike 5]

GUILLE has asked for more details of Fractal Dialectics, as mathematics, and I sense some impatience.

So I will just jump straight in.

Take a cake. It is a totality. It is finite. It is complete.

So this is essentially very different from Cartesian co-ordinates, which take a "random" starting point – Paris or Greenwich, or some lumpiness in the data, some "landmark" and measure regular "distances" out from there.

In Fractal Dialectics, you start with a finite total and you must already be … interacting with things enough to decide, this is the entire area for my data, and beyond that I am not concerned.

So in a way the primary "dialectic" or decision is figure and ground. The starting point is What are we looking at, and that must be explicit to allow others to later say, aha, I disagree, I’m going to look at a different totality.

Next there is the first arbitrary division into two. I am going straight for an example – and clearly the old distinction of quantity and quality is merged and re-drawn in Fractal Dialectics. The lumpiness of qualities will generally be where you divide the totality.

Here is my example, it will be banal to get the underlying points across: DAY vs NIGHT.

Or NIGHT vs DAY. There is no political comment as to which is 0, which is 1, the opposition is always reversible and that is the essence of the sequencing and recursion to follow.

In Fractal Dialectics, all real things are in motion, and this means that TWO mid points arise – DAWN and DUSK. People often speak of a spectrum of Greys, between some extremes of Black and White. This is not really possible in Fractal Dialectics because motion and change are essential qualities of all real things. Every grey is in truth fading or darkening. That may be irrelevent today, but for example my Roland TR505 drum machine was made of two beige plastics, and over the years one darkened and the other faded, so now it is a stripy drum machine. Impossible for a museum visitor to really know the original colours and and appearance of things in their original context.

WHITE – DARKENING – LIGHTENING – BLACK

NIGHT – DAWN – DUSK – DAY

Now normally I place these in a circle. Night is opposite day, and dawn is opposite dusk. Then again the garden swing resolve essentially circular motion into a sine wave, or a back and forth, depending on your viewpoint. An essence of Fractal Dialectic Analysis is finding simple harmonic motion and using Fourier analysis to reduce complex motions fractally (recursively) to layers of simple harmonic motion.

In flattening this obvious circle, I deliberately left the original extremes at each end. Because to list them going around the circle is incomplete – firstly either clockwise or anti-clockwise is selected and depending on the data you may introduce some bias. Then again we have use some bias – unless we start alternately DAY – DUSK – DAWN – NIGHT. But to list it sequentially, there is no beginning nor end to the loop and I would enter and leave with "…" as follows:

… DUSK … NIGHT … DAWN … DAY … DUSK … NIGHT … and so on. It is a loop.

Because of the axiom of Fractal Dialectics that All Material Things are in Motion, specifically curved motion (or rotation), there always will be this four way split if you care to look for it. But it does not stop at four, the basic qualities number six! As follows.

I am using text so please imagine this letter O is the circle made by these four elements in a continuous analogue loop. The loop contains an area, which is the fifth – ness, of … well I have to make up words here. This is a form of Analogue Binary, but a very structured form. I am tempted to call it Recursive Analogue Binary, but maybe someone else has a better name? For now RAB always implies a recursively layered structure of complete loops, and each loop essentially will be binary, even if that divergence is utterly arbitrary; that binary will have two mid points, even if they are not used in this or that application; and the enclosed area ( I call this the tetrahedron, for obvious reasons I hope) is a fifth … a fifth … what word to use? It literally emerges in the juxtaposition of these four (or even just three) labelled points in any continuous flow. Finally beyond that O outside is the context, the background to this figure, the skin and what ever this structure is not.

Before we apply this recursively to further cut up each slice of cake, the sixness is a maximum. There is no more than six, and normally we will use just two (digital binary) or four (what the hell to call this – Virtual Analogue Binary?). This is rapidly becoming a nomenclature.

Occasionally we will just use the fifth … shit what can I call these. They are not numbers, and the problem is the fifth and sixth transcend the loop or cake and step into a duality beyond it.

So many flippant words come to mind that are already used, and I must protest these are not number simply because numbers go to 7 and beyond and these CANNOT. They are qualities, but in a specific structure, that is always the same.

Innocently we have strayed into linguistics because unlike mathematics, where quality is discarded, and quantity exists esoterically without the shoes or sheep you are counting, here in Fractal Dialectics we have a grey area that is not quite quality and not quite quantity.

Up until now numbers spoke for quantity and we were very happy to say yes, numbers "exists", which is poppycock.

Numbers do not "exist" at all, they are esoteric fabrications in our minds. But I say that knowing in Fractal Dialectics, real material things rotate. Numbers do not rotate. They therefore do not exist on this planet nor any other, nor is space, they are not "real" in the way Supernova 1987A is. Sure, I take both numbers and Supernova 1987A on trust by mere symbols from teachers and the internet, but ultimately I feel I could take a large telescope and SEE it for myself. There is no telescope to see numbers, because they exist inside our minds only.

Until now WORDS had the exclusive rights to quality. Now I come barging in and upset the applecart.

OK. Here is an interesting thing about these six … shit … I have no word yet. It is possible the ancient Chinese already were familiar with all this., The YiJing (formedly spelt I Ching in the days Beijing was spelt Peking) has 64 "hexagrams" each with 6 "lines". There are some versions of the esoteric theory about the qualities of each of these lines. To some extent, with plenty of lube, these six lines could be said to correspond to the six quality-quantity things I am talking about here. Romantic thought.

And on that thought I’ll end for now except to say, fractally, recursively, this structure is applied to each of the portions you have. Using just the four portions, each of these then is cut into four again, there are specific challenges to resolve. Ultimately you have a finite system with a loop of elements that need a notation – I use a double notation, so one element for example would be called day/dawn and so on.

One final thing, Maths is said to be about number, structure, change and space. What I am doing here is not number as we know it. Truly it is Data, number, change and space, because with data you have to know what is the realm you are measuring, how are you measuring it, and what are the limits, algorithmic or otherwise, to expected maximum. Infinity is impossible in data, and zero is just an item in the list of possibilities, without the attributes of calculation.

Numboids. What else could I call these 6. Hexoids. Hexameter. That has a cetain rhythm. I love to speak in iambic pentameter verse. But since I started it's going from bad to worse....

[Mike 5]

Mudras.

Since posting my last chunk about the division from outside in of Fractal Dialectics, it seems clear that the six perspectives are something like "fingers".

We have five fingers and this seems a perfect flavour to give instead of the word "numbers" or the word "qualities". Fingers naturally have an upper limit, and the dual elements I propose for fractal Dialectic numbering, counting, positioning, map naturally onto the left and right hands.

Mudra is an indian word for finger yoga. Here is a nice one. Form interlocking rings with your thumb and ring finger, then touch forefinger to forefinger, middle to middle and little finger to little finger. Nice.

Here I am going to expand the linguistic, meanings, oooh, surely this is not mathematics – precisely!

I will for nostalgic reasons use the numbers 1 to 6. But I want to replace these with a set of elements that have names that will not be confused with traditional numbering.

1. I cannot help it now I think of fingers, this is my thumb, a thumbs up sign. This is about investigating the basics. Whatever we are investigating as data, as distinct from number, we start somewhere as conscient beings witnessing some aspect and that first touch of consciousness to material form is this first numboid, hexoid, hexameter, or finger.
2. In Britain two fingers make a rude sign. I cannot help it, this is now a mudra, or finger position that I associate with the second hexameter or finger of consciousness penetrating into material form. The second pentameter, or hexameter, I will address that natural ambiguity below, is about depth. Enthusiam. Blindly getting into something, unaware of anything else, being lost in discovery. Clearly the second perspective is sufficient to make binary, the system already used in digital computers, and as it encompasses duality and dialectics, this is the foundation of the whole mathematics here. It is literally sufficient, beyond this point is luxury that is not essential.
3. Well, for me my fingers simple combine the thumb and the British V sign, I have a three finger sign as a mudra for this element of counting in a new way. The third pentameter is the rhythm of mutations, trial and error, and it actually opens up a triangle of space for the first time. Inside that triangle to be clear is the fifth … shit, I really did not want to use that world element. Edit that out please. Finger, hexoid, pentameter, numboid, one word will eventually become used, I have not go the energy to decide, And that is the essence of the third finger, mistaken- ness as a path to discovery.
4. My mudra for this is the four fingers, with the thumb folded in. I am inverting these as I go, you know, so what, let’s enjoy the journey. For all I know three people on the planet will read this and vomit, and that is it, forgotten. Anyway. The fourth elaboration is community, and it has a stbility and completeness about it. There are two oppositions here, as in my early example – night – dawn – dusk – day. Night clearly is opposed to day, a dialectic, And the visually similar dawn and dusk are opposed not by appearance but by timing, they are different for the postman and farmer, but often similar in a snapshot. So dawn and dusk form a more subtle opposition, one that might appear indistinguishable. Like the two originally identical beige plastics on my Roland TR505 drum machine that years later stripe with one darker and the other lighter. The fourth hexameter is also about investigation but the investigation of relationships between the kind of essences that the first hexameter discovered.
5. Ah now I can tell you – there are only five fingers in the hand. There are only five pentameters in truth. The fifth perspective is the entire area, and here I will go for the tetrahedroid shape. Milk was the first substance to be sold in tetrapacks, as featured at the start of the Beatles film Help! Where one of the Beatles gets a tetrahedron of milk from a vending machine. Take a toilet roll and squash each end at right angles. You have the two dualities, every point is trying to escape and be independent of the rest, and a fifth perspective opens in the middle. The fifth perspective is actually about truth, often the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is the only perspective that can see the whole thing from the inside.
6. The sixth perspective is not within the hand at all – I see this as a fist, punching into whatever is beyond the hand. The sixth perspective is OUTSIDE, the context beyond all four points and the area they contain, it is the skin and the context. I have not yet settled the words hexameter and pentameter because the fact is, the sixth perspective is so alien, it will rarely be relevant. There are a maximum of five perspectives that are relevent. For simplicity most fractal dialectic division will be binary – that maps onto existing computers easily, or seasonal (using the four points of the compass as it were). Some exotic uses will be philosophical, which I think is a suitable word for using the five perspectives, pentameters, or maybe global is a good word. It is hard to imagine a real application for all six details used over nad over recursively. I suppose the word cosmic would be zippy and snappy and pompous here.

So the numbering in Fractal Dialectics will often be dualistic, it is basically dialectics after all. But with computers as powerful as they are, it will be fairly simple to leave some slack in the programming so that Fractal Dialectic software always has seasonal, philosophical, and cosmic possibilities, as it were.

36 MUDRAS - COUNTING ON OUR FINGERS

Now, I wanted to have distinct mudras so that we can actually get our first fractal recursion in this splodge or written vomit. I am sorry to say, I view all art and human creation as excrement of the mind, and all of us as dung beetles, so occasionally I will refer to my creative ideas from a self mocking perspective, it helps me think clearly and avoids certain traps and mistakes, these are just thoughts.

Fractal Dialectics is for humans.

Numbers and arithmetic implicitly assume, ah, God, or the structure of space and time, uses "our " mathematics. Hence the utter crap – since all ideas are a toilet anyway – of Stephen Hawking recently. And others. No, God does not use "our" mathematics. No, we cannot take the dance of the honey bee and explain creation. That would be absurd. Nor can we take the language, nor thinking limitation of any specied on this planet, including homo omsnisciens, and presume that simplistic version applies to explain the Big Bang. No way Jose. Let me be very clear. Fractal Dialectics is limited to this species, the humans. It is not truth out there in atoms nor was it unfolding beyond and before any singularity, it is merely here and now and was not in the age of the dinosaurs and will not be when our species dies out. It is a temporary dance in the shadows of a fire we cannot know.

So, we have two hands. Interesting – because this is Dialectics, recursive duality and we have TWO hands. What a coincidence (not).

In a way, this duality of two hands IS the maximum dimension we can think in, and that is the whole point of Fractal Dialectics. We glibly imagine an 11 dimensional universe with M-Branes and Pea Brains, but the true limit of dimension for us all, is right or left, is breathing in or breathing out, is life or death, is awake or asleep, the dimensionality of human existence is truly binary with perhaps a glimmer of beyond in the space where sleep is not quite awake, where breathing stops in the that turn around. It is no accident that some people glimpse the unknowable beyond all human existence in such gaps. But as humans and as a species we are so limited. We have up and down and that is it! Yes or no. Mind is duality and no more, but that duality at least has rotational energy and so skin forms like clingfilm around each concept, concepts become bubbles in the darkness of unknown discovery, and the winds of happenstance bump those bubbles of conceptual energy together or blow them far apart.

I digress.

I made 6 unique mudras or hand positions. We have left and right hands. Clearly a shepherd counting sheep has 36 unique mudras using two hands to count with.

Traditionally shepherds and others counted in tens because of our ten fingers. Computers count in two because analogue computers did not fit our decimal numbers and simplistic idiots that homo dumbo is, we failed to change our mathematics to fit the beauty and truth of analogue calculation. Fractal Dialectic Synthesis restores the power of analogue calculation within a recursive binary framework without the tyranny of cartesian euclidean errors. The future is clearly analogue and using FDS could be mocked up on existing digital desktops in a few months by a competent research graduate. You heard it first on the raging lunatic channel here. I happen to be correct in this prediction. And I despise and hate those who are so blind as to fail to see this. Which is not an ideal position of the decorum and stern dignity these ideas deserve, but I am human.

I am not happy with this 36 possible hand positions. I want 64.


FROM BINARY DIGITAL TO TETRAHEDRAL DIGITAL (virtual analogue) AND HEXAMETER DIGITAL (the marriage of language and mathematics)

I want to get back to binary so that this system fits naturally and intuitively into computers today, and extends their range to fluid analogue data correction (the end of pixelation, just as scratchy 78rpm shellac records became nostalgia) and A.I. on your laptop.

Using each of five fingers as an on or off switch, extended or bent as it were, you can count I believe to 32 on just one hand. 00000 00001 00010 00011 etc. up to 11111. And we are back to ways to apply all this to computers.

That intrigues me. What is closer to the possibilities of Fractal Dialectics using seasonal counting - with four elements that have two extremes of identifiable quality, and two vector midpoints in the flow between those extremes. Seasonal counting is a refinement and extension of digital binary that is clearly compatible with existing applications. We just have extra room in all of our computers for two "numbers" in between 0 and 1. These numbers are birth and death effectively – technically zero becoming 1 (birth) and 1 becoming zero. These intermediate snapshots are the moment of switching on and switching off, so they already exist in computers not as the states we use today but as the process of changing state.

I am confident that immensely powerful machine code will result from rethinking binary digital as tetrahedral digital. It requires no change to the actual hardware but deep change to the most fundamental levels of software – the "and" "or" "nor" gates at the heart of computing will be released to new and profound subtleties when we rediscover as our early computer scientists did, the instructional possibilities of seasonal or tertrahedral digital calculations.

Quite possible the backbone skeleton of such research is already there in the actual processing structures of machine code itself, but I instinctively feel there are possibilities we did not yet find because our blinkers were set to binary instead of tetrahedral.

As for the unlocking of hexameter digital – my goodness. Clearly a double hexameter (64x64) approaches the vocabulary of a newspaper, a few thousand concepts. It will be very hard to distinguish intelligence and I predict language itself, from a mechanical double hexameter inference engine of some sort and the central connections are a mere 64 by 64 matrix! Nothing in today’s computer storage. The connection ranges between those elements are clearly a wiring nightmare, but within ten years we could have something passing for artificial intelligence approaching a science fiction dream.

The key to all this is first to expand Digital Binary into Digital Tetrahedral. Beyond that to Digital Hexameter. At that stage computers will appear to "know" "meaning".

I may have raced ahead in my thoughts here but to return to the basic launchpad of this line of thinking – mathematics today is based in number and quantity.

Fractal Dialectics is different in that it creates a new quality/quantity hybrid. Utlimately with enough work, mechanical computation will resemble "meaning" and "discussion" to a level that will be very useful.

The pathway to that in Data Processing research is to first expand existing binary to seasonal or tetrahedral calculation and for that we must re-invent the basic building blocks of digital processing. The translation from 0 and 1 to action and process and algorithm will be released in to a new dimension by simply positing two interpolated states between 0 and 1 – dead and alive and these are processes frozen into states we might call birth and death. 0, B, D, 1 for example.

Rethinking machine code algorithms will introduce an analogue quality to computing.

Introducing the maximum potential – six hexameters – will bring something like language, something like thinking, something like discussion, and something like intelligence to computers.

I am sure this blurtational style is frustrating to read but it is my nature for now. Insight is not given to those who are fluent. To be fluent is to be happy with the existing range of possibility, insight is a struggle and it cannot be fluent. In all of that I seek mathematical minds - not because they will welcome this, not for an easy recognition, but because these ideas need better precision than I can give them.

[AntonioLao]

This image is a schematic representation of Archimedes lever. The balancing equation is given by L1 * F1 = L2 * F2. There are many configurations of the L's and the F's that would make it stops rotating.The trivial solution is F1=F2 and L1=L2. If that is true then there is only one force and one distance. In any kind of dialectic argument, one always come out the winner and the other the loser. And it so happens that the scale of justice is the one behold by a blind angel.

[Mike 5]

You have caught me out Antonio. My use of the word Dialectics is sentimental romance and tish tosh. I might as well call it Nanky Poo or Yum Yum.

However, as Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, in a resort called Wonderland, a word means what I want it to mean, neither more nor less.

it is such a pain having an idea that you feel, is fresh, unthought before by anyone else. It deranges and deludes you. Is it a relief to find, oh someone else invented that wheel? It is a curse, Antonio, a curse. Then how to express and name it.

I have a soft spot for Hegel, who I must admit is, in a word, a buttermouth.

Probably some reincarnation, maybe I was Hegel's mother.

Anyway, let me guide you to an alternate view, and for the moment we will withdraw the label dialectics. Let me say, I was tempted by the alternative word dualistics for all fo three seconds, but the fever passed.

imagine a sea in motion, of custard, fluid toffee, or molten hessian. In the random turbulence a crooked finger emerges and it is curled. Breaking free, it becomes a ball. Now what has happened. In a way, a skin or boundary between two substances, toffee and salt gas, it does not really matter, has rotated to a complete 360 degrees and more, the sphere is separate from the foundry of fluid toffee and for just a moment, may rotate in its own space and dream of a nice English Breakfast in a hotel in Las Vegas. But...

Jump for a moment to a video monitor in another dimension, if you will, not that dimensions have any validity outside a Descartes novel, but look! Although to human eyes and touch (wear gloves, salt gas stings!) the ball is separate, in another viewfinder beyond the human, and this is also somehow real, it remains always linked. Umbilical chords link everything to everything else. Strings and superstrings knitted and knotted all over.

ah, it's good to be back. On dry land. But the dream was so vivid, do things still remain connected?

Glibly, mathematicians and cosmologists are already dancing in 11 dimensions and their Wonderland is just as silly as mine. But do you know what, forgetting Cartesian ideals does not mean abandoning empirical methods nor practical results, it shifts them onto another blackboard and I have to say, the phone books of science are filled with people who ... believe. How many light bulbs did Edison discard? What drove Einstein - is it beautiful enough for God?

Belief is exactly like the umbilical link between two things that are rotationally separate.

Now I have to ask a question somewhere, about sub atomic particles and spin. For I seem to remember some codswallop about half spin and spin in rotational dimensions that are neither clockwise nor anti-clockwise. And some vague nonsense about wave and particles being very confused about their gender and sexuality. Oh, and the statistics of a series of single electrons fired through a choice of two openings having interference patterns that are non-intuitive.

But hold on, now that dream with the fluid toffee and the other video screen makes a lot more sense than some of these Quantum Theory explanations, could there be something as simple as a new look at rotation and separation and all makes ... sense?

I don't know, Antonio, that is the tragedy. But I do know that your example is Cartesian, straight lines, measured distances, and Fractal Dialectics is about flowing rivers and the search for a single mechanics for consciousness and material forms. In this sense I need to be very clear that Dialectics - in my 2005 interpretation - is Bezier curves.

Think about it. Point A sets out in a vector with push P and destination X. Point B sets out from another place with an irreconcilable push Q to a different destination Z

There exists one Bezier curve that resolves this - not as an equation, but as the kind of curve we see more and more in computer graphics, the Bezier curve. Suddenly we have win win dialectics. From inside the tunnel of the Bezier curve, the light from distant star A arrives at your eyeball B in a direct path. From Einstein's armchair, that path curved and wobbled through gravitational deflections.

Thank you for the opportunity to flow a little more of my ideas into the strange empty silence of the internet. The riddle to resolve is life, the apparent juxtaposition of consciousness and material form. But there are clear rules - life passes from DNA to RNA to DNA, life forms evolve yet pass down umbelical dendritic grandparent parent child structures on and on.

In all of this there is a joker, and however much I try to play that role, I am a fool in comparison to this joker, the ultimate joker is Time. I am in a hurry to complete a book on Fractal Dialectics and invite more responses, that will harden the form I can explain all this. Because beyond that we can re-evaluate time.

So, Dialectics, it is not a simple idea at all. Hegel never expressed it clearly. Marx bolloxed it all up. I dislike Marx for that. Lenin pissed on it. But I think there is something worth reviving.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Mike 5 So, Dialectics, it is not a simple idea at all.

The word dialectics when applied to physics could most likely means the existence of two unequal forces of nature. The constant struggle between them creates a perpetual rotation.