Belated Time Travel ..

[dleviwing]

Hi John;
As a fellow metrologist I have the confidence that you understand the nuances of performing measurement and analyzing the data. Metrology is the foundation of all the physical sciences; it is the art of measuring the phenomena of our universe. Probability and uncertainty are the tools of the statistical analysis of data and should not be promoted as anything else. When people exaggerate simple terminology to some mysterious and amazing phrases, it usually means they don’t know what they are talking about (or they are selling a book); that is why I call it gibberish, nonsense, or just plain foolish.

The thing to remember about time is that in Relativity it is a subjective analysis of it to define motion relative to the motion of the observers and in QM it is an objective analysis making it an absolute term; thus you have “uncertainty” based on the accuracy of the tools of measure. (no absolute measure) That does not translate into “anything can happen within that uncertainty”; it just means we can’t measure it absolutely; the physical laws however, must also apply to that realm of uncertainty. Time is a tool of measure; not an entity of the universe.

Though we look into the night sky and say we are seeing the past, it is actually the “NOW” light we are viewing and not the past light; just as we see an old photo.

[everymansmedium]

Hi David:
Yes I am in the process of writing a book, 2 in fact. One is my story and the other is a science fiction story that could result if the circumstances that I speculate about in my TOE turns out to be more than speculation.

Yes it is true that when we open our eyes to see it is always the light of now that we see. However the relativity between that light we see and the event that caused it indicates a passage of time. This time always begins with a now. It never begins with a will be. The future does not exist. All we have is now and evidence of what has past.

I have all the respect that it is possible to have for our ability to measure and the ability to relate to our system of standards Uncertainty results when factors of both time and space are used in the same equation when approaching the event horizon. This uncertainty can be described as a change in the normal relativity between space and time. This look is not at the uncertainty but at what the measurement is telling us about the relationship between time and space at this point. I see the interpretation of this measurement as still not explained completely.

We actually know very little more about this phenomena than what the math or the instrumentation that uses that math is set to show us. The interpretation of that math is for the most part still up for further explanation. Likewise with the interpretation of the changes in the relativity between time and space as seen at the red shift is also still very much up for further interpretation. Most certainly when you consider the fact that the red shift appears to be indicating acceleration.

About time defining motion or motion defining time. Time and space are both dimensions by which we define motion. They both hold equal weight in the calculations. Neither is more important than the other.
But you forget, you are a being as I am a being. Time defines being as well as motion. I see the fact that time defines being as being more important to me as a being. I can close my eyes and imagine an existence without the 3 dimensional space, but I can imagine nothing without time. Without time space may as well be a solid and there is no being. We have the math that gives us clues to reality but the interpretation of what story it is telling is still not cast in stone. I see the most important factors in my own existence are in the being.

Yes my approach is not the usual scientific method. But I also feel that maybe a new approach may yield some as yet unseen coincidences. I feel that it already has shown me some possibilities that should be examined further. Much of this comes as a result of going back over what has been put to bed by an over anxious system, or buy a capital system for reasons other than scientific.

I did not say that time was an entity. What I said was that it appears quite possible that our universe itself as a whole might be like an entity and that time and space may be the result of this entity. I said this because it can not be discounted.

I also have seen what I call a natural tendency of data entities to merge. I have seen this many times during my research of human and life simulation systems. This tendency to merge I am sure was also seen by many researchers and writers in the past and has been the subject of much speculation. It is seen as evidence of the tendency toward one God. Then by another as evidence that God creates man, then man creates God, then God destroys man. This natural tendency to merge actually does exist.

I have also seen first hand some very strange unexplainable behavior relative to ALF systems and the probability to priority loop. A system that sets it own priorities by the calculation of its own probable success at attaining and using items needed to complete a program goal. This needs to be looked at much more closely. The need to observe its own abilities to result with a probability of success may be resulting in the beginning of awareness of self. This may be the beginning of the pure data being that you do not believe can happen. It may be closer than you know. It is very hard to determine what is happening to a system that is designed to set its own priorities. I am sure there might be some interesting information relative to the mars robots if one could get at that information. I for one would love to see this data. I would guess that there might be probability priority loops in these systems. I would like the opportunity to see the results of another programmers PPL. (probability priority loop.)

Anyway “ HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERY ONE “
Hoping that 2008 will bring us to the TOE.
John

[dleviwing]

Hi John;
It sounds like the AI technology is moving into the realm of “emergence” of the biological technology. I’ve always been captivated by the possibility of bio-circuit design; maybe that’s the next step for AI.

The point I was attempting to make is that we cannot mix the concepts of time used by Relativity and the concept of time used in QM. Relativity is subjective (based on observer) and QM is objective (based on absolute or universal time); I don’t really understand why people claim science must unify Relativity and QM; they both function as designed. Why is it viewed as so complex? Your second paragraph seems to mix relative time and absolute time as if there is nothing to it; I have also done the same at times just to avoid explaining the difference to management types.

Good luck with your books.

[Graybeard]

It sounds like the AI technology is moving into the realm of “emergence” of the biological technology. I’ve always been captivated by the possibility of bio-circuit design; maybe that’s the next step for AI.

John / Dave

I am not sure how to put into words what I wish to convey, but I will try. By the way this is not related to the thread topic ... but anyway ..

Many things both natural and technological, designed for a purpose, through force of circumstance end up serving a different purpose ... and it is then seen that this purpose is where they display their 'forte' or most potent strength.

Simple examples would be: Feathers, which did not evolve for flying. The german 88mm anti air-craft gun which became the greatest armour piercing weapon of the war. Millions of these examples exist .. almost to the point of wondering if the greatest potential of any 'system' is always realised in some way other than its designed for purpose.

AI technology was probably fathered by Allan Turing, and billions have been spent on it ever since. Most adherents start out by creating an 'expert, self compensating, self learning' code. Why not, they're designing for a purpose. In my opinion, and I believe it will be proved correct, they are overlooking a system that is 'most fit' for the purpose and already in existence, ubiquitous and well understood. I'm referring to the database, and more specifically the database engine. In my opinion the database engine is the King of all software ... everything else is a distant second.

I have a degree in computing, specifically in database context, and my opinion is shared by others. Larry Ellison who founded Oracle, E.F. Codd who formulated the rules of Normalisation (invented and defined the relational database). Anyone who has had to study the simple rules of Normalisation will remember the agony of implementing them in practice on a table space.

If the rules were distilled into a single sentence it would be written "The key, the whole key, and nothing but the key, so help me Codd". Every student of database design is made to take this oath as doctors have to take the hippocratic oath ... LOL

The astounding simplicity of the relational database is that it requires no other system in order to be a database.

Microsoft Word requires an operating system, Microsoft Windows. All software sits on top of other lower level software ultimately ending in binary code. The database breaks from this tradition in a very lateral manner. The entire instruction set for its operation is contained on the same tablespace as the users data. In fact it is created by the engine, in the same format, at the same time as the user defines the data with which he wishes to work. This means it is transparent, there is only one toolset for the operator, the designer, and the maintence mechanic.

A relational database cannot separate the 'Thinker' from the 'Thought', they are one on the same tablespace. Further it speaks only in stuctured English (SQL = Structured Query Language). So its interface is 'human' in its intuitional use by humans. it has only 3 operators ... Select, Insert, and Delete

As the User improves his data, the instruction set 'learns' at the exact same rate. By the user updating a 'user table', the integrity of Codd's rules enforce the relational updating of all system tables and indexes.

Perhaps its greatest strength is that it is imperfect, and it will never reach perfection. I routinely define data in 3rd normal form, sometimes at great strain into 4th normal form. In order to get to 5th, 6th, and the impossible, mythical 7th normal form would require an Einstein, or a Bobby Fischer of the database world.

I could go on here forever, but the main thing is that here in our midst, a system has been born, unrecognised for its ultimate purpose, and is maturing into one of the most powerful tools for information manipulation that we have ever seen.

John ... If you don't have a relational database engine running at the heart of your system you are re-inventing the wheel. Its most outstanding attributes are that it is imperfect (like evolution, its flexible to any condition) , the 'thought' and the 'thinker', and the 'rules' between the two consist of the same transparent data on the same tablespace.

There is no separation. This is not biological but from 'outside the box' it serves the same purpose. By not differentiating between the thinker and the thought it mimics human processes with all their fallibilty and ergo, room for improvement

cool bananas ... Greg

[everymansmedium]

Hi Greg:
Have you ever used Prolog? It has a relational database at the core of the system. Even Turbo Prolog by Borland had a relational database. I wrote a 6800 microprocessor simulator using TP in 1989. It could run 6800 machine code on an IBM AT. This might have been one of the first across platform code systems ever built. I did not know the value of what I had done until many years later. I did it because I was taking a course in the 6800 micro and learning TP at the same time. The 2 went together like ice cream and hot fudge. It is however a lot different from the systems that you find elsewhere. The Prolog system is a declarative programming system. However I am quite able to use it as a procedure as well. The entire system is based on predicate calculus including the knowledgebase. The dB predicates work a bit different than a standard predicate, but they can be fed one into the other to result with what ever you can conceive of.

The last version of Rose and Clem was within my own development system that made it very simple to continuously keep adding routines. Every routine then becomes a tool that can be called by a database program. These database programs are written during runtime and can also be run as soon as they are written. This results with a system that can write its own code to perform a function that it needs then runs the program and performs the function that it just wrote. All on the fly in a compiled system.
.
This is the learning machine CLEM. You teach Clem a new word or a new image sentence. An image sentence is a sentence type : example
My hat is on the table. The image for this sentence might be (pospn,noun,is,prep,det,noun) This image will cover many sentences, including the following.
Her car is in the garage. His home is on the seacoast.
This image becomes an identifier and a database program is written to explain to the system how to use this input. Then when ever this image is identified it will call the program that is written to handle it.
There may be more than one image that will use this same program. Or it may be used along with another to handle a different image. CLEM is the C-ommunication LE-arning M-achine. This is the interface that comes up when the system encounters a new word or a new sentence image. The rest of the time you communicate with ROSE. R-obot O-perating S-ystem E-xecutive.

Some of these database programs are called by the expert knowledge base running within ROSE. These are the ones that could be used to control hardware etc

This is a language learning expert system shell. It is a shell because it becomes an expert as you give it the rules and facts of the expert. It uses forward chaining inheritance in a category expert system.
The rules can be recursive

In addition to that it maintains a connection to all of its used pronouns. If a pronoun is used that is not defined it will ask for the information so as to trace any relative data to the correct persons database.

It maintains item location. If I ask where is my hat, and it tells me that my hat is in the car, If I then tell it my hat is on the table. It will remove the information about my hat being in the car and put the information about its location to be, on the table.

I have been experimenting with a verb category expert that can manipulate the Noun/item category database relative to
To the verb category expert. This alters the flags on an item relative to its (condition or state, location, ownership, value, availability, notes). When this is used it results with an apparent knowledge of space, time, and motion. The verbs are categorized as to there effect on the relative data and on varied motion categories. This system is like 2 systems, one keeps track of the noun and item category information and the other tracks the verb categories and alters the item database relative to the action of the verb.

Up to this point this has been a system that is initiated by the operator. At this point it will be ready to begin experimenting with initiating systems. That is a system that is always busy doing something in its own list of priorities. The interacting with a person is to be the highest priority, This is the beginning of the companion. This may be less than 8 months away. This is when the experiments begin.


John

[everymansmedium]

Thank you David.
I hope the books work out also. However my head right now is into AI. I believe in AI in the same way that people learn. One thing on top of another. The learning experiences are always one after the other not always following a specific trail. Yet the learning process works anyway. It appears as we learn we simply stack one bit of knowledge on top of another or beside each other it does not seem to matter. So I designed a system that I can keep putting new knowledge into without upsetting past learning experiences. It can put information into the database in any sequence. It really is beginning to look like each part of language is a separate tool that is simply called when needed. It does not appear like a single integrated function. It looks more like a toolbox and a pattern recognition tool caddy. That hands out the correct tool to do any specific job. As you learn you simply put a new tool into the toolbox and update the tool caddy. The more I look at it the more it looks like just a pile of stuff. No elaborate system. The more of a pile it is, the better it seems to work. The only organization that makes any difference is the organization that helps me find my way around in the pile when I am writing code.
every tool that I write is in a list box. if you click ok it will run it. if you click help it will bring up a description of the tool and a copy of the code. if you write into the window it will put that into that window dB so it will be there next time. Notes and ability to look at the code while it is running. When I get some good code on this next system I will send you a copy to look at. Are you a Ham? I am considering putting Rose on 20 meters CW.
John

[dipayankar]

Hi David... it is interesting the way AI is coverging with biology.

In terms of unification of Relativity and QM, I quite agree with you that they might not be unified. However I hope there is a logical step that leads from QM to Relativity

Hi John;
It sounds like the AI technology is moving into the realm of “emergence” of the biological technology. I’ve always been captivated by the possibility of bio-circuit design; maybe that’s the next step for AI.

The point I was attempting to make is that we cannot mix the concepts of time used by Relativity and the concept of time used in QM. Relativity is subjective (based on observer) and QM is objective (based on absolute or universal time); I don’t really understand why people claim science must unify Relativity and QM; they both function as designed. Why is it viewed as so complex? Your second paragraph seems to mix relative time and absolute time as if there is nothing to it; I have also done the same at times just to avoid explaining the difference to management types.

Good luck with your books.

[N0B0DY]

Although I don't see why relativity and qm are viewed as solely subjective and objective, respectively, I think both are limited empirically and theoretically. And can only be unified philosophically...philosophically-incremental steps.

[dleviwing]

John;
I haven’t been a HAM since I was a teen. I designed and built my first heterodyne set when I was 14. (using vacuum tubes of course)

Nobody;
One of the things that tell me the level of science experience a person has is by seeing how they attempt to be objective with Relativity and how they attempt to apply subjective concepts to QM. Pilot Wave theory is my favorite for this type of abuse.

[dipayankar]

Apart from philosophically unifying those forces, we also need to unify them logically. Somehow I feel gravity is the road to unification.

Although I don't see why relativity and qm are viewed as solely subjective and objective, respectively, I think both are limited empirically and theoretically. And can only be unified philosophically...philosophically-incremental steps.