Welcome and thank you for reading this site on Natural Philosophy. Please allow me to open this unconventional treatise with a poem:

Life is all about finding out that:

-life is real

-life is a game

-that game has rules

-reality is the record of it

-you can't not play a game in it

-you can't not play a game and not finish it

-the game you play is the one you understand

-you're living less, the less playfully you play your game

The introductory part of the site starts with a poem to highlight and invite you, the reader, to allow the whole site’s content to be unusual. Such is perhaps the nature of change.

It also serves to highlight that its topic and method could at times be considered prosaic, dry and text-heavy (by some) and offers me the opportunity to highlight its content as a paradigm-shifting exercise: it simply is not a piece of work that fits into any one specific mould. It is a new mould.

For an overview on this vast work, please visit here. For a Game-theoretical discussion I refer you here. Those more interested in Physics and mathematics should visit here. The basic premise for this theory was first published in September 2024 and can be found here.

This panoply of approaches will hopefully not surprise the reader. This site seeks to present a radically novel way of looking at, calculating and understanding the meaning of information describing our experience of reality after all. As such it necessarily covers philosophy, mathematics and logic My position in regards to such oddities is simply that paradigm shifting ideas necessarily push the boundaries and may require the reader to adapt. This introductory page and its opening poem merely serve to set the tone for such an endeavour.

Please note that the work you can explore on this entirely free website is also not a piece of Physics but of Natural Philosophy and pure logic although it, again necessarily, touches on Physics and mathematics.

In this website, I explore the tools of logic, physics and mathematics we use to describe and understand reality, but the basic principle of this work is one of Natural Philosophy. It is, if you will, a work that takes a step backward to revisit how we think about things, to then take 3 steps forward in how we do things with those understandings. It attempts to present and explain why we need to rethink the way we think we relate to reality, and then associates it to fundamental mathematical and physical calculation processes in order for it to become useful in applications for us, humans, and you, the reader.

This may be an unusual way to reclaim our position in relation to the tools we have surrounded ourselves with, but something being “unusual” shouldn’t be all that distracting or important in itself. What is important however is what doing that something that is (perhaps) unusual can achieve. In this “Dot theory’s” case that is:

Real-world predictive healthcare from already available data.

As humans, we have a need for mathematics to build and program tools that help us relate to our environment more efficiently, more symbiotically and mutually beneficially. The proposition of this theory is a logic of human computation and mathematics that absorbs existing tools to optimise their efficiency and improve our lives. The application championed here is to apply this logic to healthcare- and observation data to produce cost-efficient real-time predictive healthcare.

This is only one application of the Dot theory (or Recursive Relativity theory), and far from its only significant one, but every theory needs to have a field of application to be testable. The paper found on this site establishes the rationale and logic of the Dot theory and establishes a testable hypothesis for peer-review. When tested and shown effective, this would theoretically validate the premise of the logic (effective manipulation of data that is used to describe our experience of reality), and invite its application in other fields for similar improvements on calculations and predictions of real-world events.

In practical terms; one way to think of it from a Natural Philosophy perspective, is that Newton described reality as the movement of objects, Einstein as the relationship of photons that make objects observable, and the Dot theory as a change in meaning of the data record that describes an observed experience or event:

Reality, in this theory, is conceived of as the movement and interaction of data of different types. Be it of different formats like movement, matter, energy, gravity and time, or interpretations of their meaning relative to the meaning of the calculation to the human user of the theory.

Simple, elegant, fundamental, unifying and effective computationally, it revisits how the concept of a theory and its meaning are conceived of within the human mind and understood conceptually i.e. “computed into existence”. It is, I believe, elegant too, seeking clarification and finds meaning in the supporting context over what is subsumed or assumed by temporary culture.

We humans are, in this framework, “data”-records ourselves (our bodies and world perception/experience) that through our actions and inactions leave a physical data record of our interactions within reality. Like any sheet, tablet or floppy disc, readable by other humans that are equipped with the necessary tools and skills.

This is hardly novel and has in parts been represented in Wheeler’s “it to bit”, Wittgenstein’s cognitive limits and Gödel’s incompleteness but is here being brought together in what I believe is a novel framework. In this theory, our “physical existence” only describes our observation of the coalescence of interference patterns made visible to observers equipped with the tools to observe them. Coalescences that are reported back to ourselves and given meaning as being “reality”, as if it were some static object, when they are in fact the product of disturbance of the balanced state and a-temporal.

We humans, as seen across the organic record, seem to be uniquely voiced in our degree of ability to discern others as being like us and understand their otherness relative to us. This allows us to establish meaningful nuances (ability to refine set-theoretical definitions) and attribute inherent meaning, ultimately resulting in notions of consciousness. And from this, we have been able to observe not only patterns but disturbances in patterns forming their own intrinsic and revelatory patterns in turn enabling us to calculate, predict and regulate our own behaviours ever-more accurately, helpfully and, even, organically.

What Dot theory invites us to do (to look at reality as the movement of data) is to see objects, numbers, meanings and observations as the local clustering of interference patterns (represented in data - whether frequency, ink, byte or letter) that represents and makes visible something that wasn’t visible prior to the clustering. Like letters have no use until they have at least once formed words shared between two people. Then their value becomes inherent and emergent to the width and breadth of what they can (in)form when put together in extremely specific sequences. Like DNA cells or Lego-bricks.

The hypothetical idea displayed here is entirely based in logic and I publish it here for others to read and come to terms with, falsify, fundamentally challenge, and progress it.

In closing:

I realised that the Dot theory is the “algorithm of change for good, progress, and change.” The logic of Evolution if you will. It is a logic of logic considered over timescales that can sometimes be hard to comprehend when viewed from specific perspectives. This is, in a sense, “all” this theory teaches us: it’s all about your perspective on the information from which you make conclusions and decisions about reality. More specifically the computational perspective and understandings of the meaning of the language represented by the data, the properties of our physical reality, and its algorithmic interactions with us, humans.

It is indeed an odd algorithm, perhaps like the poem, but ultimately that is because it has intent written into it. What is most odd about it, is that it can only be used for a specific intention, which to my knowledge is a novel idea in mathematics. This complex thought-object, at its most fundamental, is an algorithm that can only give you the answer that is good for you, where, purely by virtue of asking the question, the equation lays bare its potential for prediction.

Thank you for your time and visiting this site. 

Stefaan 

Please comment away, I will contribute when I can. 

We are here to experience the world we create