Project Development
To not distract from the dot theory itself yet recognise its value, I dedicate this separate part of the site to discussing my understanding of its development.
This is presented here in two distinct categories: understanding
the personal experience of the creative and intellectual process of deriving the theory and
other or further elaborations on implications of the theory (i.e. understanding what it means in other applications) when it has been translated to other applications (if not derivative of) alongside the ones already discussed in the paper.
Before discussing this, I would like to take the time to frame that this process is valuable for all creative processes but seems especially interesting due to the capability of its outcome:
What the dot theory paper will do:
Among many other things, this paper should, hopefully, accelerate the development of a system that will (when it has been realised fully) enable you, a unique individual, to use A.I. computational solutions to make adjustments for your “digitally mediated lived experience” entirely bespoke, safely and to your benefit, and your benefit only. Producing a “personally optimising” digital life experience.
It will also enable a re-evaluation of how we understand and relate to reality. Both are big things that directly interest a specialist audience and indirectly, everyone.
My belief is that this dot theory computational logic and the resulting computational capacity will significantly benefit people’s health and well-being in the future in more ways than one.
If my logic is shown to be adequate, it also proves that our experience of reality is quantum and demonstrates a real-world Bell test violation. This has significant implications for the possibilities that emerge from that.
That's what happens when you decide that observed reality is local.
Whilst this may all seem very far-fetched at present. In reality, computation is becoming a fractional event. You can do a lot of it in very little time. This means, in practical terms, that because this idea is a data-based event, growth in this field will be rapid and none of what is stated here will come as a surprise to the informed reader.
The creative and intellectual process
As mentioned elsewhere, as a thought-object, my understanding and memory of going through the process of developing something (that I could verbalise in what I think are logical and scientifically acceptable terms and statements) as the development process of the "dot theory" is that it was “odd.” I think it is important to reflect on this whilst the memory is fresh and relevant.
Firstly, it is odd in that I recognise that before this creative process, I “saw things differently”. Like seeing an opportunity for food differently depends on hunger. Experiencing it differently. This feels less hungry and less anxious. It has changed my perspective.
At its most basic description, that is what the Dot Theory (re)presents: it is simply realising that you sometimes see things differently. From moods to hormones, from light or camera angles. And realise that how we see things determines what we believe to be true. And that what we believe the most is what most often becomes true. This translates smoothly into predictive computational perspectives and database-management language and healthcare processes. It also translates well into Eigen's values and spatial metrics, and each of those means different theories we use to describe different elements of reality and navigate it more efficiently and comfortably: it is the process of “Rationalisation”.
Rather grandly, the Dot Theory claims to be, in other terms, the representation of the mathematical structure of the algorithm of the pseudo-self-emergent properties of rationalisation and evolution. The method/process on how to make better decisions.
However, at another level, this computational/perceptual shift also alters how you experience reality because the conclusion of the theory means things. The feeling of being upset no longer means that I have the urge to behave a certain way or another. It is just a cluster of responses and feelings, an observation that probably has meaning. There is an “oddity” to this. A difference in emotional landscape and understanding of the event when compared to memories of feelings in similar situations in the past. That sentiment, to me, is both observable, remarkable and shareable.
The rupture of skin to bleed is the catastrophic disruption of the data layers representing skin, transmuted by frictional forces transacting data layer types across layers of another-natured data layer through the exchange of energy. It just is, and it is felt. What is and what the associated values are felt as feel the same, yet do not relate as “heavily” as they used to. They have “perspective” and a sense of “distance” that wasn’t this notably present prior. That is an odd experience.
The process was odd, too, with instances of events I can best describe as automatic writing with a willing idiot. An ego-challenging position to find yourself in. Logics appear when one sees things a certain way, not by working out a problem by following existing methods. They emerged as completely already formed and there by virtue of being the answer to another effort to make things work in another field. They offered themselves simply by following the logic of my own thought experiment in studying the most conceptual descriptive methods (mathematics, computer sciences, logic and theoretical physics). It is a problem composed of a few problems already solved elsewhere if you just look at the information/defining terms right. All I had to do was not be too limited in expressing it well. Do not stand in the way and correctly translate the languages into adequately describing the unifying thread of logic.
So, in terms of the process, it was “odd,” but it was an oddity you and everyone else have experienced before. People all resonate with it, sometimes in smaller ways. “Clarity” is “knowing” that the only thing that will be wrong with this theory is my mistakes in describing it. A clarity that only discusses the creative process once it is shown to have been right is gratuitous, in a sense. Less-meaning, yet not meaningless. An overall lack of doubt (despite multiple reflexmatic compulsive thoughts). A clarity that comes with a simplicity and beautifully energising aesthetic. The closest sentiments I reflect that aesthetic to are those of play and playfulness. Gratuitous, fun, meaningless and purposeless playfulness of an intellectually creative kind that feels right. At most times, I wasn’t even trying to be right; I was just trying to formulate it correctly. Comprehensibly, in its meaning.
I am committing this series of statements of oddities and the odd sense of “right” from the paper's publication date for a reason: It is beneficial for people to understand, if it turns out this theory was “right,” that I “didn’t know” I was right. I was just doing what felt right. Although I did wonder, at times, there is a difference I feel might be important.
I was, to a point, just doing things that felt right, following thoughts playfully. But I knew that I had to do what I was doing. It felt “right”. I read many inspirational quotes about people “knowing” and following their path; it’s true, but it's not what you think. You follow your path to bump into the things you need to learn to get the skills to be able to find the things you need to learn to pull it all together from the reality available in your life to be a “developing human” being that is the unique and individual you. That, I knew. More and more clearly as I was going through the process. I wasn’t even choosing as such. I had surrendered to the process for it to happen, so to speak. I saw the logic of the idea and committed that it could not be wrong. Only I could be wrong in my imperfect ability to describe it sufficiently well.
I found this linguistic narrowness challenging when looking to integrate with mainstream academia and investment pathways. I believe there are hunches an educated mind should be able to take and follow. From discussion, academia is becoming less and less the space where to think about things differently.
The creative process and my work/profession:
Apparently, it was always going to be a doctor (or “quack”) who came up with this theory. Why? They don’t say, but considering the thought process I went through and the nature of the mathematical boundaries this theory produces, I would think it is because it needed you to only want one thing: what is best for the individual person’s life experience. Not for a diagnosis, not for a prescription or method, but for their life experience. Only doctors really think like that. And teachers. So yes, it may seem odd for me to come up with this theory, but I am an odd doctor (chiropractor), and I have since found out that this (a clinician coming up with the GUT) was part of the expectations when it comes to its associated predictions. As was that it would emerge in England. London, I believe. Almost prophetically.
But that is the thing with these things; it is just about the convergence of probabilities. This theory was going to emerge eventually. This is why I did it like this, now. Because if not now, then when? Under what other circumstances?
Delaying serious debate about this theory and its applications is just frankly a waste of time, and I don’t mean this in a big-headed way. I may even have gotten the literal sense of the Spinor discussion in the paper wrong. However, there will be a way to reframe it correctly and usefully without it affecting the fact that effective and meaningful predictive healthcare is possible.
This is where the last oddity of this process comes in. It is motivated by one thing only: improving the human lived experience. The system can’t do anything else. It is dedicated to it without the possibility of corruption because it is randomised down to the unique individual: you. It is apparently odd to think like that, but it feels natural now. It makes more sense to me this way.
So, all very odd, and I am sure I will discuss it in greater detail at a later date, but I wanted to dedicate, to record, a sense of “I just did what I felt was right” that had nothing to do with understanding what this theory will impact (aka “knowing”) at the time of its inception. That only came with further study, and I can only understand what I can study and not beyond that. Beyond that, it is futile, yet I know it will be significant.
The reason for this, is for this record to be an inspiration to other humans who explore their creativity and explain to everyone that it will be the core human value. In my view, the value of the human individual of the future will not be labour or service but as a conscious generator of creativity and uniqueness (randomisation). This ability for one person to be different from anyone else in the history of humanity and ever to be, offers a uniqueness in reflecting on the world in a way no artificial entity will ever be able to generate. Not without the help of the process of intuitively driven imaginative conceptual juxtaposition and recombination known as “creativity”. We, therefore, must become comfortable with this level of oddity. It is our future.
And this too, as with all futures that have been, is an odd future that we will rapidly become used to.
Additional and new understandings (to be noted further on suggestions)
Here are ideas that can be touched on in regard to possible ways to look at things. These are derivations considered plausible when considered through the lens of the Dot Theory, i.e. extending the existing rationales in line with a worldview that reality is not local but the manifestation of frequencies resonating and harmonising (“being” and are “being observed”) in the Planck field. Whether conscious observation or indirect experience.
Knowing and Understanding
This dot theory I write about, is only (and all) about “understanding things”. Understanding and knowing are two different things. And any “thing” or group of “things” are only completely knowable/definable to an individual working within temporally limited/defined frameworks and hare, therefore inherently flawed. You can only know there are four chairs in the room, if you believe that you and the room exist as objects in space and time. We know that. We are only as right as the information available to us allows us to be and be limited to what the meaning of “right” is in the chosen context. Knowledge only tells us what we can perceive.
“Knowing”, whilst flawed as a concept of “absolute knowledge”, is the process of being able to define something in real-world terms dictated by the language chosen to express it. To know is to judge, sentence and execute a limited understanding of what is truly there. “To understand”, on the other hand, is a continuously moving, non-static process, an evolutionary vortex of ever-widening acquisition of background information that ultimately makes it possible to see things for more layers of, and with greater depth of the relationships of the motions inherent to what they are. A theft is a theft, but there is a semblance of difference between a theft for survival or entertainment. The more we know, the more we understand. Or can choose to understand.
It’s hard to understand understanding. It’s hard to wrap our heads around what “understanding” actually “is”. And that’s OK. Some of us think about understanding as if it were knowing the construction or composition of something. But that’s knowing how it works. And that’s part of understanding in its expressive sense. We need the language of knowledge to convey an understanding to others. For the knowledge to be meaningful, it needs to be shared and, therefore, shared in a common language. But we need to do so knowing that it will be inherently flawed by the limitations of the qualities of the language used. Not because we’re wrong but because our use of the language could be less than optimal. Sharing knowledge is an incredibly good use of time. Education, learning. We’re always doing it, but we can easily do it badly when the habits around us and not our conscious decision-making are guiding us. Knowledge is everything, but consciousness is key. Understanding is the conscious use of knowledge.
Dynamically speaking, “understanding” is so much more than knowing. It’s a process, like a “growing” that never stops until life stops. If you feed it with knowledge, understanding produces progress. That is what the dot theory’s computational networking solutions produce. Something that, when given information, grows its understanding of what is good for us. Computationally and mathematically, this theory flirts with the poetic and the philosophical. Or it might seem to. I disagree. I cannot think of a more simple and more accurate way to convey the accuracy of the statements. If I were compelled into an argument over it, I would say that it is a form of ad-argumentum argument. Faulting the logic because of the collateral adoption of some of the terminologies in philosophical or esoteric contexts. That is not a constructive argument. That is a form of “exclusion by language” to suit the individual resistance to appropriate reflection and education. It’s dumb.
This is a theory of everything. A T.O.E., in short. It’s a weird idea, but my conclusion is that the T.O.E. or GUT is basically a method to understand “understanding” and how to do it better. To systematise the process of “understanding better” by introducing a question into the very fabric of the logic that is introduced within the set-theoretical definitions of how we describe (and therefore “know”) reality. In short:
How to understand things better by learning more about the meaning of what we think we know.
As conclusions go, I am not surprised, considering it is somehow the most unexpected answer possible, yet the most obvious one when considered with curiosity. In its most mathematical application, it translates into Spinors, which also are useful objects in theoretical physics and the way we calculate and predict the behaviour of reality. In healthcare, it translates into a healthcare advice-prediction system. It’s all the same; it's just a way of taking the next available data layer and looking at the patterns that connect them. Understand them better and do something good with them.
And that is the divine comedy of it all. You can’t do anything bad with it. Neither logically nor mathematically. It cannot be done. You can only look through the mirror from one perspective and one only. Anything that is not that perspective results in a historically pseudo-superimposed super-asymmetry that mirrors another reality. It is one of a slightly different nature than that of anyone else ever to have and to will live.
That’s the kind of sentence that gets too far for some people’s language. The individual words mean too much. You’d need to know Jung and Quantum Field theory to be comfortable with the fact it’s a pretty mundane statement, really. Just one made with confidence not normally permitted.
Space-time and gravity
This is a subject on which I don’t feel I have mastered enough of the language to be confident in the accuracy of my expressions. I know what I mean to say by it, but I could be getting key terms wrong, hence why this sits amongst this collection of ramblings because that’s all they are. From my point of view, if they make it easier to get to the correct idea, then that’s a wonderful use of my time to note it, and perhaps yours for reading it. I will express myself with confidence because I think I am using the right words, and I look forward to evaluating the corrections offered. They will be an education.
The conclusions of my thought experiments leading up to the development of the dot theory offered a certain perspective on some of the potential answers to the nature of gravity and our relationship to the beginning of the universe as we know it, currently thought of as the Lambda C.D.M. model.
The correct way, according to the understanding of the Dot theory, is that our observed physical presence is the point particle-manifestation of a, now gravitational and observable, collection of point particles as the manifestation of the field’s interactions to photonic expression.
In the dot theory, the gravity of the particle is an emergent property of the field’s interaction with the photon “packet” as it manifests /materialises to be experienced as “matter” within its “location” in the field. This means that the particle’s mass (and inherent to its mass are the emerging quanta of a) distance and b) energy relative to another such location) is an emergent property of the interaction between the energy frequencies (of quarks and gluons?) in the Planck- (massless) “particle” field. That interaction is a frequency unique to that location and dictated by the totality of the matrix harmonisation and wave coalescences. In this perspective, we view “objects” as the “observation of the “current” and “visible” emergent manifestation of the harmonisation of photonic packets in their various states across differing fields contained within the Planck field. In this perspective, too, we view “motion” as the “observation” of one coalescence of wave-groups by another over time.
Picture an infinite, gravitationally massless matrix lattice composed of Planck-scale areas (cubes) where a photon entering that crystalline latticed area is subjected to a local frequency (product of the tension across the lattice) so precise that it curves the photon into a loop of specific dimensions and proportions. Slows it down from some perspectives and transmutes it to observable, gravitationally capable matter that modulating frequency is produced by the elements constituting the matrix itself, temporarily holding it together in a specifically tensile crystalline structure and transferring its local expression of the wave’s total energy for the duration of a Planck era so that it can be observed for that time by a suitably harmonised observer.
This way, “gravity” is essentially a locally emergent property of the interaction between the photon and the modulating effect of the frequency of the location in which it transacts, that can be “observed” by another object of a similar-enough resonance/frequency for it to be observable.
From this perspective, the space within which we find the ”infinite” Planck field is, in essence, neither “space” nor has it got “mass” in any classic sense. It is a concept within which infinite space can be created by the presence of a single photon. An omnidirectionally infinitely non-"existent”, massless and classically dimensionless “anti-field” for the photon to come into. As it does, The Planck Field instantaneously stops being massless or anti-anything from the moment a photon is introduced, even just as an idea. Instead, it becomes impossible to maintain their approximation as two separate thought objects but instantaneously becomes “space”. An infinite grid of interconnecting latticed tubes that appears as an inevitability due to the presence of the single photon. A pressure map-matrix that assumes a simple crystalline structure that permits the photon to exist in all its expressions as modulated by the frequency of the lattice as per the conditions of the lattice. The tensions in any part of that grid alter the tensions across all tubes of the matrix and instantaneously communicate between any two areas where the interaction of the photon with the grid creates similarly altered (resonant) energetic or gravitational states of energy. In this picture, the (quarks and gluons?) can be seen as the expression of the local individual clusters of frequencies within a Planck-scale space.
The perturbing question, if there was one, is: “What is the “composition” of this Planck scale matrix?” Well, the answer, I believe, could be “no-thing” and “itself” simultaneously. What it is, is what it has become when it can be “seen” or interacted with. The complex landscape of vibration creates the lattice into existence without evidence of it other than that it is. It is because it is. More practically put, the vibration of the matrix is the matrix’s crystalline structure when it interacts with the photon. The photon, a massless quantum of electromagnetic energy, interacts with the vibration, altering its expression to something with mass and volume. Without the photon, the structure is silent and “non-existent”. It has “frequency” because there are photons in it, and the photons in it are visible because it has frequency in it. In the absence of a single photon, there would simply be no matrix, and without that potentiality of the matrix, there would be nowhere for the photon to “be” (visible/observable). So, everything is light (a product of photonic interactions), but not every light is that same (kind of/expression of) light. That depends on its interaction with the frequencies of the local harmonic topology. In a sense, this means, logically, that for something to “be”, it needs to be “seen”/observed from a given perspective that defines what that thing “can be seen as”. This, in a nutshell, is already evidenced to be true by the phenomenon known as “observer bias/influence”.
Everything we experience and see, is experienced and seen in that way because we have been shaped and taught to see it that way, not because it is the same way to anyone, let alone everyone, else.
In this theoretical place, understanding “time” prior to the Planck era (the Big Bang) becomes simpler to understand: there is no notional conceptualisation of “time” because there is neither space nor mass for it to exist from and between. All there is is an as-of-yet non-defined (given location) photon-sized packet of electro-magnetic energy that is entirely invisible/imperceptible as it is not modulated to another (visible- photon-sized and shaped) mode by any frequencies.
What there also is, is an understanding of how things relate to eachother. In the sense that we can conceptualise, as human beings, that we are “made up”, “emerge from”, or “become visible” because of vibrations across a field that gains mass and space-time from local photonic interaction with that portion of the field(s). The fields or “portions of clusters of vibrations” in the field we call “us”, is connected through less visible and less humanly observable but no less “connected” fields (we don’t harmonise with them in the same way so we don’t “experience” them)
Beyond the Planck Space
Once we have come to terms with the dizzying heights of human life being constructed out of local frequency-encoded photonic modulation and the idea that those recorded events that constitute it are, as objects, individual singularities that cumulatively create a record that can be thought of as occurring as notes from various instruments, in different places across an orchestra for the duration of a concerto called life, then we can start to think about what is before Planck space or before the Planck era.
At this stage, and with my knowledge, I will be limited to descriptive narratives rather than known and accepted terms because, to my awareness, there are none or some, like antimatter, etc., which may not be helpful.
To my conceptualisation of space and time “prior to the big bang”, we are looking at a logically, semantically and heuristically impossible proposition. Our notion of language as a tool for communication requires the conceptualisation of a framework that exists within at least one dimension. Our reference frameworks for discussion of concepts of space and time require the concept of, at least, one dimension to be conceptualisable for discussion in any language.
The space beyond the Planck scale is not such a conceptualisable space. It can be accepted to be a mirror, or “anti” version of our understanding of it in this dimension, but that would be whilst simultaneously understanding that the dimension of the polarity (the aesthetic of how it is mirrored) proposed is illusory and for practical purposes only. So there is no “right” answer, but neither are there, technically, wrong answers.
It is a form of dimensionality that emerges as a mirror from ours. It mirrors ours like a mould to our sandcastle. It’s the negative on the other side of the mirror that has no meaning to the inexperienced eye. We exist because of it, and it exists because of us. We complete each other to nothingness. We emerge from its somethingness. In that sense, the notes of that mirror concerto and the notes of ours mount up to complete silence. The smallest shift between the two and a cacophony erupts. It is its own and what it needs to be. Dimensionally incomprehensible to us yet oddly familiar. This dimensionality is one we cannot “know” because we “cannot” observe it as it is differently perceived (through different expressions) from this one. We cannot conceptualise it because we haven’t seen or observed it. Or maybe we have, when looking in our minds for new territories and dreaming of fresh fields and ideas. Maybe we know exactly what it is, and find it every day in the evolution of things and creativity.
The closest I can utter in comprehensible terms is to think of it as a map of that universe like one of ours, but where there is signal activity (everything that is not black holes), there is negative signal activity (draws in photons) and vice versa. How that stabilises and manifests in physical terms is not comprehensible to me, nor necessary. It just is. It is a boundary of perception, like accepting that we don’t distinguish scents like dogs or U.V. like bees.
In this sense, we can satisfactorily conceptualise the principle of a non-locally co-causal local self-determinism where the converging conceptualisation of reality is created from both how reality is and how it is perceived to be by the conscious observer. So, too, for the scientist evaluating our relationship to those dimensions. It would also interest the philosopher to conceptualise our relationship with purpose and belief in light of a self-emergent yet free-will-influenced existential experience.
This, to my mind brings acutely into evaluatory perspective the need to improve the human existential experience, not just in care but in balance. And not by force but through education and by species, race and individual-informed methods and means. Informing people in ways they can hear, messages they can listen to and integrate in life. This is only contingent on whether they hear and receive the right messages and experiences to produce their goals and aspirations. Ad that is only contingent on education.
The unutterable importance of education
It simply cannot be overstated. It cannot be overstated because a good education is the acquisition of lots of data and an excellent one is one where a greater portion of that data is taken up with object and pattern data, not trauma- induced data (anticipation/safety)
The importance of copious amounts of noiseless data is that children are the neural networks designing and powering the future.
The optimisation of educational systems and mechanisms is the number one priority of further predictive systems.
Free will
Free will is discussed at some length in the paper and, whilst an illusion of sorts is only an illusion in that it is not what most people think of it as. Rather than a “choosing from a series of options”, it is more a “surrendering to the inevitability and sense of letting the best choice occur”. In that sense, charity can be the exertion of free will, but so can tax evasion. The differentiation in meaning becomes a matter of perspective on the effect of free will, and that is a matter of judgment and, therefore, inherently the product of unstable and “non-real” frameworks (man-made constructs). In this paper, a perspective on free will is taken that sees it as a “choosing to let the destructive contribution be reduced when compared to the natural impulse” (aka not do the thing you are irrationally inclined to do). Choosing the better option from what can be understood about what is and has been. Perception and conditioning. An excellent education is one where the conditioning process is constructive in achieving both the conditioning and optimising perception to be well-aligned with the physical reality of the individual pupil (skills, traits and talents). Maximising perception (the ability to perceive things for what they are with the least amount of destructive/negative data) and optimising conditioning (to the individual’s physiological optimisation type, natural abilities and personal creative interests) result in improved usage of free will.
So it’s not an illusion as such, it’s something that becomes clearer, louder and more active when we let go of self-limiting beliefs. Become educated about what’s real. About us and about the world, so we can live in a less-illusory world.
Butterfly effect/Chaos
Whilst tempting, chaos is really a discussion on the creation of beauty. Yes, the butterfly flaps and the tornado strikes, but their relationship is inevitable, if for no other reason than that they share the same air. Yes, it flaps its wings, and the tornado comes to be, but it was always going to come to be if the butterfly flaps its wings. Now, then, the question is whether or not the butterfly “chose” in the “free will sense” or “did” in response to a gust of wind or a human trying to catch it. This is the important point about chaos theory: it is only chaotic because it is perceived as such, and it is only perceived as such in consideration of free will and causation.
The data that constitute it (chaos) are just as real as the real-world-defining data, but they appear to us as chaotic because of the space, nature and time by which they appear in our linear dimension (the one we perceive ourselves to experience) are non-linear unlike during our perception and experience of reality. This then means that it “is” (because it “appears” to be/becomes apparent as) chaotic because the sequence by which we recorded and combined our experience of our view/ observation/experience of the world for overview and analysis follows a unique algorithm (leaving all other signals to appear as “chaotic”). Where there are similarities in our ability to perceive, distribution patterns become apparent around clusters of similarly inclined observational perspectives. The determinism, therefore, is, in fact, self-apparent and emergent from the coalescence of the perspective taken on the record made. Order is perceived to exist because a similar ability to perceive reality exists. The order we perceive is an order in our perception of reality, not of reality itself.
Chaos is, inevitably, balancing the creation of order and keeping all other infinite possibilities in relationship to our reality, even if only by the thinnest of threads.
This in no uncertain terms is deeply satisfying, because semantically it makes our observation of the world a deeply satisfying event with odds of one over chaos (1/infinite)