11. Addenda F-K
Ramblings and additional Addenda (F-K from page 59 onward):
Further thoughts and ramblings that may resonate with some:
In doing this, the Spinor makes the nexus point “visible” from a perspective that is blind to both the upper (SU2) and lower membranes (SO3) but “visible” to other, already present nexus points within the field in between the two membranes.
Mathematically speaking one cannot look at both the equation and the result at the same time. In this scheme we must choose whether to look for the y value from the x value or look at the membranes (the functions). The membranes are the mathematical relationship of the data vectors representing observed (data) real-world events. The hoops are the result of the equation we call observable reality.
This, because they are of the same quantum (of being “between the two Membranes”) and obey the rules of “the space in between”, as dictated by the rules of entanglement of two most-different yet still same”-points. All we suggest is that the meaning of that most-different yet still-same point represents the potential for that point to become anything, rather than a vectoral opposite like “position”.
As a side note, this also describes “the measurement error” as “the error made by thinking that we measure a single membrane (dotted with nexus points), when we in fact measure a band of error (wave) between the two membranes and observe the nexus point (particle). This would also then lend itself conceptually as a “wave-collapse". Put another way, the observer is a nexus point, looking at other nexus points that emerge from (unobservable/ invisible) membranes joining at visible/measurable Spinors. From a nexus point’s perspective, the behaviour between nexus points can seem random and unrelated, yet from a membrane point of view, nothing even happens to the single membrane (that in fact consists of two, an SO2 and an SU3 matrix respectively).
In that sense, you (the observer/the creation perspective) either are in the membrane looking at a universe composed of nexus points, or you are the universe seeing a single membrane (the creator perspective).
Realising this challenging visualisation above, at least mentally, allows the understanding of the computational difference of the membranes and the presence of emergent nexus points. Most importantly, the inversion of the relationship of the equations for which Spinors are so significant, allows us to make much clearer sense of the data and of reality.
The challenge in visualising this, is that it is, in essence, a perpetual loop where the next observational framework-defining membrane that becomes visible first as Spinors, then as unified membrane repeats the cycle ad infinitum until the observer runs out of observable perspectives and has to think in terms of being the observer of their/our own creation (i.e. by our own educated and lived experience and interpretation of meaning of the reality whose data we are analysing for meaning)
In the above diagrams, it would essentially be “impossible” to “see” both the hoops and either of the two (let alone the single) membranes from the same referential framework, but the visualisation allows for them to be identified as two separate structures. It would also be impossible to “see” the difference between the upper and lower membrane as the two membranes with their holes is what we, as nexus point observers, experience as the boundaries of the observed reality. The closest human experiential imagery I can imagine for the two states of observation is that of looking out, floating in space seeing the stars and galaxies but no hands or feet as part of the space observed vs looking for a pen to make payments for medical bills for a broken leg.
These “hoops”, if visualising Planck-scale objects like Bosons and Quarks, to my mind represent Feynman’s “Jiggle” or the Spinor’s non-spatial “spinning”.
On a cosmological scale, they represent Blackholes that seem to (and from the observer’s perspective do) suck in, from every direction, the surrounding fabric of the observer's reality in its typical shape, yet spit it out elsewhere, that can’t be seen by the same eye/observer. What this also means is that we can think of our lived experience universe (reality) as being (inside) a Spinor that emerges from a “white hole” that is being sucked toward all existing blackholes for them to merge into a singularity. The implications regarding the big bang essentially being that it is simply an arbitrary yet recorded and observable (to us) data load representing a singularity wherefrom our current notion of time as a lived experiential event emerges.
This elegant representation would only require the inversion of meaning suggested in this paper regarding the meaning of Pauli’s “otherliness” and the de-selection of angular position as the opposing sentiment to angular momentum as the ultimate and final rotational definition of the Spinor.
Note:
A comprehensible choice, “angular position” selects the computational perspective as one of real-world existence and materialism. One of which we only have probabilistic knowledge. In our proposal, we position it as rather the sense of “omni-potentiality of being” free from assumptions about time and space. An infinite set that truly represents infinity as a real-world calculable set. With problematic language of this nature, it becomes difficult to remain within the inbox of the lettered people, yet in calculus terms, this would only add a rotation across the X axis of the surface of the object itself, sustaining a continuous 45° rotation across both axes resulting in only needing one 360° rotation and removing the need for half-integers.
This of course is not useful for particle physics. There, Pauli’s flavourless Spinor is useful, as it further drills down into the meaning of the subatomic particles with direction, forever digging deeper.
By our suggestion and the implementation of a different flavour of Spinor, the change in computational perspective creates an “inclusion principle”. It “includes it” into comprehensible (calculable) understanding of reality. At least when we look at real-world data computation. It also demystifies the fuzziness of the boundaries of how we define and calculate reality for our human purposes.
In this proposal it does that functionally by “taking one step out”. Speaking from a computational perspective, we suggest this could have significant implications on data-computational modelling via n-Ary functional trees (n-Ary trees with functions at the branches instead of data).
By adding an additional rotation of the cube itself (in the X-axis, rather than only through the Y axis) the multiple is increased to 4 rotations which would translate as both squaring and doubling the angles within the functions, thereby creating full entanglement of the data on both sides of the matrices. This would, from a Computer Sciences perspective, offer predictive computational application through n-Ary function-trees with raw data via AI integrated questioning of neural networks.
This sequence of rotations, like classical Spinors, represent all classical mathematical functions, yet the simple addition of an X-axis rotation allows for the idea of a conceptual inversion as is called for by the fundamental and otherwise unchanged idea of the Spinor’s peculiar “Otherliness”.
Conclusion:
Mathematical consequences of adding this rotation:
Rotation matrix: The rotation matrix for the X axis would be added to the existing Y and Z axis rotations. For spinors, this X-axis rotation matrix would be:
Rx(θ) = [cos(θ/2)-i*sin(θ/2)]
[-i*sin(θ/2) cos(θ/2)]
(Where θ is the rotation angle)
Composition of rotations: The new X-axis rotation could be combined with existing Y and Z rotations using matrix multiplication. This would allow for more complex 3D rotations to be represented.
Angle doubling: Like other spinor rotations, a rotation of angle θ in spinor space would correspond to a rotation of 2θ in 3D space for the associated vector.
Quaternion representation: The addition of X-axis rotation would complete the set of rotations needed to represent any 3D rotation using quaternions. This is because quaternions can represent rotations about arbitrary axes.
Pauli matrices: The X-axis rotation would involve the Pauli matrix σx in the exponent of the rotation operator, similar to how Y and Z rotations use σy and σz.
Spin-1/2 particles: In quantum mechanics, this would provide a complete description of rotations for spin-1/2 particles in 3D space.
The introduction of X-axis rotation would thus provide a more complete mathematical framework for describing 3D rotations of spinors, aligning with the full rotational symmetry of 3D space.
END
Addendum F
F for free will (and not unintentionally put out of line from the other addenda due to its distracting theo-philosophical implications).
Science has a strange way of changing how we see the world. I appreciate most people are not always aware of this, but we don’t see the world the way our parents or even we ourselves, used to. In its most real sense, science (or all knowledge) has changed our entire human perspective on our relationship as with nature for example. Science and the mastery of tools has transformed the natural rhythms we abide to and are subjugated by. The hours we can work to, the places we can visit and the thoughts we can connect meaning to. So, it’s only a small tangent to look at the psycho-philosophical implications of how science has changed the way we perceive we need to make choices. Choices of food, mode of transportation, mode of entertainment. Science, and its products distributed across the world, define how we see, experience and relate to the world. These altered experiences of the world condition us to see and consume the world in a certain way. Science of course does this in tandem with the various formats of moral and cultural guidance including art and philosophy and is modified by world-events and catastrophes, but when it comes to “computing reality” it is science’s territory.
That, if there ever were a differentiator, would be the one to describe the fundamental difference between science and philosophy: science calculates what the mind tries to know. They collaborate for us, who exist somewhere in the middle, to understand it.
Science cannot be stopped. But only because it never started. It is not a “thing” it is a behaviour, a way of “observing” data. Any structure or object that can alter its data composition, is therefore such an “observer” (or conscious as this theory posits). It is simply the product of thought and imagination which are themselves emerging properties without beginning or end. The thing we call a “science” is just a period and location of that being recorded/noticed. Science is nothing but formalised awareness really.
Science also shuns certain topics and language. Some of the greatest scientific minds have tried to explain the unfathomable beauty of order and chaos but would fall short and choose to privately note in words in poetic terms that “which the terms of math could not”. Not for lack of accuracy, but for lack of better available words in science. Not even for fear of being wrong, but for lack of equations and computational perspectives to describe validly to and share with their peers. Words only mean whatever set-theoretical value you attribute to them. Otherwise, they are just regularly shaped linear objects. And that’s even assuming you give set-theoretical value to those.
Free will is such a difficult and emotive topic, that most people don’t even like the idea, let alone the discussion. And believe it or not, in both math and physics there are formalised discussions on free will from a computational perspective. Yes, really. This addendum is for them as well. However, the way the theory discussed in this paper (the dot theory) sees it, Free Will simply comes down to this:
There is “free will” (seemingly entirely random introduction of non-local events) but only regarding HOW we see (observe/record) things (data), not THAT we see/observe them. These are the logical conclusions of the implications inherent to a real-world Bell inequality violation. This paper would conclusively demonstrate that experimentally, if the healthcare project discussed in this paper produces accurate and effective healthcare prediction.
What this means in more-real world terms, is that we, as individual humans, have free will over the computational perspective we use (the amount and “which pieces” of data we are willing to take into consideration, the way we “choose to see things”) to think about/calculate things. We do not, however, have free will over how the calculation occurs with that data. That is inherent to the organic limitation of the individual and their real-world experience (what they learned) of the real world within which they function(ed).
What it also means is that “free will” is relative and not absolute.
The behaviour or act of “choosing” computational perspective (perspective) is educated and conditioned (i.e., we are “taught” how to “understand” the world (aka “give meaning”). We are not taught how to “see” it, that comes with the eyes and brain). The “how” of the “seeing”/observing is emergent from nature and free will (the ability to decide how much data is the “right” amount of data to be considered for the purposes of satisfying the individual’s will) is the experiential component that emerges from learning about the state and impact of our own conditioning (the human condition). Observing comes from birth and freewill from educated/trained self-awareness. Experiential existence consists of both and is not quantum, but the data representing both these layers individually are.
We do not, however, have free will over how the thinking/calculation is done. The thinking is done in accordance with the rules of that thinking. It is logically implicit to how it represents itself because a calculation is descriptive of itself. The thinking (computation) is done based on the available data and the availability of the data is managed by free will.
Therefore, free will is a matter of computational perspective, not of computation itself. Calculus and laws are, in effect, the lens with which we see a certain reality, and free will is the camera’s crop-factor. The “How” we observe the thing we record through that lens. In this theory, that “how” has a data load and entropy that is now being introduced as calculable data into the equations.
This complex relation between free will and predeterminism is already seen and recognised in the most challenging issues in any situation/evaluation/ computation /judgment, and is culturally noted in such issues as morals, ethics, and judgement, where extenuating circumstances include the inability to compute either by diminished responsibility on ones’ ability to choose perspective, or ones’ inability to compute sufficiently well (either by lack of data provided (consent) or skill to compute (illness, education, trauma)). However, it stands to the premise of this paper that this observation extends to all matters of calculation and evaluation.
Addendum G
Holographic worlds, multiverses and Hawking radiation paradox
Furthermore, the logical progression on the above nuance on local determinism offered on the computational perspective given to data, is that the mathematical notion of determinism is therefore non-local.
To those who understand that sentence; the implications are significant yet elegant. For those who can’t, it is still equally significant but may take some time to integrate conceptually.
This observation, in physics, however, presents itself as the least uncomfortable candidate for the source of a significant reevaluation and recalibration of our understanding of the entanglement paradox. This paradox resides in either the assumption of Unitarity, Equivalence or Locality and requires one of them to be non-local for observations made by the General Theory of Relativity to be coherent with observed reality.
Across physics, the consensus is that Unitarity and Equivalence are proven to be “real”. Local determinism, however, has long been suspected of being the “hidden-variable containing” quantum, but without evidence or mathematical framework. The dot theory shifts the existing computational framework within the mathematics used to describe reality, so as to include the notion of a wider framework, thereby making the “hidden variable” mathematically “visible”.
With this evidence, should it emerge from the clinical experiment, it can be said that the contents of a black hole are then non-local, irretrievable but contained within the relation of the Hawking radiation to the circumference of the “ring of fire” of the Black hole emitting it. The circumference of the Black hole being 3-Dimensional would however make it impossible to measure simultaneously so therefore can in all probability not actually be “calculated” or “known” strictly on physical feasibility grounds. Although approximations could be made. Theoretically however, the probability is that Black holes are just places where gravitational fields with their data loads go to get “washed” to start again into the associated white hole. This, ongoing until the final two Blackholes merge to collapse the entirety of our currently known notion of space and time and leave a tiny ring of condensed Hawking radiation (condensed not by attraction as is the case with the Blackhole, but by being sucked in and trapped by the limiting confines (the fabric) of Space-time at the edges of the last imploding “uni-massive” blackhole). One could think of the ring of Hawking Radiation condensed around the Blackhole at that moment in time as the “anti-” (as in anti-matter) version of the Black Hole’s “Ring of Fire”.
It seems equally logical that a “Big Bang” event essentially equates to the moment of union of that last super-supermassive “uni-blackhole” and the last “external particle of Hawking Radiation from that ring of condensed Hawking Radiation. Interestingly It seems equally likely that the size of that uni-Blackhole will equal the size of that last particle of Hawking Radiation. I know very little about this topic and may have the meaning of Hawking radiation wrong and it may in fact be a different quantum or one not yet disclosed or defined. If this is correct however, this also has implications on our idea of “singularity”. It would directly imply that time, like space, exists within a singularity, and between singularities, with time being the emergent property of that specific realisation of observational capability (ability to acquire entropy/data load).
It concludes that consciousness creates time if all things are considered “conscious”. Logical really, because the ability to acquire data (be recorded into/onto) whether by material mutilation, genetic or neural memory record, represents what we can become conscious of in normal human terms. So, it stands to reason that any “thing” that can hold information would be considered “conscious”. When a “living thing” dies, its non-material (emotive) record (data load) disappears, seemingly in violation with the laws of thermodynamics, however that is only when not considering the legacy of the creative output of that “living thing” during the period of its existence. In this understanding of reality, life converts material, objective entropy/data load/information into motion and chemical energy. This in turn alters the material world surrounding it, leaving a record of its existence within the fabric of its surrounding reality.
The observation that computation (determinism) is” non-local" as expressed in this paper, also validates giving up locality for our current understanding of modern physics. Computationally nothing changes however, the calculations and formulas remain the same but this observation regarding computational perspective allows (if not necessitates) the revision of our relationship with and understanding of blackholes, all matters “Big Bang” and “early expansion” but is beyond the scope of this paper and the knowledge of the authors.
If validated, this observation also swiftly deals with the issue of understanding local realism by stating that the reality observed and described is local, however our observing (experiencing) and recording of it are not. What this essentially describes is that the human mind, and our experience of the world is “non-local”. i.e. we don’t see the world for what it is, we see it as we “think” it is. The meaning of “think” in this context is: how that individual understands the world in that moment i.e. “local”.
The implications of this on various interpretations also includes the integration of a holographic representation and invalidates using interconnected multiverses via Black and White holes as solid basis of representation of reality. This will be further worked out mathematically by the appropriate people, but it is worth noting that the logical implication of this differentiation on computational perspective require us to accept that:
That which can be observed, is, if looked at correctly, knowable.
Addendum H
Consciousness, free will and creativity.
An odd juxtaposition of terms perhaps, to include in a mathematical paper on the physical world but for those who got this far, a logical one. For those for whom it is logical, the following also equally follows:
Creativity, i.e, the production of entirely new data from existing data, is anomalous. It seems to create “new” data from old data. However as discussed in addendum G, it is not new, it is “different” in appearance or of “another dimension”.
It theoretically implies the gain of entropy, and therefore implies the loss of it in another computational dimension. This is entirely coherent with lived experience and evaluation of the laws of nature and expressed in life as both evolution and inventiveness. Creativity, if you will “the ability to randomly recombine old, and from that and create new, data” in a way that fits into the fabric of reality and changes that reality in a reproducible way.
Again, for those who follow this, this theoretical framework is analogous to data being generated randomly within the region of an individual’s consciousness.
Life, from its inception optimises itself through creativity, and creativity is inherent to life as its presence signifies it.
Individual human consciousness can be calculated as the emergent result of the interaction between the data that represent “life” and the data that describe the way it is processed and responded to by the individual human.
Addendum I
Psychology, therapeutic pathways and concepts
Within the logic of human observation derived from dot logic Dot theory, potential psychological and educational training models for healthy human psychology and understanding of the world emerge.
Suggested model of the human mind:
This is a data-theoretical model representing the human mind as a neural network-based data-management tool, designed to create, and influence the human experience of life to a third-party observer conceptualised as the individual. This model has a two-component database where each produce their own computation (when computation arises) and juxtaposes both data layers into what is known and recognised by that individual as a “life experience”.
The conscious human mind is a perceived experience of the world, received through the lens of the human body, and modified by that body’s perceived (experienced and internalised) past experience. Our perception of the human mind as rational and/or emotional is, we suggest, incomplete. Instead, we suggest a model where rationality is the process of evaluating factual data (Quanta) in the absence of interpretational data (Quali) and affective thinking is the product of evaluating data that contains interpretational data (Quali).
The task of rationalisation is the reduction of inclusion of “flawed” interpretational/ observer data to the computation.
The ability to do so relies on the ability (skill) to observe the information available to the mind (the “thought”) and select the reliable information for its relevant quantitative data only and discard, or appropriately correlate, the remaining qualitative data.
At the end of the day, it seems that all conditioning scripts, in one form or another, are attached to real world memory data in the human brain, but are ”held” in separate parts or across of the brain’s neural circuitry involved in memory. The temporally linked triggering between their associations, creates brainwave pattens and from their multidimensional interactions (of said separate brainwave patterns) to form what we call “affective thought” or emotional thinking, as opposed to rational thinking that only considers real-world data.
Addendum J
Wolfgang Pauli wasn’t even wrong
Title explanation:
The original Dot theory paper referred to in this addendum, positions a refinement to the set-theoretical meaning attributed to Spinors for specific computational purposes.
Wolfgang Pauli, known for his somewhat scathing remark; “this is not just “not right”, this is not even (able to be) wrong” (in reference to ideas that cannot be evaluated within the framework of existing scientific knowledge) was a significant contributor to the use of Spinors in mathematical physics. The set-theoretical definition of Spinors was set by predecessors for its use in mathematics.
Ironically, the conclusion of the Dot theory is that Wolfgang Pauli, in his reuse of Spinors as defined by Cartan et al, applied a mathematical object designed to compute reality (numbers), but used it to compute the description of reality (observer data). This introduced the observer error (of varying degrees) into the calculation of our understanding of reality. In doing this, it is the position of the Dot theory, he wasn’t wrong in using the object but not right either in leaving its set-definitions unaltered despite their change of use.
The Dot theory’s suggested set-theoretical change does not alter our understanding of physical reality but informs our observation of reality and gives its computation increased predictability. In doing so it claims position as T.O.E or the completion of Professor Einstein’s self-proclaimed to be “incomplete” Theory of General Relativity.
Requirements:
This specific paper requires you to understand set theory, the meaning and definitions of Spinors as mathematical objects in the description and calculation of data describing physical reality, and n-Ary Tree logic.
Text:
The Dot theory is not the solution to a specific mathematical problem and is only of use in consideration of methodologies for the predictable computation of digital data-mediated individual human experiences.
The mathematical process suggested in the dot theory is pointless (for mathematical purposes), but its implications towards the meaning of how we describe and understand reality mathematically, are significant.
It is a method to reflect (mathematically), the assumption that the individual lived experience (observed reality) is quantum. This can computationally be reflected through intelligently motivated, regressive n-Ary tree logic into functions, instead of data points. This approach to Spinors produces a computational framework that enables predictive computation of that lived experience for its benefit and improvement.
Through demonstration of predictive capability, the emergent computational process would prove that the experience of reality is quantum (and that is only if the suggested system demonstrates improved health outcomes). It would do so by demonstrating that a Bell’s inequality violation is observed in the computation of self-referential observational data. Whether that represents a true Bell’s inequality violation is a question that remains to be evaluated, considering it is not the actual data that are referenced but the historical and surmised likely-to-be true data (archetypes) of other, most-like, individuals.
In this clinical use case, the self-referential object creating internal randomisation is the human individual and their lived experience (health, wellbeing, symptoms).
The “action at a distance” is transmitted through the existing, historical trend data-meshes for past associations between behaviour and existential sentiment. The speed of transmission is not only faster than light, but the data was also already there before the question was asked of the database, albeit in the form of historical ethnographic data and trends of other, most-like individuals. The data was already there, but the meaning was not because the data had not been evaluated (observed) for correlative patterns. In this sense, the answer appeared, as the question was formulated, although technically speaking, the data from which an answer could be formulated was available prior to the question being asked. However, as the question determines the meaning of the data, it can be said that the communication (creation of meaning) was, in that instance, faster than light
The Dot theory logic enables the predictive computation of health-related behaviours and offers the opportunity to advise and adopt health-optimising behaviours.
It concludes that the definition of meaning given to Spinors wasn’t wrong, but could be more accurate for the specific, and sole, purpose of computing and predicting the behaviour of the lived experience of physical reality.
It does this by the inclusion of a single, additional geometric rotation around the Y-axis, which offers an additional data layer for computation and entanglement.
Expanding the meaning of Spinors in its set-theoretical meaning offers an opportunity to reframe the math describing our observation of physical reality, and in consequence the way we model and compute the data that describes that experiential reality.
However, in addition to Wolfgang Pauli’s referential relationship to Spinors, it is fair to say that the “error” implied to be in his work, exists solely because he respected the existing frameworks. In contrast, the work done to write the Dot theory was based on the premise that our experience of reality (observation, data) is local, i.e. the world must be real. Only in consequence to this assumption, the tools were manipulated to make it computationally useful.
From there, as a healthcare project, it used existing computational frameworks to entangle objective and subjective clinical data and affiliate them probabilistically to digital twin avatars and archetypical predictive behavioural data from previous anthropological, ethnographic and criminological data. In doing so, creating a real-world “entangled” data mesh, made up of past, and “most-like-you" correlating clusters of patterns of behaviours for probabilistic suggestion to both clinician and patient.
As this seemed a reasonable assumption to be considered correct and effective (as part of a thought experiment), the logical extension of the efficacy of this method as predictive healthcare computation and data management model, would in turn mean that our experience of reality is quantum, and therefore obeys the rules and tools of quantum computation. However, when evaluating the tools at Spinor-level, it became apparent that the successful prediction of human behaviour and emerging health status would imply that entangling an additional data-layer by including additional geometric rotation to the manifold movements, would equally improve the accuracy of prediction in physics.
The application of the mechanical and set-theoretical refinement suggested in the Dot theory is:
merely a fun and colourful yet seemingly unnecessary “flavouring”, mathematically speaking
offering an improved suggestion of probability in theoretical physics (with significant access to Quantum Computing)
a relevant, and significant suggestion in the application and observation of the lived human experience that concludes that the observed lived experience is local and can be improved upon by following optimising behavioural trends towards health and wellbeing.
This is why, I believe, Professor Einstein felt/believed his theory to be incomplete, when it, as a theory, is perhaps not. The definition of terms of the Spinor mathematics used to compute our lived-observer data about it, on the other hand, are. I believe he “felt” it was incomplete because the tools used to compute it introduced a lensing that is variably defined by the observer error. However, its pure computation of physical reality, free from interpretation, is accurate, which has been proven repeatedly.
The de-lensing of the observer error can be achieved by reassessing the computation from the observer perspective, which may not always be possible, but in the case of human experiential data, is.
Contrary to theoretical computing of the world per the Dot theory, the computational power required for this theory to be asserted in the real world as a clinical process, would probably only require High Power Computing. This thanks to AI’s ability to produce avatars and archetypes as its main functions.
End
Addendum K
The Dot theory, a proposal for a shift in computational perspective in loco realis of the grand unification theory (GUT) SYNOPSIS.
Stefaan and Angela Vossen
A second format of Dot Theory Overview:
This is a very high-level overview on the nature and application of the Dot theory.
The Dot theory formulated in its various incarnations across the various disciplines describing our real-world experience takes its discipline-appropriate form as follows:
In the mathematics of our physical world (theoretical physics) by introducing an additional geometric rotation (around the X-axis) to the mathematical objects known as Spinors. This makes reality “non-local”, and the data describing our observation of it entangled.
In computing logic by employing regressive N-ary tree functions with computational functions applied to data points within the datalayer rather than data points.
In philosophy, it asks us to consciously consider the difference between objective facts and the added interpretational value inherent to the observation of those facts as separate data-objects. I.e. to think of, or consider, all distinct sets of information according to the rules that correctly describe the behaviours of those datasets.
In the “real-world experience”, we “experience” the world in three different ways and by two different methods. One physical, one mental, and one conscious. These three fall into two distinct categories of computational perspectives and the strategic juxtaposition of the information they yield offers insight into the rules by which a person interprets the lived experience. This experience creates the memory and skill of the individual that emerges from the coalescence of the mentally and physically acquired data sets they call “reality”. These two, distinctly “differently-acquired” data layers, combine onto the observed “projector screen” used by the conscious mind to create our real-world experience to create a locally real, non-locally experienced world.
The data is not contaminated, we’re just judging its meaning a little bit wrong, subjecting it to the slightly wrong calculational/ evaluatory perspective and coming to slightly inaccurate/ contaminated outcomes. And science... well, that is just the process of getting it slightly less wrong.
The misleading anticipation for meaning of a GUT
Dot theory proposes that the grand unification theory is not a matter of classic adaptation of existing procedural exercises (functions or equations) within the distinct fields of physics, philosophy (ideas, rules and laws) or even of that of the individual understanding of the real world. Instead, it is suggested to be a “more-conscious-making” exercise existing of pre-selecting the most appropriate data for the specific computation or thought, that will result in the formation of “more-accurate” conclusions across all three fields (physics, philosophy and the individual mind), whilst using the unmodified, existing, understandings, formulae and laws in use, already proven to be reliable.
In physics, where its notion is most crystalised and popularised, the expectation would be an equation-derived adaptation of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (TGR).
This paper says it is a process of change in the meaning of the Spinors that describe and geometrically position of the data points used in the equations of the TGR. Not by changes in equations or identification of numerical constants.
The impact of this “more accurate” understanding of our physical relationship with reality, then subsequently and inevitably, alters the sense of both the realism of philosophy and our real-world experience.
In modern philosophy its central tenet, Scientia (an enlightenment-derivative idea that consists of promoting the taking of the most-educated/informed or “more-knowing” perspective) provides iterative improvement policies and tools ranging from education to faith in authority.
The Dot GU Theory in essence only confirms and formalises the central tenet of philosophy as a most useful tool in the pursuit of truth and logical accuracy. This is also where the Dot GU theory bridges across into computing logic, data management and storage for the computation and identification of the “more-appropriate” solution for an individual.
This is a powerful notion in the world of commercial and healthcare computing and offers the ability to make real-time suggestions for improvements in the individual, personal, lived experience.
A new proposal
The Dot GU Theory therefore is a universal insight that derives from the central tenets shared between the tools we use to describe and understand reality. Those tenets are:
They each (physics, philosophy and the human mind) pursue what is perceived to be right (the perceived most desirable outcome) when considered within their defining reference framework. Morality
The validity of the judgement/evaluation of the information/data appears to be only as good as our knowledge of the rules that define/produced that information/data in the first place. Locality
The judgement/evaluation of the information can only be valid if the information evaluated by it, is itself emergent from the very rules through which it is evaluated (described /contained in the same set). Realism
The accuracy of the judgement/conclusion/prediction is only as accurate/predictive as the rules used to describe the event have been shown to be. Unitarity
Regardless of whether seen through the lenses of physics, philosophy or an individual’s real-world lived experience, these specific modalities (physics, philosophy and the human mind) and their associated tools (functions, laws and the individual mind) and products (rules, technology and thoughts/feelings), exist to, and because, they improve our individual understanding of the world. Their existence is the measure of their success.
This with the added nuance* that “physics” and “philosophy”, unlike the “lived experience”, are the products of the human “mind hive”. (*Crucially distinguished from the “lived experience” which is derived from the singular human mind)
It’s their products we pursue, invest in, and use to improve our lived experience whether as a matter of technology or our experience of it; matters we pursue to the benefit of generations most close and most distant.
What the Dot GUT says:
We argue that we are currently misunderstanding and misrepresenting the meaning of the data when representing our observational data as directly computable information. This, because the rules, laws and computational logic used to make the computation/ evaluation, emerged from violations of trends in the first place, not from the trends themselves. The trends are a post-hoc, emergent administration that can only be identified as present on reflection and awareness of the violations.
This means that over the centuries and millennia we created functions, formulas and equations to describe the behaviour of the data that represent our partial observation of a prior reality, to compute our understanding of a current one with data affected by observer-variability.
The last century’s greatest scientific leap in such functions was with the establishment of the Theory of General Relativity and its subsequent insights and equation revealing theoretical entanglement of particles or information representative of them.
With Einstein’s derivations at the root of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) it has been extremely successful at yielding ever-more precise results with ever-more complete and clean data.
This is also why, the further we move into the field of human observation and experience, the more we work with subjective, individualised trait-based meanings attributed to the data by the observer. These additional meanings can be considered as an “entropic data load” which, when computed through the appropriate processes, no doubt would yield equal accuracy to QFT within our understanding of the human experience. When computed as if it were “objective data”, however, subjective, trait-based experiential data accumulates to create noise and generates computing error and fuzziness until observed.
This error in application/ orientation of the current computational perspective in the math of current physics, produces both lensing and wave-like fuzziness that represent the calculation of the observer error.
How: The Soal Project
We need to first process the data available and look at the violations in ongoing trends (variability), instead of the data describing the trends themselves, and use those to make linear calculations as per the rules that define the trends from which they emerged. This is discussed as TKM or Topological Kinesiomorphology (sugg.), the process of identifying patterns of behavioural trend-changes. Clinically, these are observed as changes in movement patterns correlated to treatment delivery and habits, and as reduction in pain and/or disability associated with those changes in movement patterns.
Secondly, we distinguish the subjective (traits) data from objective (behaviours) data layers and process their meaning as descriptive of and confidently associated to traits and behaviours respectively.
Thirdly, we need to introduce this data into a calculation whose computational perspective is that of the observer. To do this, we propose the Soal project, a clinical data-management project cross-referencing subjective patient-experience data to changes in objective behavioural trends discussed.
Combined and evaluated in this fashion, the data is seen to describe the behaviours (gait-motion) that are associated to specific traits (pain/discomfort) forming specific pathologies and dysfunctions in specific locations (diagnoses) and changes in behaviours and traits that are confidently associated to specific sequences of therapeutic interventions.
Why
Our conscious human lived experience emerges secondarily alongside from the experience of change/ variance/discomfort (emergent polarity).
Violations of what is “comfortable” create a specific “discomfort”, and only with observation and reflection, can a) the “awareness” of the discomfort emerge, and b) the previously existing, relative “discomfort” become apparent (emergence). These two qualities do not exist simultaneously in time. Yet we compute them as if they do.
Not surprising then, if our experience of reality (awareness) is relative (non-local) whilst the data describing it is not, that we would end up experiencing observational fuzziness when computing it as if it were. The data describes violations of the observed trends, and when we position our computational perspective as that of the observer, superior outcomes logically result from the laws describing those violations. These findings have already been demonstrated with the historically noted increased predictive accuracy offered by QFT.
What
This, in effect, defines the more accurate description of the true oppositional nature of the data describing the subjective (traits) and objective (behaviours) worlds that combine to create our experience of it. The data representing Quantae and Qualia are not appropriate oppositional conjugates for equilinear computation and require differing computational perspectives. They are differently nuanced observation of a similarly generated (emergent) fabric, but not co-emergent in time (non-locality). What this means is that the data describing our reality is local, but our experience/understanding of it, simply is not.
It also means that our interpretation of the data is currently “polluted” / added to by a subjective, observer-bound data load (whether an object is detected by one or another human, or by LiDAR or CCTV, offers differing data loads that are defined and limited by their material traits). This data load is determined by how the data was acquired (method) and is automatically included within the data values of the object recorded as observed by that method.
In other words, experience has data load. When that data load is used through the appropriate computation, it can significantly improve our understanding of our world. When it is put through any other computation, it will still yield a general approximation relative to the purpose of the computation, but one that will deviate proportionately, relative to reality.
The pollution of observation
The much-mooted point of data-pollution is, in essence erroneous.
The act of “observing” (acquisition of information/data) information, itself emerges from a violation of the rules/expectations of the ongoing observation. This means that for an observation to be made (a thing to have been noticed), certain computational strategies will have had to yield “differing”, anomalous, outcomes (violations) for it to become “noticed” and observable by that method. These observable anomalies enable the recording and trend-evaluation of “the events that do not fit the rules” and create our awareness/experience of these events and their meaning.
Therefore, the data is not “polluted” as such, but “enriched” by a secondary, observational data layer (subjective data) that gives insight into the preceding (regressive)computational perspective taken. Understood as such, the relationship between Quantae and Qualia can be adjusted for perspective, and trends in Quantae can confidently be associated to retrospectively to Qualia, whilst trends in Qualia can confidently, and prospectively be associated to Quantae, creating functional entanglement in a real-world setting.
Therefore, by understanding that the conscious human experience and the tools that have emerged from the human mind, are the product of rule violations and not of the rules themselves, we can adjust to compute the data representing them and create prediction and entanglement.
This understanding is currently unconsciously controlled in the mathematics of physics and the conscious shift in computational perspective this paper suggests, is believed to be required to make further improvements on the calculation of real-world (RW) observed data.
Solutions
In technical terms, this means that rather than whole-sale computing real-world representative data-meshes linearly as done currently, it is suggested that the variations/violations that emerge from the patterns are assessed linearly instead. With the accessibility of AI, today, this would be perfectly routine and feasible with current computational technology but requires the conscious notion of computational perspective. To prove the validity of this theory, we suggest it be tested on the notion of subjective and objective clinical experience as presented in healthcare. This project, the Soal project.
When observing violations and evaluating them for patterns, and subsequently making the “anomaly” the observed quantum (“pattern deviation” or Topological Kinesiomorphology -TKM sugg.), we gain access to deep and meaningful insights. It is only when violations of the rules occur that we can meaningfully observe emerging trends. In the context of the healthcare project, these violations are for example “discomfort” and “pain” or “disability” i.e. deviations from the prior, but unnoticed (consciously unaware), prior trend of comfort, or of being “pain free” and notions of “ability”. These emerging trends in turn create an opportunity to refine and nuance the meaning we attribute to data.
In this sense, one could say that the conscious mind’s data acquisition is at its least “polluted” by trait-based data, when it is completely in the now, experiencing through the senses without observational noise (impossible), thought, or “awareness”. Analogous to how the data captured is the least polluted when the lenses are perfectly set and there are no pollutants in the air.
One can also say that the conscious mind’s data is its most individuated when it is enmeshed with trait-based, subjective data.
Mathematical/Physics
From a mathematical point of view, it only requires a revision of the set-theoretical meaning of the Spinor and the introduction of a single Y-axis rotation to geometrically represent angular inversion as conjugate to angular momentum instead of angular position (taking the computational perspective “one-step out” mathematico-functionally speaking). This, whilst consistently maintaining the Spinor’s existing form as defined by Pauli and colleagues (as angular position), but now added to.
This Y-axis geometric rotation enables the observation of what now remains of the defined set, when all that is known has been observed by “exclusion” and any alternative or analogously real anomalous behaviours can now be associated as direct potential observations. This is discussed at length in the document here.
In math, the Dot GUT is a matter of the conscious management of computational perspective and the interpretational value given symbols.
This theory presents a method for the inclusion of superior control of computational perspective as the grand unification theory and proposes that the successful implementation of its practical application (healthcare prevention), by computational process as defined by the change in meaning of Spinors, as evidence of its status as GUT.
It can be translated into procedural and operational language of each of the fields it impacts on (the symbolic representation of reality).
Ergo
The Grand Unifying Theory is not an equation, theory as such or given solution to a defined, formulated “problem”. It is a logical description the process of naturally emerging recalibration of inherent meaning we give to the data introduced into the mathematics, logic and reasoning that describes our physical and mental understandings of the world.
The formulation of the Dot theory in each of its application fields (sciences and logics) equates to the categorically “conscious making” of the principles that stand central to our experience and observation of the world. Its usefulness emerges by accepting and integrating that observation is emergent from violation of trend, not of trend itself and that calculation is emergent from trend, not violation of trend. This mismatch, when present to any extent, will introduce graduated lensing away from the useful outcome.
It is a method for an improved computational perspective in each of the mentioned fields dealing with equations, theories or problems with real-world data. It is a way to see the right data for the chosen computation and more clearly establish the relationship between regressive cause and prospective effect. A method to have the information describing the right answers to the relevant components of the right questions.
It is a way of looking at the data that differentiates the information that describes reality from that which describes our experience (perception) of it. This, now differentiated, more hygienic, approach to the data enables separate calculation of both, now more clearly distinguished, sets of data in accordance with their appropriate rules.
With clear perspective on the differentiated nature of the data (objective vs subjective, measured vs felt, wave vs particle, known vs probable, data vs function) the data can be calculated per the most appropriate calculation, equation or theoretical approach to the nature of the data.
As such the dot theory is only the process of taking an adjusted perspective on the data and its calculation and translates to physics as the suggested change in meaning of Spinors.
End
References
High-Detail Animation of Human Body Shape and Pose From High-Resolution 4D Scans Using Iterative Closest Point and Shape Maps
by Marta Nowak And Robert Sitnik
Virtual Reality Techniques Division, Institute of Micromechanics and Photonics, Faculty of Mechatronics, Warsaw University of Technology, ul. Św. Andrzeja Boboli 8, 02-525 Warsaw, Poland
