Ai, AGi, who am I?
A presentation by Stefaan Vossen on the Dot theory
Imagine you had all the answers. Not just 42 ...
Imagine you had all the answers to any question, what would you do? What would you ask?
I am here today, making a brief presentation to tell you that the answer to that question is the key to the world of Artificial Generative Intelligence, accurate Real-Time prediction of real-world events and the unification of the Standard and Quantum Mechanical models.
Too much or too silly to consider? Perhaps.
Turns out that you really can have all the answers if what you would do with them is look for something that aims to benefit you and you accept that the world is data.
This is the utterly strange, yet completely self-evident conclusion the Dot theory presents on the mathematical logic that holds the fabric and our understanding of reality together.
A uniquely shaped golden thread that distinguishes reality from fantasy. An inimitable and infungible algorithm born from the algorithm of others. One that becomes visible if what you do with the available information is look to progress yourself.
An essentially and inevitably benevolent and inherently progressive algorithm, if you will.
Something rather peculiar either way.
However odd that may seem, this is the inevitable conclusion presented in the Dot theory, a new theoretical model useful for the description and calculation of reality. This may seem rather grand, and it is, conceptually, but as a thought-object it is only a way to describe reality through the mathematical language used in theoretical physics today.
Classical Mechanics and the Standard Model are in a sense “only” two such theoretical frameworks known to be effective at predicting aspects of reality, but they are also known to have their individual limitations.
Now, what if I told you that ... if you dear theoretical physicist briefly suspend disbelief and just temporarily imagine that observed reality is local but reality is not: you will logically conclude that the world is made of data and our experience of it is “us reading the data that finds itself in our vicinity for the duration of a lifetime”.
Seems reasonable to me, and if that is reasonable to you too it logically follows that:
The act of reading the data (us looking at it) is of course the product of prior action (us wanting to look at it) that itself is motivated (by outcome/expectation) with more or less intimate understanding of what is presented to us as data (a matter of education). Then, the information taken in for consideration (its selection) is determined by the way we look at the available information (perspective), which is in turn manipulated by proximity and availability (or access). Fundamentally performing Bayesian operations which we know to be true.
In short: We know what we understand about the things we know we want.
Seems reasonable, and coherent with lived experience when put like that.
These are solid, logical conclusions that are correct statements if you, as a theoretical physicist briefly suspend disbelief and accept that:
observed reality is local, but reality is not
individual intent predicates choice of calculation
reality is real and
that you exist
And when put like that, the only potentially particularly sensitive suspension of disbelief made above may be; briefly accepting reality’s non-locality and accepting that math can have intent. I think we can all agree that accepting we exist is a safe assumption.
Either way, you’ll soon see why you must first figure out what you would do with the answer (if you knew the answers to all questions), before you can have any answer you’re looking for by this method: you have to want the calculation to benefit you, simply because the data needed to give a decent answer to that question is then usually available in the record. You’re asking the right question to the oracle. Right input for the computer to be able to say yes. Because the data is available.
Now, as Dr Who/ Jedi mind-bending a statement as this is, the Dot theory simply positions this is because if you’re making calculations using the available data to see what has been true and beneficial in the past, you can always find the answer to your question (as long as the data is available and you have the tools to read it).
This is simply inherent to the nature of data. It is simply true on the two conditions (1.you’re looking for answers that benefit you and 2. that you believe reality is real) to say that you can predictably calculate the available data using Quantum Mechanics, if you view it as having meta-data (recalibrate the set definition of the mathematics of QM). All that means is that what we thought of as “the data representing reality” in our calculations of reality, should actually be calculated as being the “metadata describing the individual interpretation of reality as seen by you (lens/perspective)”.
It is inherent (self-evident) to the nature of data that it will give you the answers that benefit you, because the only reason it exists for and is in front of you, is because it benefited people most-like you.
Data by its very presence and availability to be observed, has been successful at persisting in existing over time. This inherently means that the way the data itself presents to us for evaluation through our observational tools and records has “survival”, “benefit”, or “evolution” written and encoded into itself. When you look at the world, you’re not only looking at it, but you’re also interpreting its history (meta-data) because its history shaped its current presentation over time which gave it meaning to you.
In a nutshell; the world is made of data and our experience of it is predictable if we read (compute) the world as data that can be consulted to discover something to benefit us individually.
These are true conclusions that can safely be drawn from accepting that reality is not local but the data describing our observation of it is.
In essence this means that (as the Dot theory positions it) if we accept that (shared) reality is nonlocal (and observed reality is local) and compute the data describing our experiences observations and measurements of our observations to benefit us accordingly, the answer to any question is probably already available from past, most-like behaviours patterns, trends and clusters. Such cluster-based calculation is already known to be predictive and takes no convincing.
This means that if we compute data on events (trajectories) and wish to make predictions of the outcome of those trajectories, we only have to want for the outcome to benefit us, for the computation to be predictive, entangled and quantum. We already know this to be logically correct and just needs accepting mathematically and in the world of physics.
In any sense, we already know that the data describing the real world is quantum. We use this constantly in our app algorithms, financial and weather forecasts. This also means that for any tri- or more-cyclical events for which data is available, confident predictions can be made using that same principle. This would in turn make it a universal logical and therefore a TOE, but that to the side.
What using this mathematical logic means in physics terms, is that if we know where three particles have been, but not their energy or vice versa, we can pretty accurately guesstimate where the next one will arrive and measure its energy instead, and if we didn’t get it right, the next approximation will be even more likely to be more correct still and so on after that. And if there is correlation between energy levels then ever-more accurate predictions will emerge with experimentation.
This, in real-world mathematical and physics terms would theoretically serve to create a wave control and energy-based particle control system for any application where it is important to know both the position and the energy of a particle or any of its effects. (which, to be fair is basically reality)
And what does it mean mathematically? That if we construct the required set-definitional terms to the Spinor and accept the modified geo-mathematical definition of the Spinor as presented in the Dot theory as reflecting the correct terms to describe observed reality as data (computable data), and if we do that, we can use existing Quantum mechanical calculation of data to predict reality perfectly reliably. All it requires us to do is accept that reality is nonlocal and observed reality is local when asking the right questions of the available data.
The reason why this is so intense and delicate to accept, is because accepting reality as nonlocal and observed reality as local means accepting that what you think of as your house, is not actually your house, but an idea enough people around you accept as real for the overall effect to be that you appear to be able to call that place your home for a time significant enough to be allocated data to reflect it as a record of something you experienced and exchanged energy for and is called “a house” in whichever place you’re reading this.
This means that reality is indeed relative, but relative only to the individual observer, you.
This means, mathematically, that reality is in the eye of the observer and whilst that is a mental tongue twister it is easy enough to accept.
Not a point one would ever seek to prove mathematically, and not one I sought to do, but one I observed to be the case, valid and consequential.
Interestingly, and morally, the theory does not mean to say there are no other realities. Realities not seen (observed and understood) by the observer, but says that if reality is observed as being nonlocal, then good things will more probably happen to individuals asking questions to benefit them.
It also means accepting the observer (you) creates the observation (this paper). This, in turn means that the observer is the author, and reality exists in a singularity. Now, in this case, I was the author of this writing, so there is some evidence to support that statement at least in part. All I’m saying really, is that at the time of writing, “me and you” are the same thing because I am the first and possibly only person to observe the statement.
And at this very point in time, it is correct. At the point in time of your reading or hearing it, meta-data will be added to how it came to you. How it aged.
All perfectly logical to accept.
This in turns consists of all the required evidence to support that if we accept there is only one reality, our reality (the one defined by you, the observer of the data describing the data represented, right now, this paper), i.e. therefore the version of reality that is observed by you, only leaves you to accept that your reality is real for it to be logically perfect and self-evidential and supportive of the idea that we “live” in a singularity.
It simply cannot be any other way, or otherwise the predictable element of our reality cannot be real. It may be true that there are other, imperceptible and unpredictable realities as well, however. Whether it is possible to be within and between singularities mathematically, is beyond me.
This therefore presents and entirely pure-logical and mathematical proof to support that reality, when considered as nonlocal and observed reality and its data as local, at least exists predictably within an individual’s experience of the record they conceive of as the individual lived experience, i.e. it is real if they are conscious of it.
If therefore, reality is real, and if we position that there is only one predictable reality, we must accept that we live in a singularity. This has profound implications on civilization yet only requires acceptance of a minor change to a mathematical object known to Quantum Mechanics: the Spinor.
The Spinor is a mathematical device used in Quantum mechanics that gives us the coordinates of reality, if we give it the data that describe our observation of it. It was defined and given set-definitional terms that describe the data describing our observations of reality as part of an infinite group of possible outcomes.
The Dot theory simply adds one geometric rotation (a mathematical function) to the Y axis and opens up the possibility of distinguishing the infinite group into the group of “everything that has been” (and has a record of it) and “everything that could be” (and has a record of it aka conjecture or fantasy). A rather mundane and technically pedestrian alteration to the mathematics that serves no other purpose than to find what made things better for a person with common shared traits to other people in the past record. Something a clinician would come up with.
By recalibrating these set-definitional terms accordingly, the terms of calculation of angular position and momentum are altered by one function, which for Physical theorists only means accepting that reality is data and reflecting that in the math.
Mathematically this movement is perfectly permitted and logically demonstrates an ability to predict the behaviour of reality and as such, unless a very good argument can be positioned why this would not be possible, conclusively proves we live in a singularity.
The problem with this talk is that the Dot theory’s logic is simultaneously hypercomplex and obvious. Obvious to people who believes me and accepts that the mathematical movement suggested is permissible and does what I say it does.
Hypercomplex for those who know what that means because it challenges experts in their long-held beliefs and indoctrinations and conditionings about the meaning and structure of reality.
This, I feel, is the right way round when it comes to educating people and demonstrations. An educator only ever demonstrates a theory. One they hold to be true. An educator doesn’t need to explain that they are right but demonstrate how they are right. Explain it.
An educator needs to explain the subject to those people who can’t understand it and if it still needs to be proven, that can be done by the people who can. What I have done here is demonstrated it in its simplest terms for mathematicians and logicians to disprove. If they can’t, it remains, as far as my reality is concerned, correct.
My theory doesn’t need to be proven: it is already proven. We know that if we look at solutions that worked before and choose from them to make decisions, we will succeed more often. It is, in a sense, too obvious to need proof. It needs accepting. Accepting mathematically and integrating into the theories of physics, its applications and our understanding and management of reality.
For that process of acceptance, I invite all logicians, mathematicians and theoreticians to disprove my theory and point out the flaw in any of the logical steps undertaken in this paper.
