A Major Paradigm Shift Is Coming

A Major Paradigm Shift Is Coming

I am working on research that will result in a major paradigm shift that will turn out to be as significant to science and society as that of the shift from the Ptolemaic world view to that of the Copernican world view. My research has resulted in the discovery of two entirely new classes of representation that are both mathematically consistent and complete.

Why is this important? All of logic, mathematics, computation, and science are currently based on the theory of information. Godel's Incompleteness theorems proved that all formal systems above the complexity required to represent Peano arithmetic are incomplete, or inconsistent, or both.

The cause of incompleteness and inconsistency is not the concept of a formal system itself. The cause is the underlying representation of information formal systems are represented in terms of. Information is an indirect representation. It can only represent things INDIRECTLY. Information can not represent ANYTHING DIRECTLY. All indirect representations (of any complexity) are necessarily incomplete because they rely on something outside themselves, the mind of an intelligent observer, to decide the meaning of the bits and symbols represesented by information. The information does not represent meaning. The meaning of information is inferred by an external system, namely the observers brain. The internal operation of the observer's brain is not based on the representation of information, any more than the physical existence of the universe is. Just because our brain can interpret the meaning of information, it does not mean that our brain's operation itself is based on the representation of information. The belief that the brain's internal operation is based on the representation of information is a fallacy. I have proven this.

The problem for science is, the physical universe is complete and consistent, but our logical and mathematical representation of it IS NOT. Information is the wrong basis for the representation of physical existence. Information is incapable of representing the universe completely or consistently. For example, physical existence does not have any representation for the number zero. Physical existence can not and does not have a physical representation of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist as long as spacetime and dimensionality exist. Zero is a placeholder in the representation of information for the representation of nonexistence, or the representation of a possible existence. Nature does not represent the possible. It only represents that which actually exists. In terms of information, it is as if Nature only represents the ones.

Because nature only represents what actually exists phyically, nature does not have to make any decisions to represent existence or the physical configuration of the state space of existence. Nature does not have to interpret the meaning of information. The laws of physics create and enforce themselves because they are based on a complete consistent representation of existence that can ONLY represent that which exists. The laws of physics exist because they are the only possible laws that nature can represent using the direct representation of existence. There are no decisions to make. Only man wastes bits, energy and time representing the nonexistent. Nature is exponentially less complex. Since existence exists, and its representation cannot be based on information, its representation must be based on another form of representation. All indirect representations are incomplete and or inconsistent as Godel proved. The logical converse of an indirect representation is a direct representation. The converse of an incomplete, inconsistent, indirect representation is a complete, consistent direct representation. The representation of existence is based on a complete and consistent direct representation.

The universe is the transfinite recursion of the direct upper ontology of existence. Its recursive operator is based on the composition of symmetric differences between existence and incomplete (aka partial) nonexistence.

Using this representation one can generate new forms of logic and mathematics exponentially more powerful than those based on information. These mathematical forms provide a complete and consistent description of the universe. This description literally generates and enforces all the laws of physics. It can describe the creation of the universe and the evolution of everything in it starting from the bosonic singularity of complete nonexistence, where complete nonexistence is defined as the absence of all spacetime, matter and dimensionality. It describes what causes the quantization of energy. It describes what causes symmetry. It describes what space and time are and how they are formed. It describes the cause of the big bang and the lifecycle of the universe. It describes what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. It describes the cause of the zero point field. It describes the cause of mass and the cause of gravity. It describes the cause of zitterbewegung. It describes the cause of subatomic structure and ultimately, the cause of all higher order forms of matter and energy in the universe. It provides the key to a complete understanding of physics.

My two main discoveries include:

1) The direct upper ontology of the representation of physical existence. I have discovered an upper ontology that is one-to-one isomorphic to the direct representation of physical existence. In other words, I have discovered a method that will allow us to create a direct one-to-one mathematical representation of the physical existence of the universe. Physical existence itself is a kind of representation, but it's representation is not based on information. Its representation is based on, and is, the transfinite recursion of the direct upper ontology of existence. By using that representation in a computer, it will allow us to directly model the creation of the universe, the creation of everything in it, and the relations between everything in it in context. Unlike conventional upper ontologies that are designed to be a foundation for lower level domain specific ontologies, the upper ontology of existence eliminates the need to create any domain specific ontologies. This should reduce the complexity of the mathematical representation of complex systems combinatorially. It will also allow us to conveniently represent the existence of phenomena whose behaviors vary depending on the context they exist in.

Black Holes

Given upcoming events at the LHC we better make sure we really understand black holes before we create them. The current theory of black hole formation and operation is based on information theory. It is incomplete.

Current theories as to what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole are incorrect. Black holes are not created, nor do they operate as current Physics predicts. Specifically, their power source and the source of their gravity field is not the energy in the particle stream that creates them. A black holes power source is derived primarily from the collapse of the fermionic field that composes spacetime inside the event horizon. Exceeding the speed of light destroys the consistency of the representation of existence and causes the collapse of the fermionic field that composes the zero point field that composes the dimensions of spacetime. When it collapses, the fermionic field transforms to its inner representation, a bosonic field. Bosons do not occupy spacetime. That is why bosons can all occupy the same non-dimensional "point". That is why black holes cause singularities. The vast majority of the energy contained in a black hole comes from the conversion of the fermionic field to a bosonic field.

Inside the event horizon the zero point field that composes the structure of spacetime has collapsed. Dimensionality ceases to exist. Energy cannot escape the black hole because it has no spacetime to travel thru, not because it can't travel faster than the speed of light.

The main power source for a black hole is the difference between the zero point field energy outside the event horizon and the localized nonexistence inside the event horizon. A black hole is the only phenomena in the universe that frees up all the energy in the zeropoint field and makes it available to do work. The almost limitless zero point field energy outside the event horizon flows to "ground". It causes the black hole to ingest spacetime and collapse its fermionic field, converting it to a bosonic field and allowing it to collapse into a singularity.

The conservation of energy can not be used to calculate the energy in a black hole becuase it does not consider the difference in the zero point field energy that composes spacetime outside the event horizon and the absolute zero energy density inside the event horizon. Evaporation of the black hole (if it evaporates) exposes the singularity at its core, and allows the naked singularity to convert most of its energy back into its outer representation - a fermionic field and the subsequent creation of the zero point field and space time. The explosive expansion in space time that results transports massive amounts of high energy gamma rays as it expands and the zero point field reforms itself. This is the cause of gamma ray bursts. In the extreme case of the primordial black hole, it causes the big bang.

This paper also identifies a new mechanism for the creation of black holes that makes it unlikely they would be created by cosmic rays, but increases the likelihood they may be created in a particle accelerator. Be advised, the energy in the particle stream used to create a black hole is only the energy needed to trigger the formation of the black hole. It does not account for the energy the black hole will ingest and convert from the spacetime surrounding the event horizon. Creation of an artificial black hole could be catastrophic. Due to variability in the way a black hole could be created in a particle accelerator, it is not possible to quantitatively ascertain the amount of energy that would be released if it evaporates and exposes its singularity. In addition, the mechanism thought to account for black hole evaporation was based on the representation of information. It is not reliable.

2) The universal representation of thought. This appears to be the basis for the biological neural knowledge representation and upper ontology responsible for all human thought, perception, awareness and consciousness. It solves the unitary binding problem in neural science. It provides a completely new model of computation and a completely new coding theory that will allow us to develop sentient computer systems that can perceive, think and understand the meaning of information and knowledge from their own first person direct perspective in context. Just as the universe is the transfinite recursion of the direct upper ontology of existence, the mind results from the transfinite recursion of the direct (and indirect) upper ontology of abstraction. Both the representation of thought and the representation of existence form the basis for mathematical systems exponentially more powerful, and more compact than the representation of information. In fact the representation of thought provides exponential compression relative to the direct representation of existence. That is why we can store so much knowledge within the limited volume of our craniums.

Philosophical Basis

Some time ago, I discovered an inconsistency in the Philosophy of information, in the principles of ontological neutrality that has been lurking there since the early 1960's. Its significance was apparently overlooked.

ON.2 (It from Bit) is inconsistent with ON.1, ON.3, and ON.4. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/#1.6 for the definitions of these philosophical principles. Proof of the inconsistencies in ON.2 relative to the interpretation of physical existence can be found in earlier entries in this blog.

I was able to resolve the inconsistencies by separating the ontological representation of existence from the ontological representation of information. This preserves ON.2 but restricts its domain to that of communication and computation.

By creating a separate ontology for existence, it allows each thing in existence to represent itself from its own first person direct perspective in context. It also accounts for the ubiquitous fact that each thing that exists is composed of other things. Its existence is defined in terms of how it relates to the things it is composed of and how it relates to the things in its external environment. The complexity of the representation and ontology of existence is constant, and independent of the number of types of things in existence. By contrast, the complexity of the representation of information grows combinatorially in the number of types of things it represents.

The ontology and direct representation of existence eliminates the problem of the observer in Physics and in physical existence, and it provides a mechanism that automatically accounts for the consistency and completeness of the totality of existence itself. It also provides a physical existential ontology that can solve the horizon and flatness problems in cosmology without violating the speed of light as inflation does.

Information is Incomplete and too Complex to Represent the Totality of Existence

Imagine you are a proton. A proton can't represent itself from the 3rd person indirect perspective of an observer. Which observers' perspective would it choose to represent itself from? Which observers' frame of reference would it represent itself from? If you are a proton, you must experience forces from the perspective of your own existence, relative to the spacetime context and frame of reference you exist in. You can't experience forces as seen from the third person perspective or reference frame of any observer.

While we can model protons or most other things indirectly using information and current mathematics, it quickly becomes very complex to model large systems of interacting fields and particles mathematically, especially if their behavior varies based on the context they exist in. For example this makes it extremely difficult or impossible to solve many body problems in quantum mechanics for systems larger than a hydrogen atom without simplifying them into collections of simpler problems, or ignoring parts of the problem to create a problem simple enough to solve. Using the ontology and direct representation of existence, it should be possible to model and solve very large many body problems directly because the ontology and direct representation of existence model context dependent relations directly. Using the ontology and direct representation of existence, the encoding and representation of many body problems is dynamic and the representation alters itself dynamically based on the changing contextual relationships between the bodies in the problem. The result should be a combinatoric reduction in the complexity of the equations required to solve many body problems, and a combinatoric increase in the size of many body problems we can solve. Consequently, further development of this theory could lead to rapid advances in our knowledge of quantum physics and relativistic quantum field theory among other things.

Seen from this perspective, the idea of representing the physical existence of the universe in terms of information is ludicrous. Protons aren't physically composed of bits or information. In addition representing the physical existence of protons using information would violate cause and effect because physical existence itself is a representation. Physical existence is logically and physically prior to observation. The universe existed long before conditions in it could support life. Nobody could have been around to represent existence from the third person indirect perspective of an observer. Therefore, the physical representation of existence cannot be based on information. It cannot be based on any representation that requires an observer, other than each particle itself, because if we go back in time to the existence of the first photon in existence, only the first person perspective of the existence of the first photon could have been available.

Each thing that exists has to represent itself from its own first person direct perspective. This is true whether we are talking about subatomic particles, energy quanta, atoms, molecules, proteins, neurons, people, rocks, trees, stars, galaxies or anything else that exists. The only representation that is the same across all of existence is the first person direct representation of each thing that exists. The representation of physical existence emerges from the composition of the first person direct representation of each thing that exists and the relationships among those things. All of those relationships and all of those representations are based on and constrained by the upper ontology of existence.

The representation of information was designed to support human communication. It wasn't designed to represent the physical existence of fields of force and subatomic particles. This has been known since the 1960's in Philosophy, but it looks like nobody noticed what the implications of those inconsistencies implied. Specifically:

1) By separating the ontology of information and the ontology of existence, we can create a direct one-to-one representation of the existence of the physical universe. We can generate a direct set theoretic representation of physical existence from the transfinite recursion of complete nonexistence and a nilpotent symmetric difference in nonexistence in a manner analogous to the way the Von Neumann Universe of mathematics is generated from the transfinite recursion of an empty set and the set that contains the empty set. This will provide the basis for a new kind of direct set theory and direct mathematics that is isomorphic to physical existence itself. It will also provide the ontological foundation required to further the development of quantum computation.

2) Human communication and computation are based on the transfer or communication of information between computers and individuals, but the requirements necessary to support communication are not the same as those needed for the computation of meaning from the first person direct perspective in context. Why should the human brain be based on the requirements of information? Most parts of the brain evolved long before the development of speech in our species. Why should we base computation on the requirements of a mathematical theory of communication? Why not base it on the requirements of abstract computation, and then translate the results to and from information for external communication? That is what the brain does. It turns out evolution was a lot smarter than we were. Evolution figured out a way to avoid the limitations of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems, and a way to compute everything using a single universal computational algorithm, and a single knowledge representation with absolutely no domain limitations. What's more it does so with constant computational complexity, while computational power scales combinatorially for each stage of neural processing, and storage is compressed as a combinatorial of combinatorals for each subsequent stage of neural processing.

I developed a separate ontology for the direct representation of existence that looks like it will be able to explain all of Physics, even the cause of the Big Bang itself. I.e., where did all that energy come from? It also explains the first cause of symmetry, it explains what energy is, not just what it can do. It explains why existence is quantized, it explains what created spacetime and what it is, it provides an alternative explanation for black holes, it provides a much more intuitive explanation for quantum mechanics, and it looks like it may explain the cause of mass. It also predicts the Higgs mechanism is incorrect. It disproves the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. With some further development, we should be able to use it to solve very large many body problems.

It looks like my thesis on the direct representation of existence is consistent with most of the standard model except:

1) It includes the physical existence of spacetime in the form of a fermionic field with spin 1/2 that assembles the zero point field and creates the four dimensions of spacetime.

2) It provides an alternative explanation for the expansion of the universe.

3) It provides an alternative explanation for the cause of black holes and the source of their gravity and power.

4) It provides an additional law of nature more fundamental than the conservation of energy - that causes the conservation of energy.

5) It provides an alternative explanation for the cause of mass.

6) It predicts the Higgs mechanism is incorrect and that the Higgs' Boson does not exist.

7) It identifies the root cause of the quantization of energy.

8) Instead of representing existence using a fixed number of dimensions, it represents it in the minimal combination of dimensions required to represent each thing in existence with maximal entropy. The mathematical system this forms allows one to solve systems of equations independent of the dimensionality of that which the system represents. It also represents everything in context so the representation automatically accounts for all contextual dependencies.

9) It eliminates the need for observer relative or observer dependent reprsentation.

10) It ensures the consistency and completeness of the universe.

11) It eliminates the need for a "decider" to determine which possibilities exist and which are only potential.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Universal Representation and Ontology of Thought

I have also discovered what appears to be the ontology and neural knowledge representation responsible for the representation and computation of all abstract human thought, perception, and consciousness. It provides a new model of computation and a new coding theory that will allow computers to represent the meaning of information from the first person direct perspective in context, and understand its meaning. It will also allow computers to perceive the world around them and form their own subjective experiences. The representation of thought will allow the development of sentient computers that compute directly in terms of abstractions and concepts from the first person direct perspective in context.

Like the ontology of existence, the ontology of thought is an upper ontology that eliminates the need to create any domain specific ontologies. It is based on the ontology of abstraction itself. The ontology of thought is one-to-one isomorphic to the spatial topology of biological neurons. Everything we can think, experience, feel, perceive, or do can be represented as an abstraction. Neurons in the brain represent everything we think, experience, feel, perceive, and do as abstractions. Each neuron is a living expemplar of a whole collection of related abstractions.

This is a major advance in computation. Not only will we be able to create sentient computers that can think and understand meaning using the same knowledge representation used by our brains; it provides a model of computation that has constant complexity, independent of the complexity of the problem being solved. Processing capacity scales geometrically. If we assume each neuron in the network can compute the result of a 100 term abstract equation, then:

- First level neurons can each compute a 100 term equation.
- Second level neurons can each compute a 10,000 term equation.
- Third level neurons can each compute a 1,000,000 term equation.
- Fourth level neurons can each compute a 100,000,000 term equation.
- Fifth level neurons can each compute a 10,000,000,000 term equation.
Etc.

In addition, computation time is constant at each level. If each level takes 5 mS to compute its result, we could compute the results of n 1.0 x 10^10 term abstract equations in 25 ms where n is the number of neurons in each layer of the network.

Doing this in realtime would require development of a new type of massively parallel hybrid neuromorphic CPU, but even with conventional hardware, a lot can be done, even with current computers. The computational model is very, very efficient. It uses a universal of computation. It is based on a single function that can compute anything a sentient system can percieve, feel, think, learn, understand, or do from the first person direct perspective of the system itself.

Storage is also extremely compact. Storage is compressed combinatorially at each layer in the network. Compression efficiencies scale in direct proportion to computational capacity so compression is geometric combinatorial in the number of levels in the network. Hence the amount of knowledge the network can store is astronomical.

Even better, the direct representation of existence and the universal representation of thought are both complete and consistent and have no domain limitations. I'm not just talking truth functionally complete and consistent. I am talking universally complete and consistent. As in the ability to compute anything in the universe with no domain limitations.

These representations both get around the limitations of Goedels Incompleteness Theorems. This will allow us to develop new set theories and new forms of mathematics that are universally consistent and complete. We'll be able to work through logical problems and compute anything in the universe, or anything we are capable of thinking using a single ontology and a single knowledge representation with absolutely no domain limitations.

That's pretty powerful stuff.

Big changes are coming.

Stay tuned for further developments.