Thursday, May 7, 2015

Data Flow is the Theory of Everything

Forget about spacetime or pretend to not care about spacetime.
Nevermind the Dimensions
Here's the Measurements
- Density of a current
- of Current Density
If those are measured, then there is rate of Velocity.

Therefore: "Spacetime" resides in states of phasing matter. Space is where phasing matter is of low density. Time is how matter phases towards increased or decreased densities.

Consequence: Everything is the velocity of data corresponding to density and currency as one universal unit of phasing matter with the two inherent properties of density and currency. Currency is energy, Density is mass and Velocity is the speed of light.  

In AI terms: DensityCurrency is the input, Velocity is the output. In the open system of absoulte reality, input cannot be separate from output. Any discrete unit of data, as one object, is one unit of inout-data.
Ergo, if measured as being separate/discrete, the function of data obtained, as causing by output and effected by input, is not in the results of measurement. Solid data is therefore relative by default. By the same token, relative data is the only solid data. 

This would be a wild hypothesis in physics to most, if not all. That is 100% correct. I agree.
It IS wild.
It IS a hypothesis.
It IS physics.
But it is NOT lame, factual and metaphysical.

The relevance for the field of AI is, from my perspective as non-AI scientist, that:
1) AI science primarily deals with data as basic units for theory, observation, experiment and application.
2) Knowing what you are doing science with is good for progress.
3) Knowing that your basic units of science is all there is might just be very good for progress.

I don't expect anyone, besides perhaps Dalai Lama and the Tantric's, to actually believe that the above hypothesis is reasonable, beacuse it is not. It comes not from reasoning alone, but reasoning based on unreasonable experience. Those guys know of such unreasonable experience and so do I.
The hypothesis might be phrased, by me as a layman, in terms that are not correctly defined or applied in correspondence with expertise. I'm aware of that possibility, but cannot change this possible distortion on my own. Until expertise objects and we properly revise the wording, it stands alone, as it is.

There are some further consequences of this which I'm currently trying to formulate. I'm not sure about how to tell you there is no gravity. Maybe if you ponder the hypo some, you'll find out for yourself.
To revise a basic premise of everything has the effect of being one IF generating numerous THEN's.
If the above is true, then ! then! then! then! ad infinitum. If you state the one right question, then there will be all of the answers in that one question. That is the paradox of science, isn't it?
Asking the right question leads to the true answers.
If answers are true, they are indisputable.
Indisputable statements prevents generation of further questions.
Science is about generating new hypothesies that can be supported or contested by experimental data.
Science dies with knowing the absolute truth.

To quote Fats Domino "Ain't that a shame?"   

No comments:

Post a Comment

Respond as it happens here