Systema: Six Hats, Six Coats and “Middle World”

richarddawkinssm.jpg

Richard Dawkins discusses his concept he calls “Middle World” to explain how the human model of real could be only one of endless models. The scope of human perception could be only a minimal explanation of the human “Middle World” model, irrelevant to the models of every other form of life that exists. However, Richard is not saying the laws of physics are different, but the laws of perception. Six Hats, Six Coats still holds its relevancy universally as Murray Gell-Mann has pointed out by saying that irregardless of the observer physics does not change.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Advertisements

Skepticism: Freedom itself.

anndruyan.jpg

I have just finished reading this article by Anne Druyan at the Skeptical Inquirer website. I find often philosophically I am a Stoic, but Skepticism is what I often need large doses of. The tools of skepticism, especially questioning authority, are the basis of freedom. And freedom dictates we abandon anthropic religions and accept being part of something larger than any religious author or motivational speaker could ever conceive to charge you for. Larger than humanity will ever conceive. Freedom itself.

Ann’s memorial to Carl

Science: Within and Without the Box

I have been surfing for quite some time looking for a new approach to the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework and I came across this blog entry Is There a Box To Think Outside Of? from ProjectArmannd.com It got my mental muscle pondering the framework and inside-the-box and outside-the-box thinking. I agree with the conclusion of ProjectArmannd’s blog entry “there is no box”, however disciplining oneself and training oneself to master a classification system or systems is a powerful method for exercising control of the universe and we are always looking for better classification systems. And these systems are forever improving at the smallest and largest scales. Which brings me to this character:

hugheverett.jpg

Hugh Everett was the first to come up with what is commonly known as the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Basically, Hugh had the epiphany that perhaps what he was attempting to understand with systems at the quantum scales also applied to observers at classical scales. Such an insight is no different that Sir Issac Newton having the epiphany that the forces acting on a falling apple were the same forces that applied to the motion of the planets. Both are grand unifications, Issac’s was called “gravity”.

Issac knew that the natural philosophers of his time would choke on the scope of his grand unification of gravity, it didn’t appear to be simple because of its scale. The Many World’s Interpretation is also simple and resolves many of the paradoxes of attempting to have a universe that obeys quantum mechanics at the subatomic level and classical mechanics at the observer level, but physicists seem to choke on all the parallel universes. The conflict is one of scale rather than one of simplicity.

Now, why do I talk about Everett? Because Everett’s theory was an attempt to bring the universe into the box of quantum mechanics. It required a new understanding of the existing structure of quantum mechanics to resolve the exceptions that Everett wanted to handle.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework exists for me because I have been continually restructuring my understanding of what the Framework represents and what the exceptions to it represent. I think within-the-box and without-the-box continually to handle exceptions in the simplest manner possible. And like Everett I include the observer in the systems. When our classification system doesn’t work it is usually because one of the interrogatives is being excluded.

Cause | Observer | Energy | Mass | Space | Time

Why | Who | How | What | Where | When

Related Posts:

Physics: Only When We Look At It

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Systema: You Don’t Need More

murraygellmann.jpg

Murray Gell-Mann in this TED.com video reveals a core truth in the beauty of physics that explains my adherence to the six interrogatives. The core truth is “you don’t need something more to get something more”. You don’t need more than the six interrogatives to explain most systems. What you need is a better understanding of the six interrogatives. It does not diminish all the other concepts to say they are emergent from the core concept. The core concept offers something not the product of the human mind, unity, symmetry, self-similarity across the scales.

  • Why – Cause
  • Who – Observer
  • How – Energy
  • What – Mass
  • Where – Space
  • When – Time

As Einstein put it:

Energy = Mass * Space * Space / Time / Time

This gives us the equation:

How = What * Where * Where / When / When

Or as Zachman puts it:

Function = Data * Network * Network / Time / Time

Can you see systems differently?

Science: Gradual Ascent Into the Singularity

bengoertzel.jpg

I just watched this interview with Dr. Ben Goertzel from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. One of the issues of prime concern for me when I have participated in SIAI forums online was the willingness of some of their thinkers to develop an AGI without built in controls. To me it was like willingly starting an atomic chain reaction without control rods. In this interview, Ben states plainly that an uncontrolled “takeoff” AI is not acceptable that he plans to create an architecture where “ascent” is gradual.

I am grateful that leading AI thinkers are addressing this.

I also think an AGI should be contained. Certainly it should have all the web available to it, but a copy of the web without external access. Google has made a copy of the web on its servers, why not for the first AGI capable of surpassing human intelligence?

We isolate and contain Nuclear, Chemical and Biological agents. Why not intelligent agents?