Linear, Tabular and Netular Thought

ltn

Gutenberg’s creation of the western version of the printing press is regarded as a revolution and in a sense it was.  Printing led to the transition of western thought from a theocratic 1300 year deductive flat world dark age to a 500 year inductive round world renaissance.  However, printing only lead to the presentation of greater amounts of information.  The real revolutions were the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein culminating in the General Theory of Relativity.  With the advent of Marxism the world slipped into the polarization of the Communist/Capitalist blocks and threw the world into another deductive flat world dark age that lasted into the 1990s.  The advent of the Internet and Tim Berner Lee’s World Wide Web has led to another renaissance back into inductive thought.  Worldviews are collapsing, however we are still to see a new worldview created by the new presentation of increasing amounts of information.  In fact, the Internet age is still trapped in the models of the age of the printing press, the most prevalent being linear (scribal literacy) data and tabular (press literacy) data.  Tabulation dominates information technology architecture and until it is abandoned we are still slaves to print.  The Turing Machine was a migration of existing printing press information technology architecture not an innovation in information technology architecture.  We have yet to implement fundamental change at the foundation of our technologies.  Until we are able to rethink, reengineer, mechanize, represent, store, process and present information as netular (internet literacy) data successfully, which has yet to happen, there will be no revolutions in human thought.

Advertisements

Universe: Hexahedron Theory

Hexahedron Schema:

  1. 4 Axes are Dimension Particle Sets
  2. 8 Vertexes are Space Particle Sets
  3. 12 Edges are Force Particle Sets

Additional Schema Components:

  1. 4 Axial Plane Sets
  2. 6 Edge Plane Sets
  3. 16 Axial Plane Triangulation Sets
  4. 24 Edge Plane Triangulation Sets

Look at the vertexes of the hexahedron as entities.

Entities are Sequence->Value->Type

Look at the edges and axes of the hexahedron as associations.

Associations

are: SourceEntity->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

or: SourceAssociation->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

The instances for the entities and associations are the sets we are working with.

The key is the universe is composed of particles of a broad variety.  But every particle is simply an association in the form of a set.  The lowest order particles are event and point.  They are one dimensional particles.  All subsequent higher dimension particles can be reduced to a subset of these particles.

I have revised my theory to include the observer in the system.  I am of the opinion that the observer is not unary but binary having two hemispheres to the brain.  Position and Velocity are composed of sets not points and are observed separately by the ordinal and cardinal hemispheres of the observer.  Consequently, the universe is not probalistic, but wholly deterministic.

Where – When : Space – Time

Sequa is an ordinal point set while frequa is a cardinal event set.

What – How : Mass – Light

Quala is an ordinal sequency set while Quanta is a cardinal frequency set..

Why – How Much :  Gravity – Energy

Grava is an ordinal quality set while Erga is a cardinal quantity set.

Who – Whom : Ordinality – Cardinality

Orda is an ordinal gravity set while Erga is a cardinal energy set.

I think there are even higher order entities and associations, but I have still to work them out.

Systema: Zachman Synonyms

In many early posts in this blog I was looking for different fits of different conceptual groups. Tonight after wracking my brains into the wee hours some of the conceptual sets began to fit. And fit very well.

The first column represents the six entity relationships and my extended James Moffat Speaker Audience relationships. The second column represents the Zachman Framework Focuses. The third column represents the Zachman Framework Perspectives. The fourth column represents the Galilei/Newton/Einstein equation. The fifth column represent my extended James Moffatt Time Contexts. The sixth column represents my terms for Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. The seventh column represents the Associative Structure of the six entity relationships.

The rows in the table represent the synonyms across the conceptual sets. I will leave you free to reflect on the implications.

Science: In Search of “m”

Earlier in this blogs lifespan I presented the following three equations:

I was met with objections by a colleague who said E = mc^2 does not fit into the series because E = F * d. My reply was, “What if d = 1 ?” And the matter was settled.

But there is something else I want to bring to your attention. If you look at each of the equations. You will notice that the characters that represent each of the variables (yes I know c is a constant) has changed. That is except for m. That is because m or “mass” is the least understood variable.

I have been using these three equations to explain this to physicists with whom I am acquainted for some time and I realize that many of them cannot see the forest for the trees. You do not need all of the complexity of physics to understand this simple truth.

Right now scientists are getting ready to fire up the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Europe to attempt to understand what m is. They are looking for a theoretical particle called the Higgs boson. And this search will require more energy and more computing power than has ever been used in any scientific experiment before. In fact, the collider may even generate microscopic black holes.

And when we are finished m may become another character.

Then we have to rethink t.

Science: Some Constructive Criticism

Recently I received an email from a long time colleague who came across my blog. He’s a very bright chap, so I decided to share the content with you. However, I can’t leave his comments unaddressed consequently I have inserted my responses in the text. — relationary

Dear Grant,

I have a few comments for you regarding the blog. please take them as
constructive criticism. I am happy and inspired to see someone so
enthusiastic about uncovering and learning things, but I am also a bit
concerned for you that you may be spinning your wheels on something.

If this means I keep returning to basic principles, I’m guilty.

1. You mention that you agree that there “is no box” to think outside
of. Much of your blog is related to the six hats/coats system where you
attempt to come up with a very generic system of classification for many
different processes. I would say that in general, any system of
classification is really “a box” in itself. It has no predictive
abilities and does not simplify or explain the relationships between
things – it is a set of buckets that you come up with to group concepts
into. Systems of classification can be practical and useful, and can
help to uncover greater realizations, but they can also in a sense
create or reinforce a fixed way of explaining and thinking about things
(a box) and stifle innovation/creativity. Have you heard the saying that
some achieve impressive things because they are too ignorant, or have
not yet been told that they don’t have the ability to do it? A system of
classification tells you how the world is. It does not tell you how it
works, or tell you how to explore things.

Actually, the Six Hats, Six Coats model is a framework for analyzing or designing systems. The modeling techniques it is based on have predictive capabilities. However, I have taken the Six Hats, Six Coats concept and created a simple classification system as well. On this I agree, not everything will fit snugly, but it is a good starting point.

As an example, the common set of human races (black, white, spanish,
arab, chinese, oriental, etc..) is a system of classification, and a
very arbitrary one based on external appearance or cultural origins. It
can help us to understand certain types of things, but it causes
problems and limits the way people think about other people. I would say
that genetics and mapping the human genome is the real breakthrough that
will in the future allow us to truly explain (and control) why and how
life works and evolves. If I was you I’d strive to be the geneticist
rather than to spend time determining which buckets to categorize things
or people into.

In genetics we have four building blocks or monomers known as G A T and C. Billions of these make up DNA. In the same way the six interrogatives: why, who, how, what, where and when, are the building blocks of complex networks that comprise a computer system.

Humans have asked questions and tried to understand things for a long
time. The interrogatives are the linguistic basis as to how humans
investigate, ask, and describe things. The three fundamental units of
measurement can be used to describe all of the other units of
measurement. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but to me it is not a
huge discovery that most systems we already understand can be framed or
described in terms of the the interrogatives and basic units of measure
that we have. It’s kind of like saying “anything we currently know about
or understand can be explained with the terms we use to explain things.”
or like saying “I can express any whole number as a series of digits.”

The assertion I am making is many analysts and designers do not address all the interrogatives when they are working with a system and consequently they build a less than satisfactory product.


All 6 of your hat/coat concepts relate to how humans sense, express, or
understand the world around them. Because your system of classification
is based and trapped within the confines of how humans currently view
the world that is what makes the classification system a box. I believe
that Einstein, Newton and others all pushed outside of the known and
accepted world which is why they are recognized as discovering something
new and expanding our knowledge.

The thinkers referred to observed the universe around them and large amounts of historical observations and worked out a means to incorporate all the exceptions to the theories of their day by creating new theories. They did not expand our knowledge, they expanded our wisdom.

Your background is in databases/information systems. Maybe that is why
you are so interested in classifying things, but as a suggestion, maybe
it would be interesting to try to explore something that gives new
understanding. (I’m one to talk, I have a physics degree that I’ve done
very little with ;^)

Yes, I classify everything. That’s the reason I see that the six interrogatives hold all the key components of physics: cause, observer, energy, mass, space and time.

The concepts of time, space and mass each have their own related
interrogative as you point out. Why do people and things have two
similar but different interrogatives Who/What, but temperature and
emotion which are not tangible things share the interrogative with
physical things (We ask “What is the temperature”, “what is an
emotion”?) Why don’t we have a separate interrogative that begins with
wh for non-tangible things? (Whelt is the temperature? Whelt is your
emotional state? Whelt is the colour of the truck? What is that round
thing sitting on the chair?) It seems quite arbitrary to me, and
probably stems from human nature to frame things in terms of causes,
people, locations, things, and time. The set of interrogatives we have
are based on human nature, and culture not on some universal, basic or
complete set of interrogatives that exists. I’ve heard that some native
American languages do not have tenses. Are there other languages that
have missing or additional interrogatives in relation to English?

I am of the opinion that the six interrogatives are all that are needed. The complexity increases but the building blocks are always the six interrogatives.

2.You quote Einstein as:
Energy = Mass * Space / Time / Time

That is not correct in two different ways.

1st, Einstein was not the first one to say that Energy is expressed in
terms of mass, space and time. Einstein was the first to say that mass
and energy were convertible (or equivalent) between each other, and that
the relationship between the the mass and energy produced is E=mc^2.
Long before Einstein, physicists had defined the concept of energy, and
measured it in terms of mass*space*space/time/time.

Secondly, energy is expressed in units of “Mass * Space * Space / Time /
Time”.

E=force exerted over a distance = f * d = a mass accelerating over a
distance = m * a * d = m * d / t^2 * d = m * d * d / t / t.

Thank you for the correction. I have modified the relevant post.

Anyway, take care and hopefully all is well with you. Nice to stumble
across your blog and see an old face that I haven’t seen in a while.

Ciao,
Leon

Thanks again, my friend.

Science: Relativist

F = mg ….. Galileo

F = ma ….. Newton

E = mc²….. Einstein

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »