Is there is no energy, no mass, no time, only space?

This is the Einstein Field Equation


Time t is simply the distance the hands travel around the clock, the distance the earth rotates around its axis, the distance the earth revolves around the sun.

Mass m is simply a four distance or dimensional space.

Gravity is the comparison of four states: the Energy state, the Mass state, the Distance state and the Time state.

The dimensions that compose the universe are not “curled up” they are all visible to us every day.

Einstein thought the fields were unipolar making them circular, however experiment emphasizes the fields have two poles making them elliptical.

The cosmological constant is simply another four space making the incorporation of dark matter and dark energy graceful.

Why are physicists so tied up in knots over such a simple concept?


Click the image to enlarge it.

where d is distance and e is events.

This model gives you twelve dimensions and all of the dimensions are visible every day, they are not concealed or “wrapped up” at all.

I do not consider this equation perfect, but I believe I am on the right track.

What the above equation describes is a toroidal torus, or a klein bottle.

Consequently, the Einstein Field Equation describes a regular klein bottle, while the Czerepak field equation describes an irregular klein bottle.  What is special about the klein bottle is it only has one side.  This would mean the Universe although in constant flux is eternal and singular.  There was no bang and there will be no crunch just continual cycling through states.


The only other consideration is that the elliptical paths, should be replaced with spiral paths.  This would make the klein bottle recursive.  How many recursions there are may be limited to the seven states identified by the System International Units: luminosity, temperature, time, distance, mass, current and molarity all of these reducing to distances.

I already see commercial applications for this model.

Internet: It’s Complicated


There is a problem with the internet.  It has forgotten its roots.  It has forgotten HTML.  It has forgotten LaTeX. It has forgotten WordPerfect.  It has forgotten television.  It has forgotten radio.  It has forgotten film.  It has forgotten phonographs.  It has forgotten photographs.  It has forgotten the Gutenberg Press.  It has forgotten the Alphabet.  It has forgotten Arabic Numerals.  It has forgotten Hieroglyphics.  It has forgotten music.  It has forgotten speech.

The internet is fascinated with digital waveforms.  They don’t realize that digital waveforms are phenomenally primitive.  As a consequence the internet is phenomenally complicated.  We have a whole generation trying to use metaphors of analog media equipment represented on digital media equipment.  It is complete crap and it does not occur to anyone.  Word processors are crap.  Spreadsheets are crap.  Presentations are crap.  Vector Graphics are crap.  Audios are crap.  Videos are crap.  Their formats and editors are crap.  Complex useless crap that many people are making a good living making more complicated to guarantee their meal tickets and they don’t even know it.  They use words like “organic”, “innovative”, “2.0”, “web”, “village”, “technology”, “entertainment”, “design”, “thinking”, “visual”, “global”, “climate”, “change”, “open”, “source”, “search”, “apple”, “i”, “my”, “face”, “google”, “twit”, “social”, “network”, “pirate”.  They hire lots of “numerati”, “literati”, “vidirati”, “audirati”, “timerati”, “grapherati”.  The words are meaningless and the people don’t know their assholes from first base.  They measure their credibility by their credit rating.

You ask them a “Simple” question and you get the “Complex” answer.  They don’t hear the question and don’t speak the answer.

They are shotgun happy pretending to be rifle sad.

Simplicity eats when it is hungry, sleeps when it is tired, doesn’t work or play.  Simplicity never leaves and never arrives.  Simplicity neither asks nor tells the time.  Simplicity is the crooked path that is the shortest distance.  Simplicity is periodic and chaotic.  Simplicity folows but has no leaders; leads but has no followers.

Posted in 1. Art, 2. Science, 3. Design, 4. Engineering, 5. Service, 6. Product, 7. Quality. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Longfellow: A Psalm of Life


A Psalm of Life

by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

What the Heart of the Young Man Said to the Psalmist

Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
“Life is but an empty dream!”
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
“Dust thou art, to dust returnest,”
Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act to each to-morrow
Finds us farther than to-day.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world’s broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!

Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act,–act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God o’erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing
Learn to labor and to wait.

The Brain: ZenUniverse: Seven Senses


  1. GREEN: EYE: OCCIPITAL LOBE: visual center of the brain
  2. YELLOW: EAR: TEMPORAL LOBE: sensory center of hearing in the brain.
  3. SKY: NOSE: BRAINSTEM: control of reflexes and such essential internal mechanisms as respiration and heartbeat.
  4. BLUE: TONGUE: PARIETAL LOBE: Complex sensory information from the body is processed in the parietal lobe, which also controls the ability to understand language.
  5. RED:  JAW: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.
  6. ORANGE: BODY:  CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.
  7. GREY: SELF: CORPUS CALLOSUM: The arched bridge of nervous tissue that connects the two cerebral hemispheres, allowing communication between the right and left sides of the brain.


If you look at my first ZenUniverse post, you will see a six column model.  However, the System International Units require seven columns.

Here is a table of two hemisphere intersections.  I am using Latin roots, but you will recognize many of the terms:


Here is a blank table you can print out and experiment with correlations and intersections of your own:





Icons: Associations, Measures, Media


I have just developed a set of icons to represent the seven SI Units graphically as relationships. I would welcome insights, opinions, links that might help me refine this design.

The Units:

The System International Units correlation is the following:

1. radiance: candela

2. heat: kelvin

3. time: second

4. distance: metre

5. mass: kilogram

6. current: ampere

7. molarity: moles

First, I have been thinking about color. It would be possible to have only two types of triangles: black and white with black outline. The additional two shades are not essential, but are added to emphasize subordinancy.

As for the directionality of the triangles, we are actually looking at the planar faces of geometric figures, geometry not directionality. I agree, this would have to be learned.

Each icon represents a step in a progression from one state to another. In working on this I see a pattern:

1. energy: radiance

2. energy-time: heat

3. time: time

4. time-distance: speed (but not included)

5. space: distance

6. space-current: mass

7. current: soft current

8. phase: molarity: current-energy

I think the System International people have missed the brass ring. I know I am just as educated and experienced as those French bureaucrats. Probably more so.

There is also a missing anthropological element to the Units:

8. phase: molarity: current-digit (redefined)

9. numbers: numeracy: digit

10. speech: literacy: digit-calit

11. money: hard currency: calit

12. people: populacy: calit-energy

Obviously, I have to extend my model to account for five more association types. I don’t believe that will be difficult as for example there are at least two more many:many associations I did not account for or properly assign to my model.

As this is a new representation, there will be serendipitous moments. This is one of them.

A story around an icon:

2. heat can have it’s own continuum: energy-time, kelvin, sudio (sound engergy), frequency (sound time), music or audiograph (sound map), audition (sound blog), audience (sound people), auditorium (sound space). Actually, voice could be used too, because of the directionality vocio (people sound), etc.

I will work on this and post here after making the modifications.

3-D thinking is not difficult once the structure is assembled. But I am finding assembling the structure requires many visits and revisits to the basics, and the experts are not as expert as they make out.

The Brain: ZenUniverse 2.0


“Tao can Tao not Tao”

Lao Tzu

If you have seen ZenUniverse 1.o and liked it.  You will be pleased to know that I have made some major enhancements to this concept.  We will still have the Six Solids, but we will expand considerably on the classifications.

In this version I will incorporate my work describing the six areas of human endeavor:

  1. Astrics
  2. Physics
  3. Archics
  4. Chemics
  5. Bionics
  6. Datics

Then I will correlate them with the Brain’s major regions.

The ordering of everything is very deliberate.

I am not going to belabor you with commentary.

Simply scroll up and down through the tables and think about the correlations and the model of the brain at the end of this post.

So, without further adieu:

Zen Astrics

These are the kinds of theories that can exist.

You might notice the number of sides for each seems large.

What has been overlooked is solids have an outside, midside and inside.


Zen Physics

These are the kinds of space that can exist.


Zen Archics

These are the kinds of arts that can exist.


Zen Chemics

These are the kinds of natures that can exist.


Zen Bionics

These are the kinds of skills that can exist.


Zen Datics

These are the kinds of numeracy and literacy.


Zen Brain

Each of the above areas of endeavor correlate with the representation of the brain in the fundamental table below.


  1. GREEN: EYE: OCCIPITAL LOBE: visual center of the brain
  2. YELLOW: EAR: TEMPORAL LOBE: sensory center of hearing in the brain.
  3. SKY: NOSE: BRAINSTEM: control of reflexes and such essential internal mechanisms as respiration and heartbeat.
  4. BLUE: TONGUE: PARIETAL LOBE: Complex sensory information from the body is processed in the parietal lobe, which also controls the ability to understand language.
  5. RED: JAW: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.
  6. ORANGE: BODY: CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.



Hope there was food for thought.


The Brain: ZenUniverse 1.0


“Tao can Tao not Tao”

Lao Tzu

Since reading the work of Clare W. Graves of Spiral Dynamics fame, reflecting on the work of all the people mentioned in my Blogroll as well as my recent foray into Zen I attempted to review and revise my work on the assortment of frameworks I had come up with. As I was making revisions it dawned on me that nature had done all the work already.

“Outside this office, Business as Usual;

Inside this office, Thunder and Lightning.”

Colonel John Boyd

I decided to take another angle of attack.  I realized I was dealing with entities, hierarchies, attributes and relationships and one thing Boyd overlooked, results, in two dimensions not one.  You may remember this graphic:


I realized I would have to take the Boyd Pyramid a bit more seriously.  And I have.  I compared Boyd’s work to Einstein’s, saw the correlations and what I think is a flaw.


“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

Albert Einstein


The first thing I want to address is a misconception regarding solids.  It was one Plato made as well as R. Buckminster Fuller.  There are not five stable solids.  There are six.

The mistake Plato and R. Buckminster Fuller made was to demonstrate the stability of a triangle composed of three rods to their students while saying that the simplest solid in three dimensional space is the tetrahedron.  He didn’t realize the triangle in his hand was the simplest solid.  The triangle is a two sided three vertex solid that is the simplest enclosure of space.  Our eyes use two of them to locate an object and calculate distance.

Considering the above solid and the Platonic Solids we have six three dimensional closed network structures as illustrated below:


Take note of the stability of each of the solids.  What this means is that the triangulated solids are able to support themselves structurally, while the non-triangulated solids collapse.

What I realized regarding the work of Einstein and other physicists is they did not regard the various phases of matter as important.  However the states of matter are important.  Each state from the triangle up to the icosahedron as illustrated above are higher states of order.  Yet, each state of order is fundamental to the universe in which we live.  And all are simply phases of what I call the “ZenEntity”.


I decided after looking at what I had found regarding the solids to reject contemporary empirical conventions and simply address one thing.  We have six fundamental ordered states.  After several billion years of evolution would not all organisms have what they require to function in response to all of the six states in their niche?

My next question was, “How do I represent the phenomena I had encountered as a network?”

In my profession there are data architects, database designers, data modelers, database administrators, data entrists, data analysts, database developers, database programmers database analysts, data warehouse architects, data warehouse analysts, data warehouse developers, Extract-Transform-Load architects, ETL analysts, ETL designers, ETL developers, ETL programmers, Business Intelligence architects, BI analysts, BI designers, BI developers and so on.  However, I was never satisfied with any of these position titles.  So, I coined one myself: data designer.  I was of the opinion no matter how much data was out there, it was finite.  Zero and Infinity were very useful, but they violated the laws of thermodynamics.  I saw seven distinct phases of order in the universe and only saw transitions from one state to another.  I could design according to those states.

This led me to explore how I could represent the six states.  I studied and applied a variety of project lifecycles such as System Development Lifecycle, Extreme Programming and Rapid Application Development, joint application development.  I had learned various enterprise frameworks such as Zachman and TOGAF, modeling techniques like UML, the various generations of programming languages, data structures, network topologies, organizational concepts, rule based systems, event based systems, data based systems, user centered design, goal directed design, location based services, pattern languages, service oriented architecture, hardware architectures and many more.  I studied English, Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, German and French to see how I could develop a consistent taxonomy as well.

Ultimately I concluded that a majority of the people out there working on these problems had abandoned the basics for pet concepts.  They had no idea how many entities there were.  They had no idea how those entities should be related.  So I took it upon myself to identify all the relations that were applicable and came up with the following:


The associations are as follows:

  1. Pattribute: a triangle entity
  2. Battribute: a one to many relationship describing the association between a triangle and an tetrahedron
  3. Attribute: a one to one relationship describing the association between a triangle and a hexahedron
  4. Nattribute: a many to one relationship describing the association between a triangle and a octahedron
  5. Lattribute: a recursive many to one relationship describing the association between two icosahedrons and one icosahedron
  6. Mattribute: a recursive one to one relationship describing the association between two dodecahedrons

As you can see, the network is asymmetrical and allows for Node, Lattice, Tabular, Lattice, Linear; Lattice arrangements.  Note that since all of the entities are simply states of a single “ZenEntity” none of the states are independent from each other in the network.


Now, that we have established the solids and how they are interconnected we can look at what the actual phases of the ZenEntity are.  Each of these phases are recognized in physics, however I have not come across any discussion of the possibility that they are together a set of fundamental phases.


Usually, we see Space, Time, Energy and Mass described in Einsteinian classical physics.  We also have discussions of Ions, Gases, Liquids and Solids as states of matter.  But we don’t see them together.

  1. Energy: a three dimensional coordinate system
  2. Time: a connection between one three dimensional coordinate system and two four dimensional coordinate systems
  3. Ion: a connection between one three dimensional coordinate system and one six dimensional coordinate system
  4. Gas: a connection between two three dimensional coordinate systems and one eight dimensional coordinate system
  5. Liquid: a connection between two twelve dimensional coordinate system and one twelve dimensional coordinate system
  6. Solid: a connection between two twenty dimensional coordinate systems

Next, we will see how these states are all very important to our sensory systems.


As well as the phases there is another way to look at the six solids.  This is in the Latinate language of the six states.  The states differ from  the phases in that they deal with the essence or source of each of the states.


The essence of each of the states is as follows:

  1. Pattern: Father
  2. Battern:  Hold
  3. Attern: Give
  4. Nattern: Birth
  5. Lattern: Milk
  6. Mattern: Mother


Now, I am going to introduce you to some friends of mine.  I call them “Zen Sensors”


As you can see each ZenEntity State has a coresponding human sensory organ:

  1. Eye: detect events
  2. Ear: detect pressures
  3. Nose: detect plasmas
  4. Throat: detect molecules
  5. Jaw: detect organics
  6. Body: detect inorganics


Next, we have for your viewing pleasure the standard interrogatives and how they correlate:


I found this interesting, because I spent a great deal of time resisting the order of these interrogatives.  Finally, I just went along and found ultimately the order does make perfect sense.  It is an acquired taste.

  1. Eye: Who: Identification
  2. Ear: What: Objectification
  3. Nose: Where: Location
  4. Throat: When: Chronation
  5. Jaw: Why: Rationation
  6. Body: How: Function

If you read enough Anglo-Saxon it makes sense.


Having considered the Entities, Associations, States and Sensory Organs, let us now look at how this relates to a hemisphere of the brain:


The above illustration shows the left hemisphere of the brain and the major regions.  They are color coded to correspond to the fundamental states I have described.  You can also see the corresponding sensory organ as well as the corresponding network structure in the region:

  1. GREEN: EYE: OCCIPITAL LOBE: visual center of the brain
  2. YELLOW: EAR: TEMPORAL LOBE: sensory center of hearing in the brain.
  3. SKY: NOSE: BRAINSTEM: control of reflexes and such essential internal mechanisms as respiration and heartbeat.
  4. BLUE: TONGUE: PARIETAL LOBE: Complex sensory information from the body is processed in the parietal lobe, which also controls the ability to understand language.
  5. RED:  JAW: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.
  6. ORANGE: BODY:  CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.


Everything is great so far, but there is the fact that there are two hemispheres to the brain and they interact through the Corpus Callosum which I claim is where the self resides.  One of the interesting things about my study of Latin is that I discovered most questions actually required a two part answer.  This answer would be composed of an Archetype and a Type.  After reading Jill Bolte Taylor’s book, My Stroke of Insight and listening to her account of her perceptions while the left hemisphere of her brain was being shut down by an exploded blood vessel, it became apparent to me that the left hemisphere of the brain contained the Types the Latin language required and the right hemisphere of the brain contained the Archetypes.  It was necessary to create a two axis model to accomodate a brain with two hemispheres:


Each of the light colored cells in this table represent a connection between one coordinate system association (row) and another coordinate system association (column).  This accounts for the broad variety of properties we encounter making the states we experience.

There are actually not one or two, but four directions you can take on the above table.    Top to Bottom is right hemisphere deduction.  Bottom to Top is right hemisphere induction. Left to Right is left hemisphere deduction.  Right to Left is left hemisphere induction.

This is a physiological model of human perception that I have arrived at.  Our current definitions of dimensionality are incorrect.  Each state has its own dimensionality, its own associations, its own sense organs, its own region of the brain and the brain two hemispheres connected by the corpus callosum.  If the work of Dr. David Bryson on Physical, Decisional and Perceptual Learning is right, then deduction happens during waking and induction happens during sleeping.

This is not a complete model by any means as it does not deal with scale-free networks.  Or does it?

But to this point, that is the Zen Universe.


Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Databases: Structured Associative Model


For years now I have been struggling with Relational DBMS technology and Associative DBMS technology attempting to get them to do what I want.  In my first efforts, Relational models were structurally restrictive, Dimensional models were unable to grow organically, EAV models are incompatible with relational architecture.  I came upon Simon Williams Associative Model of Data and although enthralled with its potential I found it too had limitations.  It was semi-structured and allowed for too much flexibility.  25 years in Information Technology had taught me that there was a single standard classification system for setting up databases not a plethora of ontologies.  I was determined to find the theoretical structure and was not concerned with hardware limitations, database architecture, abilties of current query languages or any other constraints.

The Associative Model of Data had made the difference in liberating me from Relational and Dimensional thinking.  A traditional ERD of the Associative Model of Data I at first thought would look like the following:


Basically what you have is a Schema composed of Nodes with Node Associations through Verbs and Associations with Nodes Attributions through Verbs. The range of Node Entities, Verb Entities, Association Entities and Attribution Entities are endless.  As well the population of the Schema has an unlimited dataset of natural key values.  I have been challenged by Relational database specialists and SQL experts regarding the viability of this model within current limitations, however their arguments are irrelevant.  What is important is the logical validity of the model, not the physical validity.

After receiving the criticism I decided to revisit the model in order to simplify it.  I went over Simon William’s explanations of his model and its application and found I could reduce it to the following:


This was profoundly simpler and better reflected the Associative Model of Data’s Architecture.  But even with this simpler architecture I was not satisfied.  I felt that the Associatve Model although giving the benefit of explicitly defining the associations was a tabula rasa.  Research has shown that tabula rasa’s are contrary to the behavior of the finite physical universe.  There is an intermediate level of nature and nuture.  And this is what I sought to model.


When I first encountered the Zachman Framework, something about it struck me in a very profound way.  I could see there was something fundamental in its description of systems, however I felt that the metaphors that John Zachman used were wrong because they themselves lacked a fundamental simplicity.  The consequences of this were that those who studied under Zachman ultimately could not agree on what he was talking about.  Also the “disciplines” that Zachman’s Framework generated were continually reinventing the wheel.  Zachman had created a world of vertical and horizontal stovepipes.  To further the confusion Zachman refused to conceive of a methodology based upon his framework.  Consequently, there was no way to determine what the priorities were in creating a system.  I call this the Zachman Clusterfuck.

Zachman’s work spawned years of work for me.  I could see that systems had a fundamental structure, but I could not agree with Zachman.  Focuses and Perspectives were useless terms.  The construction metaphor was useless.  I read anything I could get my hands on dealing with systems, methodologies, modeling, networks and a broad range of other literature across the disciplines.  Out of this came a set of conclusions:

  1. There were a fundamental set of Noun Entities
  2. There were a fundamental set of Verb Entities
  3. There were a fundamental set of Association Entities
  4. There was a clear order in which the Nouns were addressed
  5. There was a clear order in which the Verbs were executed
  6. The structure was fractal
  7. The content was a scale-free network

I made some attempts at creating the vocabulary and experimented with this new Structured Thinking Language.  However, the real break came when I worked with John Boyd’s OODA Loop:


The OODA Loop revealed a governing structure for the methodology and guided my way into the following hybrid relational/dimensional/associational model I call the Structured Associative Model of Data:


One of the key things this model demonstrates is the sequence followed by the OODA Loop.  Starting from the top, each dimension set spawns the next.  Choices are created from the dimensions.  There is no centrism to this model which is an inherent flaw in Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), Event based architecture, Data centric architecture, Goal-Directed Design, Rule based systems among others.  The stove pipes of Focuses and Pespectives disappear by reasserting a clear order of priorities and dependencies for achieving success.  The model also supports bottom up inductive as well as top down deductive sequencing.  This will make the system able to reconfigure to handle exceptions.

Some of the things I have learned in designing this model include the realization that unit defines datatype and that all measures are variable character string text.  This is because any displayed value is only a symbolic representation of the actual quantity.  If operations are to be performed on measures they are converted to the correct type as part of the operation.  I also recognized that Unit was necessary to define the scale and scalability of the system.  Further, it became apparent that analog calculations should not be practiced.  Every value should be treated as discrete and aggregated.

Another aspect of this system is the inclusion of currency and amount.  I have been critical of Zachman and academics for their hypocrisy regarding the economics of systems.  All systems have a cost and a benefit and they are measurable in currency.  Contrary to the reasoning of the majority, every decision is ultimately economic.

Tim Brown of IDEO has coined the term “Design Thinking” and has been toying with the concept for some time.  Many designers dwell on the two dimensional concept of divergence and convergence as modes of thought.  If we look at my model, divergence is the creation of choice while convergence is selection of choice.  There is no alteration or deletion of choice in my model as history is preserved.

Now what you have is a unencumbered framework with a clear methodological sequence.


Welcome to the Cognitary Universe.

Universe: Interrogative Spaces


In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts.  What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework.  My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.

The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace.  Each ellipse I call a “vortice”.  The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices.  The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives,  but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces?   A good example is speed or velocity.  Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:

v = r / t

Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.

If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:

a = r / t’ * t”

Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock.  You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces.  .

Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets.  The first row are the complete Space vortice sets.  The second row are the first Space vortice subsets.  The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.

I do not believe that anything is constant.  Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology.  Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique.  We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.

Icons: Systema Iconic Language: Part IV


I have been thinking about all I have read to this point and something occurred to me this evening.  There are no such thing as nodes and links.  There are only equilibrium and non-equilibrium states respectively.  Newtonian Thermodynamics only describes equilibrium states.  It does not account for the transition between states when equilibrium does not exist.  So it is with all networks.

When you navigate the web, you are actually moving from one HTML equilibrium state to another HTML equilibrium state.  The page metaphor is concealing the conceptual character of the process.

Back to Basics

The web navigation buttons on a browser are also deceptive.  They do not reveal the logical consistency between the navigation of hypertext networks and goal networks, contact networks, service networks, product networks, location networks, event networks and unit networks.  The consistency between the many forms of media is also concealed by not recognizing that all forms of media are networks transitioning between equilibrium and non-equilibrium states.  It is important to recognize that any form of process or data structure is really a network, even relational databases are simply lattice networks.


The above Icons are the only ones you need to deal with “step” and “loop”, two of the three “linear” processes for navigating any network.  In reality there is no such thing as a linear network.  There is only a path through a set of equilibrium states connected by these non-equilibrium states.  The remaining “decision” is not a binary decision, but a case or switch which is represented by hyperlink icons.

In reality, with the option to back track and break continuity by creating new browser windows, navigation of the web is much more like Prolog than say Basic or C.

It is that simple.  The above icons are the universal icons for navigation of any network, the rest irregardless of conceptual and physical meaning are hyperlinks.

I think it is significant to indicate the target state for hyperlinks through use of icon background shape and color, and to indicate target context through the use of icon foreground content.  This would make hyperlink icons much more communicative and universal.  As also discussed, hyperlink content could be presented as picticons (picture icons), graphicons, (graphic icons), liticons (text icons), sonicons (sound icons), anicons (animated icons) or vidicons (video icons) that exhibit proscribed behavior when rolled over.