Evolution: Manchinekind

robot

My latest post in my blog “globvilla” worth checking out:

Evolution: Manchinekind

Buddhism: The Four Reminders

The Words of Self-Enlightened Buddhist Master Grant “Kim Tzu” Czerepak

laughing-buddha

1. The universe is constantly trying to kill you.

2. You could be dead.

3.  You will be dead.

4. Don’t dwell on it.

Dimension: Nikon Universcale

Nikon has developed what I consider the best representation of base ten exponential representation I have ever seen.

Universcale allows you to navigate a two dimensional Base 10 landscape linearly.

I see the possibility here to develop a visual model to linearly navigate any pair of exponential scales.

I can also see the possibility to develop a visual model to tabularly navigate any pair of exponential scales.

Truly a brilliant innovation that deserves to be extended to its fullest potential.

I highly recommend a visit.

Link:

The Brain: ZenUniverse 5.0

The Brain: ZenUniverse 4.0

zencircle011

“Tao can Tao not Tao”

Lao Tzu

I have been looking at the Platonic Solids and thinking about how they correlate to the five senses. I thought about the left and right hemispheres of the brain and realized that each of the Platonic Solids should be truncated to represent the right hemisphere. Now I had ten solids to work with. I worked backward from this and recognized I had to create a separate left right pairing of each of the senses to represent the brain correctly five on the left and five on the right. I have to create pairs of senses, trios of senses, quartets of senses and a quintet of senses. This is because these are ways we learn. We learn most when our senses are learning as a quintet.  This is why complete immersion in the environment we are to learn about is so effective.

This is a major revision of all my previous work.  However, I feel it provides a much more robust sensory model.

isaacnewton-1689

“To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton’s legendary statement was the premise of my new design.  I saw there were five Platonic Solids and as a reaction they would produce the five Truncated Platonic Solids.  This would influence all the components of the Solids.

Radeo

Dadeo

Radeons.  They are radical emissions.  These are based on the number of polytopes in the Platonic Solids.  These are your right  origins.

radeo2

Tradeo

Ideons.  They are Ideal emissions which are temporal radical emissions.  These are based on the number of polytopes in Truncated Platonic Solids.  This is your left percetual spatial origin.

ideo1

Audeo

Audeons.  They are audal patterns.  These are based on the shape of the faces of the Platonic Solids.  This is your right temporal plane.

audeo

Mudeo

Mudeons.  They are musical patterns which are temporal audal patterns.  These are based on the shape of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces.  These are your left temporal planes.

mudeo1

Nadeo

Nadeons.  They are nasal intensities.  These are based on the angles of the Platonic Solids faces.  These are your right parietal arcs.

nadeo1

Gudeo

Gudions. They are gustal intensities which are temporal nasal intensities.  These are based on the angles of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces.  These are your left parietal arcs.

gudeo2

Tadeo

Mates are Tadeons.  They tactal points.  These are the number of intersectin edges for each Platonic Solid’s polytope.

tadeo

Modeo

ReMates are Bodeons.  They are Basal points which are temporal tactal points.  These are the number of intersecting edges for each Truncated Platonic Solid’s polytopes.

modeo

Pyradeo

The pyramids contain the space of the radeons combined with the audeons.  Obtuse triangular pyramid, Right square pyramid, Right triangular pyramid, Right pentagonal pyramid, Acute triangular pyramid.

Ideo

Imadeons.  They are imadical solids.  These are a cound of the number of faces on the Regular Solids.

mageo

Video

Videons they are visical solids which are temporal imagical solids.  This is the the count of the number of truncation faces on the surface of the Truncated Platonic Solids.

video

Stateo Ateo Summary

brain

  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. ORANGE: BODY: CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.
  6. RED: MIND: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.

stadeo2

Link:

25 Bubbles: Information Technology

big_bubbles_blossom

1. Service Oriented Architecture will create more problems than it will solve

2. Relational databases have reached the end of their innovative value

3. Object oriented programming is based on a fictional ontology

4. Unified Modeling Language is incapable of abstracting systems

5. Current enterprise architectures are conceptually naive

6. The world wide web is 80 percent data slum surrounding 20 percent data excess

7. The majority of communication on the internet has no goal or purpose

8. Business uses information technology to demonstrate due diligence and then ignores it

9. Merging scientific databases is useless because they have no consistent metrics

10. The central processing unit is an inefficient and ineffective brute force antique

11. Data has never been accurately and precisely represented, understood or stored

12. We do not understand the information technology of genetics

13. We do not understand the information technology of chemistry

14. We do not understand the information technology of physics

15. Information technology is simply a popular metaphor not the reality of the universe

16. Computerized climatological models have no predictive capability at all; our understanding of climate change is hindsight

17. Weather prediction is based on satellite images not computer modeling

18. Computer scientists have no idea what consciousness is nor does anyone else

19. Business models and data models are like oil and water
20. Silicon Valley and every corporation affiliated with it will not save the world

21. Science does not have its rightful place in information technology

22. Little information technology involves design, most of it is craft

23. Calling a programmer an engineer does not make a programmer an engineer

24. Calling a programmer a designer does not make a programmer a designer

25. There is hope, but the people who got us here definitely will not get us there

Universe: History Rhymes

marktwain

In a Forum interview by Michael Krasny of NPR with Futurist Paul Saffo brought to my attention in a blog by Tim Brown of IDEO, Paul quotes Mark Twain who said, “History does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes.”

My work on the Czerepak Framework is an effort to look back as far as possible to find the rhymes of the history of systems and out of it has come the following:

Trivergent Thinking

Freedom and Fiat

Divergent Thinking

Future and Flow

Univergent Thinking

Function and Form

Convergent Thinking

Fruition and Fulfillment

I have adopted the above process for my company, Cognitary, Inc.,  and call it “Cognitary Stratus”.  It is both a methodology and, when extended to additional dimensions, a framework for designing a system.

cognitarystratus

My usage of the root “verto” with the prefixes “tri-“, “di-“, “uni-” and “con-” are intended to create new terms to deal with a four dimensional perspective (not three) of systems.  The eight sub-forms of thinking correspond to the eight interrogatives:

  1. Why: Freedom
  2. Who: Fiat
  3. When: Future
  4. Where: Flow
  5. How: Function
  6. What: Form
  7. How Much: Fruition
  8. How Many: Fulfillment

These rhymes and sub-rhymes are the stratus of all systems and all systems design.  Together they are the basis of Cognitary Stratus.

Link:

Universe: Czerepak Framework R0.2

I have been thinking about the terms “convergent” and “divergent” in Tim Brown of IDEO’s Design Thinking and realized that they were products of planar (2 dimensional) thinking.  This has lead me to alter my definitions of what convergent and divergent are and to also redefine “vergent” and add “trivergent”.  I also realized that the convergence point is at the center of the ellipsoid and each verge (radius) point is separate and distinct.

iconuniverse21

Converge, diverge, verge and triverge all come from the same Latin root “verto”, to turn out.  All of the polyhedron vertexes are representations of the intersections of radii with the surface of not a sphere, but an ellipsoid.  Therefore each vertex is a unique dimension or radius.  However, there is one thing that is still not recognized.

iconverge

Roll, Pitch and Yaw ellipses alone are an incorrect representation of orientation in space because they fail to include orientation relative to the observer.  Roll, Pitch and Yaw are flat earth concepts.  You cannot represent an ellipsoid with three radii.  The minimum radial representation of an ellipsoid requires four points on the surface of the ellipsoid.  The tetrahedroid is the minimal representation of the inscription of an ellipsoid.

iconellipsoids

The above three ellipse object and four ellipse object are both ellipsoids, the only difference between them and the three ellipse ellipsoid above them is the perspective–they have been rotated in space.  Using the four dimensional representation gives us the table below:

iconuniverse31

While I was illustrating the above table it became apparent to me that it accurately reflected  John Boyd’s OODA Loop.  It also became apparent to me that the OODA Loop could be conceputally simplified to:

  1. OBSERVE: Range
  2. ORIENT: Direction
  3. DECIDE:  Elevation
  4. ACT: Fire

The OODA Loop or the Czerepak Framework cycle can be graphed as a simple two dimensional sine vertice:

iconunivgraph11

Now, that’s all sure and fine and it provides a way of thinking with a minimum number of variables.  However, if we think about John Boyd as a military combatant it is not the right set of variables.  The model has to cater to the following needs:

  1. OBSERVE: Who and Why
  2. ORIENT: Where and When
  3. DECIDE: What and How
  4. ACT: How Many and How Much

Suddenly, it becomes obvious that in a system involving living organisms there is added complexity and layers of consciousness.  The following table is my first attempt to illustrate this:

iconuniverse42

The yellow row and column headers are what is of importance.  The naming of the white cells will have to come later.  Obviously, there are considerable changes in the order of the columns and rows, but I believe John Boyd is closer to the truth about the process than anyone else.  Therefore I am redefining everyone else’s concept to fit his.  What is important about the table is that in the columns each icon represents a set of ellipses that one ellipse at a time intersects with the ellipses above it to converge on a subset that is the target.

iconunivgraph2

Colonel Boyd’s model was simple.  Deviations from it are based more upon misunderstanding than anything else.  This is the fundamental System Development Lifecycle (SDLC):

  1. OBSERVE = SELECT = SCOPE = CONTROL and COMMAND = STRATEGY = TRIVERGENT THINKING = Why and Who are the exceptions?
  2. ORIENT = INSERT = ANALYSIS = CLIMATE and TERRAIN = TACTIC = DIVERGENT THINKING = When and Where are the exceptions?
  3. DECIDE = UPDATE = DESIGN = FUNCTION and FORM = OPERATION = VERGENT THINKING = How and What are the exceptions?
  4. ACT = DELETE = DEVELOP = QUALITY and QUANTITY = GOAL = CONVERGENT THINKING = How Much and How Many are the exceptions?

“What are we deleting?” You may ask.  We are deleting exceptions that existed in the previous system whatever that system may have been.  We are never dealing with a non-existent system.  We are SELECTing a set of exceptions the current system does not handle.  We are INSERTing those exceptions into the current system.  We are UPDATEing the system to handle those exceptions.  We are DELETEing those exceptions from the system.  I still have to work to reconsider the names for each of the cells, but I am converging on that.  The differences between methodologies are really ones of scale and nothing else.  It’s how many exceptions do you intend to address at a time.

This effort is requiring a lot of work and rework because I have never dealt with eight interrogatives before, however the fit is conceptually the best I have ever had.

Universe: Interrogative Spaces

iconuniverse14

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.

They Failed, But They Were Not Afraid

gwb

When we think of physicists, the majority of us think of them as geniuses who understand the universe.  But the truth is, they do not.  Physicists, make models to explain and predict phenomena.  They are called “hypotheses”.  If a hypothesis stands up after many experiments it is called a “theory”, but it just a model.

Einstein was not a success.  He had some victories along the way, but he never achieved his goal.  Neither have the quantum physicists over the last eighty years.  They have corroborated many hypothesis that led to their ideas being called theories, but their theories are not proven.  That is because they do not predict all of the phenomena that are observed.  There are exceptions that cannot be explained.  From the first living thing that reacted to reality organisms have been trying to model their universe.  And every model is incomplete up to the physicists we have today.

Religion has become the word for the denial that a theory is incomplete.  Every religion on earth is guilty of it.  Scientists are guilty of it as well.  I am right every time I say that a model is wrong.  Goedel would agree with me.  The only constant appears to be that no theory is constant.  In fact, science requires us to speak in absolutes to leave room for falsifiability.  We have to leave no room for exceptions in order to discover the exception and change our worldview.

That is what a singularity is all about.  We refine our theory until it is cornered and then it realizes its transition into a new reality.  If we succeed in cornering out theory there is a climax.  If we fail in cornering our theory, there is an anti-climax.

Hiroshima was the singularity of the Second World War.  Nagasaki was the follow through to the exhaustion of Imperial Japan.

But Einstein’s life as a whole ended with an anti-climax as have the lives of every physicist who followed him.

Death is the ultimate anti-climax.  But do not be afraid.  No success nor failure is the complete measure of a person.  Accepting, changing strategy and trying again fearlessly is.