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.

Advertisements

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.

Universe: Hexahedron Theory Revised

When – Where

How – What

How Much – Why

This is the set of equations I find curious.  As you can see (C)/(C) equals Energy.  Consequently, what are the two higher forms that correlate with Gravity?

Who – Whom

Universe: Octahedron Theory

The octahedron:

  1. 3 Axes (I thought this was a triangular point)
  2. 4 Planar Corners (I thought this was a tetrahedral shell)
  3. 6 Vertexes (I thought this was an octahedral shell)
  4. 12 Edges (I thought this was an icosahedral shell)

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.

The three axes of the octahedron are the universes of different orders.  They are simply subsets of one another.

The six vertexes of the octahedron are the vertex dimension sets of the system.

The twelve edges of the octahedron are edge dimension sets between each of the vertex dimension sets.  These edge sets are also particles and the same set equations can be applied to them that were applied to the vertex sets.

To understand the tables you will require high school level physics knowledge and an understanding of basic set theory.

First, I am taking ordinal sets and performing three set operations on them to get subsets.

Second, I am then plugging the subsets into a standard set equation that describes the “space” for that dimension set.

Third, I am then introducing the result into a higher order dimension set.

When

How

How Much

Why

What

Where

Within Knowledge

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Our Place in the Cosmos“, posted with vodpod

What we can achieve is only limited by what we know.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Atheism: Science vs Faith

Came across the following process flow charts and found them so amusing I thought I would reproduce them here.