Speculated attributes of Science 2.0
There are a number of basic differences in the emerging science of the 21st century. They are profound differences we are only beginning to understand.
Science 1.0 is based on theory. We presume some relationship between some variables and test the hypothesis. Science 2.0 admits that we cannot presume any correct hypothesis of actual system behavior because the nature of systems is chaotic and complex. Simple relationships are just approximations that hold approximately in limited domains.
Science 2.0 is the science of the exceptional. It is a turbulent universe and we cannot understand turbulence with continuous relationships. We must get down to the level of discrete events to predict what will happen. It is not theory that matters, it is simply a matter of trial and error, and including discrete action in the model that is without exception.
Science 2.0 is multidimensional. Whatever simple relationships exist, for the most part, have been identified, and the context in which they apply defined. The challenge of Science 2.0 is to break out of the context of these relationships into the realm of multi-dimensional analysis where all variables which can be identified are tested for relationships which are not expected to be simple. This will be employed to distinguish the fundamental from the emergent, and the extant from the abstract.
Science 2.0 will acknowledge the two distinct realities, the Science 1.0 human perspective, or relative experience model, and the Science 2.0 absolute physical reality that is independent of who is looking. It is not possible to model everything from every perspective. Instead we can model only the absolute, and only project that into the perspectives of interest. While the absolute model may have a simple logical foundation, such as a Clifford algebra, we find that it exhibits complex systems which lack a simple logical foundation in the experience model.
This is a major phase change in science, there is no paradigm in the classical sense in Science 2.0. instead it is simply what works for no other reason. We can say, it is a new paradigm, but it is not falsifiable in that exceptions are expected and do not invalidate the paradigm which is based on exceptions.
It implies Logic 2.0. A different way of thinking. As any relation in Science 2.0 has exceptions, "This statement is true." and "This statement is false." are both true and false. It is quantum logic in a superposition of state of being both true and false. We can no longer exclude absurdity from our Science 2.0 logic. No longer do we expect absolute truth. The question becomes, not, "Is it true or false?", but "how is it true and how is it false, from various perspectives or logical contexts, and what is the synthesis of these?"
Science 1.0 has served us well. Why should we change? The issue is what is the nature of real systems, which science do they obey?
Quantum logic exhibits universal constructable logic. We would expect that all possible logical systems up to some number of states would exist in the case of random logical arrangement of finite logical action. While it may not be random it certainly presents a diverse particle zoo suggesting complex emergent logical nature which turns out to be exceptional in our experience. There is no limit to the complexity of what may emerge and no restriction on what logical system can be created. Given any theory that does not apply to systems in general, we can construct a quantum logical system that will violate it.
Aristotle represents Science 0.1 as it was based on logical rhetoric, not yet based on measurement. 2.0 eliminates theoretical rhetoric all together. It has models or analogs, with limited domain, but no general laws or theories, with the possible exception of quantum logical action model which is the only thing not yet contradicted in any domain of measurement.
Science 2.0 is an analog of how complex systems emerge from simple rules in system in general, where deference is given exclusively to experimental result.
quantum driving could be a great introduction as if the reader learn first how to think quantumly they will have a lot less problems with the rest of it. quantum game theory and decision theory can then be introduced leading to Logic 2.0, Math 2.0, and Science 2.0. It should be obvious that there is no sense using a logical system that gets less than correct answers for real problems, and despite the fact that it may seem to make perfect logical sense, it is flawed terminally.
Things not believed in Science 1.0 likely to revealed in Science 2.0
1. Relative space is composed of ordinary energy as far as we can tell where energy is propagated by energy. It can be thought of as a cold plasma of uniform energy red shifted below 4 degrees Kelvin with dynamical structure at each discrete frequency of energy in integer multiples of hbar mediating momentum exchanges (photons) as in a semi-solid.
2. Einstein, Heisenberg, Shrodinger, Bell, Bohm, Cramer, etc., etc., all disagree that the observer changes anything except by instantiating a participant tuned to receive specific measureables. which certainly would not have occurred without all the participants. There is no bases to presume consciousness or anything collapses the wave function. All elements of the quantum system are equal participants. There is no "special" participant.
3. Time is independent by x/c between participants. Light, or energy paths, relatively, are zero time paths.
4. Energy propagates on spin networks by orthogonally folding twists of space time collectively according to allowed quantum action and equal reaction. It is not a sin wave.
5. Gravity is due to the energy manifesting space, being received by objects, no longer manifesting space, exhibiting a contraction of space between objects resulting in apparent acceleration toward one another.
6. Any theory or analogy of emergent quantum behavior that simplifies the system will be proven to only apply in a limited domain as there is no simpler representation of a quantum systems than the quantum arrangement itself. All emergent theory will be falsified.
7. But quantum and evolutionary thinking is at the heart of it. The fact that chaotic systems exhibiting exceptional, unpredictable behavior is how real systems are and all theories have limits. There is no absolute truth.
8. And information nature is quantum nature, obviously... Quantum driving can be a very advanced notion, quantum thinking is denial of absolute truth and considering all possible contexts. No logical fact is absolute as it instantiates its own antithesis, or opposite perspective of cooperative logical construction.
9. The universe is consistent with being a finite constructible system as far as we can understand its construction and apparently we can understand it so is apparently constructable.
10. Electrons only repel each other by photon exchange. Charge and magnetism are unneeded and misleading myths in quantum state, that happen to be apparent emergent effects sometimes. They are not fundamental.
11. Scientific objectivity must be quantified. This is a key aspect of Science 2.0 we are challenged to obey. The exception defines the rule, thus the more exceptions considered, the more objective the rule. Objectivity is measured by the range of extant perspectives considered.
12. There are no existing closed systems. Real systems are dynamical and inherently non-linear. Science 2.0 must distinguish the actual from the abstract and the domain limits to which the abstract might be actualized.
13. Things persist in this world only because the logic repeats cycles again and again. Once received, an event is gone, and can never be witnessed again.
14. classical reasoning is wrong. we have to change the way we think.
15. the postulates of relativity and quantum theory are contradicted.
16. the human reality and the physical reality are two different realities.
18. the case of the electron collision proves events are cause-cause, not cause and effect as presumes in Science 1.0
Philosophy of Science 2.0
Classically laws are not violated in scientific theory, but in fact they all stand contradicted, by new theories, in exceptional but significant domains. Each system of law, such as quantum law or relativity, contradicts the others. I often say there is an exception to every law, except this law, which is its own only exception such that there is no exception. A possible exception is the basic model of quantum mechanics, matrix mechanics, Clifford or Lie algebra, information nature, unembellished by the standard model of the quantum. Allowed action in state, driven toward equilibrium (Schroedinger's eq.), has not been shown to be inconsistent with experience in any domain to my satisfaction. It is the only law not known to be violated. It is not a theory, it is just a simple model, with many interpretations all of which are shown to be wrong in some context by reasonable argument. Collective logical action is the law of the quantum and is sufficient in itself to account for all experience, without any necessity of human embellishment.
It is not hard to understand if we can forget classical law, analogies like electromagnetism which is not the way electrodynamics work in the quantum. The quantum is ignorant of our law and not bound to it. All our first principles must be replaces with quantum law as the only first principle if we wish to choose a perspective that is not contradicted by experiment in some circumstance. Covariance, continuum, particles, waves, energy conservation, random spontaneous action, etc., are sacred cows, replaced by quantum action that has a transactional nature exhibiting relative time, space and energy by perspective of the participant objects and reality is the collection of communicating participants we belong to.
In Science 1.0 we like to find linear relations, how x and y are related, such that we can make a definite statement. We seek a law accounting for the relation between x and y.
Science 2.0 expects the unexpected, and when the unexpected happens, as it always does, everything changes, all "laws" are broken. This is how they real world works, shattering the classical vision of absolute truth and linear relationships.
Real systems are chaortic by nature. linear relations only hold in limited domains. The whole truth includes all interconnected domains of logical action. From the simple rules of the quantum great complexity arises. In fact, quantum logic is a universal logic, where any describable logical systems may be constructed. Rather than one, or the other, existing exclusively, they all exist to the extent they conserve information collectively. The multiplicity of logical action participant organization makes no single view authoritative.
By definition the universe is a closed system, but in reality our universe only includes participants we can communicate with that have a related relative perception or perspective. In practice our universe is an open system evolving in time chaorticly. Real systems are dynamical with nonlinear behavior. The laws of science 1.0 must be forgotten, as law, and accepted as being limited analogies that are rules of thumb in certain domains but exceptions can be expected.
Anything might happen, and with that, anything else may happen. Every quantum event excludes the possibility of all alternative actions thus reducing the previously possible relative futures while defining the new possible relative futures by its being in the construction of the system. While given complete information the probability is exactly one for what happened, and zero for all alternatives, but such knowledge is generally impossible, and given all the possibilities, all action is exceptional in its exclusion of all other possibilities. It is the exception to the law that defines the new law in science 2.0. Individual events are always in violation of laws based on the aggregation of many events on average. Our other analogies and theories are trumped by quantum kinetic collective electrodynamics or equivalently quantum logical action.
Being bound to no law except that the model account for all experiment means considering all possibilities. It is a holistic view accepting that emergent behaviors are not constrained to any law except the emergent collective conservation of information among communicating objects in the information ecology of our universe.
The quantum is alive, as our own being exemplifies, and the quantum being everything physical. Its nature is collective distinctions of state exhibiting action, momentum, time, space, energy, matter. Life is such a collective being and a participant in quantum systems. Yet quantum action is a secrete among the participants. The simple fact that an action is collective does not mean it is conscious in any meaningful way. According to experiment it takes six or more photons before a signal is sent to the brain. It is impossible for us to experiences the gazzilions of quantum events. Clearly our mins do not cause them.
Often the source of quantum action is not determinable and it must be considered to be random. Ultimately, it is not actually random and no information is lost absolutely such that it would be possible to resurrect it, but there is a higher possibility that a pot of water on a hot stove will freeze than, for example. us knowing what happened before the apparent big bang explosion of quantum information red shifted down to a single Plank action hbar of energy, or one binary discrimination of space time etc. As with all evolutionary systems, information dies when its incarnation becomes disassociates. While it never happens actually, as quantum entangelment are never broken, the is local information loss, entropy, as death is a necessary evil in evolutionary systems in general.
Any change in adjacent quantum state represents a collective photon exchange of exactly one Plank action hbar of energy, the size (wavelength) and age (period) of the apparent information universe. I don't know that it adds value to consider the quantum action alive, though it may be a product of life. It has ontological existence, and being, as it manifests the participants to each other. It is the participants that exhibit life collectively, not the quantum action itself.
This may seem to be a trite point, but as a scientist I ought not embellish quantum logical systems with any unnecessary properties. Objective information physics deals only with manifest quantum information. Given complete information quantum computation yields perfect integer results. Saying that such a quantum arrangement is alive is wrong from the standpoint of science in my view. It is perfect deterministic logic demonstrated to more than 24 decimal places and no error in quantum logic has been demonstrated. It is our notion of continuum, particles, waves, etc., that fails, never quantum logic yet.
But this radical scientific view does not build on the foundations of our philosophy. Quantum logic is more like eastern yin-yang logic and evolutionary logic, as quantum logic exhibits an evolutionary nature. Classical philosophy is good for handling simple logic. Even simple syllogisms are difficult for humans to understand correctly. Philosophical discourse only applies where the logic is trivial. The real clincher that makes logical rhetoric unsuitable for science is that anything can be proven with classical logic, but that does not mean it is manifest as being true actually.
The Scientific Method 2.0
Many people are turned off by the generational numbering of things and Science 2.0 appeal is subject to that. but what do we call such a renaissance where the scientific method itself is overturned and made anew? We move from cause and effect, to collective cause, from theory to models, from logical argument to trial and error.
The discipline of Science 2.0, is a method that must be practiced, not unlike meditation. I includes quantum, yin-yang thinking creating networks of objectively related contexts rather than islands of dubious understanding. Each of the set of relations applies with a probability approaching one, within its context of applicability, as the most common exceptional conditions have been identified, excluded from the context, and given their own context, connected at their intersection.
Science 1.0 has become all about statistical significance. Traditionally relations as low as 12% can be considered significant. Today, correlations of 5% and even 3% are considered significant even in studies recognized be Harvard for political reasons. Science ought to be about relationships that are 100% true. In Science 2.0 percent correlations not close to 100% are indications that we do not understand the system. We no longer will be allowed to say this causes that unless there is a direct corrolation. where there is a 3% or 5% correlation, we will usually consider that within experimental error. Even 10 to 50% only suggests the presents of an actual cause coincident with the test condition less than half the time. In Science 2.0 the correlations are still important in discerning the potential for related truth, but they no longer are in themselves considered to expose truth.
Quantum thinking means errors is a good thing. Errors can make us feel bad about ourselves. We especially don't like making error's on purpose or when we should have known better. But even death is a necessary evil. and somehow, in the end, our errors are often on the path to something greater for a reason that is often unknown. It is okay to make an error for many reasons. One is that random errors are needed to find exceptions. We never know when a bad thing may turn out to be a good thing. In the process of making relationships between contexts, determining that there is no relation may be as significant as determining that there is. In quantum thinking as in Christianity, our sins are forgiven. Making all possible mistakes is how we learn what is right in quantum logic. But quantum thinking is not entirely or predominantly random. We recognize and test relations finding related differences.
A great story in Feynman's "surely you must be joking" book, tells how Richard, as a child who made extra money fixing early two tube radios, was given an opportunity to fix a radio for a skeptical business proprietor. The radio worked fine for a minute, but then just made a terrible buzz. Richard paced and thought and thought. The owner could not understand why he was not taking the radio apart to find the problem and lost all confidence in him. But then the AHA moment came, Richard realized that the characteristics of the two tubes were different, and the first tube was overloading the second. He opened the radio, switched the two tubes, and the radio worked perfectly. The owner was thrilled and proclaimed to everyone that "he fixes radios by thinking."
While the two tubes were supposed to be identical, the reality is that no two macroscopic electronic components are identical. This would be clear to anyone who played with components regularly and learned by trial and error.
The Science 1.0 process of verifying a relation is preserved in identifying relations, except falsification by exceptions is expected, and multidimensional relations are constructed and tested.
Enumerating science 2.0 processes is a but daunting. Hopefully we can distill it into a simple process.
1. define the problem 1.1. identify potentially relevant contexts 1.2. enumerate and map the dimensions 1.3. identify success and failure criteria. 1.4 give deference to all verified available data without interpretation. 2. try all possible relations in all combination to the extent possible, challenging the common wisdom and finding its limits and connection with other paradigms. 3. find patterns and test the relation the discovered context with all other contexts. 4. identify the domain where each context applies or does not apply to a high probability. 5. identify levels of emergence
Damn that is a lot of work, but really, it is all number one, defining the problem, in quantum logic, we define the problem such that we are tuned to receive the answer.
It is a lot easier than it seems in some ways, because that is the way our intelligence works anyway, unconsciously mostly, but but at least a very good analog to how we really solve problems.
A neural network is also equivalent to an evolutionary or quantum logical system. It works by Science 2.0 cause-cause rather than Science 1,0 cause and effect. Effects are relative, not absolute.
While I clam we do this all the time, and we use this logic to solve real problems, it is not generally applied to Science itself. And things get complex fast, and while we get the right answer, doing number 2 is difficult, finding patterns. We get the right answers but have know clue why the answer is right. A neural network, evolutionary program, or quantum logical system give us the answer without telling us how it got the answer. We must study the systems doing diligence to 2, 3, 4, 5, after number one, defining the problem, has already revealed the answer we created by the fact that by that definition we were programmed to receive it by an unknown cause.
In the physical realm, tuning in means frequency and logical pattern. In semiconductors, for example, we supply a missing electron in the outer shell of atoms on one side of the junction and a full shell with an extra electron on the other side. The equation for the electron hole, is the equation of a positron, which is equal and opposite potentials to that of an electron. The only thing that happens in the quantum is equal and opposite potentials crossing and canceling, exhibiting change opposite to both potentials. This exhibits two perspectives of action-reaction. From the perspective of each potential, there is an action reaction delay of the period of the potential but a juxtaposed notion of which was cause and which was the effect, leading to a disagreement in time ordering of the distance over light speed.
The electron is defined by two right handed orthogonal potentials, the positron by two left handed potentials. This allow both entangled potentials to be canceled, and because they are logically entangled, you cannot cancel one without canceling the other. The pattern must match exactly opposite. This is the simplest case with just two dimensions, any arbitrary arrangement of potentials may be listened for by exhibiting the exact inverse structure. Patterns for any algorithm may be constructed by adding logical elements to the system to mirror the problem.
In the semiconductor, magically, the extra electrons on the side with extra electrons all migrate over to the side with missing electrons, canceling their opposite differences. A voltage is created across the junction without applying any energy.
But there is no magic to it, it is the only way anything works. All phenomenon may be accounted for by quantum action that behaves only in this way to dozens of decimal places at least. It accounts for all action light transmission and chemical bonding. It is why you receive the radio station you are tuned to. It is the foundation of all momentum transfers. It is a reverse causality where exhibiting a "listening", that exhibits the converse of what you want, thus causing what you want, if it is in the realm of possibilities. It is such that action reaction is a relative perception, and which is the action, and which is the reaction depends on perspective. There is no preferred perspective on an event, all events are collective action-action resulting in our relative experience of action reaction.
There is no truly reverse, or backward in time, causality. Instead
all action is both forward and reverse. No action is only forward or reverse.
Prayer is also a listening that may have an effect. But Science 2.0 is about what we can understand meaningfully. It is a long way from listening for an electron, to listening for a new Mercedes or peace on earth. It is a first step.
To use quantum thinking for real problems, we need to decide what we are listening for. This is akin to defining a goal in terms of success factors and failure factors. This foundation is needed for positive and negative feedback in neural networks or evolutionary systems, and criteria for filling in the missing information analyzing quantum systems based on measurement.
Our thinking is at very low frequencies, brain wave are less than 50 cycles a second, it is not the same quantum action we normally witness, as in is on different channels. While there are many chemical molecular channels at higher frequencies we are not aware of them by any direct evidence yet. As a first approximation, a neural network, is a pretty decent analog to how the brain works. It is a direct physical analogy, and it accounts for learning and pattern recognition, in a Science 2.0 cause-cause manner.
It seems we have the right sort of hardware for doing Science 2.0. So what is the problem? It goes back to our desire to have simple absolute answers. The idea that a statement must be true or false. In science 1.5 we have added the notion that perhaps it could be random. But in Science 2.0 we don't accept that anything can be random or without reason since there are no examples of that in experience where we have complete information. Truth values may be unknown, or even unknowable, in experience. But such undetermined truth is not manifest. When truth is manifest it may be manifest from more than one perspective, it may be both true and false in different contexts, but that is very different from being indeterminate.
When we review some scientific article, it is no longer a matter of is this right or is this wrong. While there can be totally bogus science based on made up results but there might still be a grain of truth in the article. The question, how is the logical context expressed in the article useful. Does it suggest something testable. Is there any context where it may suggest truth. It becomes an issue of placing the article in the relevant context, not making a judgment about its truth value. In quantum thinking, as in Zen and Christianity, we are led to withhold making judgments.
One example is a recent thread, "no more nukes or colliders", suggesting that we are going to blow up the world or universe by doing high energy experiments. To me this is ridiculous, but begs the issue of what energy it would take. In truth, if we could generate the Plank energy, I see no reason it would not instantly spawn an information explosion equivalent to the big bang. While nukes and colliders will not generate anything near the Plank energy, there is relevance to me in answering all the concerns of those who are concerned. To me their vision is true while their fear is unjustified for the present. Each article I read has to me an important point. There are two sides to the Science 2.0 coin, disagreement with everything, and agreement with everything. This is a radical change in the way we normally thing of things and a monumental task in organizing all the context we are presented with. Perhaps, before the information age, the dawning of Science 2.0 would have been impossible. The human mind is way to small to handle the task. In science 1.0 each new paradigm replaced the former in theory, but in actuality, each just has a different context of applicability and there is no right or wrong absolutely. Quantum logic has proven practical in mathematics determining the structure of the 248 dimension E8 structure and in financial risk mitigation in hedge funds. The combination of computers and quantum logic opens the doors for solving all the intractable problems of Science 1.0. But to take full advantage of this potential we have to change the way we think. We need to organize truth into the context where they are true, the contexts where they are false, and develop the synthesis of where they are both true and false. We must stop making absolute judgments of truth and falsehood.
To maintain our sanity in the realm of truth which is relative but not arbitrary, we need to impose a high degree of organization on what is known and how it is related to everything else that is known. While our brains do this task unconsciously, it cannot be expressed or shared effectively. To have a science that is a shared body of knowledge, such that knowledge can increase incrementally without entropy, it will need to be formalized and maintained as a shared computerized knowledge base. The genome project, and seti, represent models of simple collaborative knowledge building and the Semantic Web gives us a mechanism to support such an endeouvor.
Making a difference is what it is all about. X is different from Y, or X is distinct from Y, is the bit of information. All differences are yin-yang relative to perspective. X with respect to Y implies Y with respect to X. Differences in the quantum are only exhibited collectively by equal and opposite action without bias to cause and effect. In Science 1.0 they say that nothing happens unless it is measured. In Science 2.0 we say nothing is extant unless a difference is discriminated by an event collectively between participating equal and opposite elements of a quantum system. The metamathematics of distinctions actualized by collective action is the root of information nature and physical being. It is in answer to Wheeler's quandary, how we get IT from BIT.
We seek in our lives to make a positive difference, but do not succeed by our actions or intension, we succeed by how the world receives our actions in collective causality as in the quantum.
Jim "You cannot not ask the teacher what is taught, you must ask the student what is learned." - Jesus on reverse causality.
It occurs to me I included two ideas in this article without making the logical connections. "fixing radios by thinking" and brain frequencies were introduced as disconnected ideas, more or less.
This invokes to me the stereotypical male verses female logic. In this paradigm, the man asks a logical question with the presumption that there is a logical answer, and the female or Zen master replies with some disconnected fact that indirectly contradicts your presumption.
In the Socratic tradition we know nothing. And we can only make mistakes, because there is always a better answer. Everything we think is wrong!
But the really miraculous thing is, that at the same time, by a trick of time perspective, everything we think is correct! My dad taught me, later in my life, that everyone thinks logically. Damn, he is right again. We all think with amazingly perfect logic. Our error is to applying the logic in the wrong context. The logic itself is perfect. Even drain bramaged people like me, think perfectly.
Science is in our minds. The nature of our mind is relevant. Ours minds are wired differently, we think differently. But at the same time we can expect that any thought we have has been thought before, and is only repeated by us. We uniquely express a subset of the countable statements in finite constructable logic.
I can testify to both the logicalness and uniqueness of human individuals, but can only express the nature of my own brain. It may have nothing to do with how your brain operates. But we have learned a lot in science, not by study of the healthy brain, but largely by study of the bramaged drain. It is thus fitting that I expose my brain in our exploration of the nature of the observer in Science 2.0.
I discovered in meditation that we posses a consciousness at every frequency, the human brain is the union of the homosapian, at 30 cycles per second, monkey, at 20, rat at 12, lizard at 6, fish at 4, and worm at one. When we quiet the higher frequencies and become the worm, we have become the conscious beater of the heart, and can readily stop it and start it at will.
but this is normally the unconscious consciousness, only the controlling consciousness at the highest frequency is considered to be conscious, we think we are unconscious of all the other consciousness.
But, exceptionally, there are communications between different
consciousnesses, and any consciousness can be escalated in frequency to become the highest consciousness as most important. Whatever consciousness was the highest and only true consciousness not is forgotten, and becomes unconscious. The notion of which consciousness are conscious and unconscious changes as more important or intriguing consciousness assumes control in apparent exclusion of all else. The sequence of ruling consciousnesses we consider our train of thought, but retrospect is never consistent with for thought determining which consciousness was really the conscious consciousness at any particular time.
It is clear to me that this is how my brain works. To progress in understanding I must find how I am wrong. What are the related contexts of understanding and how are they related. My idea of how my mind works is not right or wrong, it is just perfect logic that I perceive as useful for myself, and without contradiction this far.
Theory is not science, experience is not determinable, science is deterministic.
On Nov 17, 2007 12:52 PM, Franklin Whitescarver wrote: > oops, my father's messages was lost, but recovered on the phone with him. His main points were that theory is not experimental science, and it is enough to know that there will be exceptions, as the human condition is success by luck, and there is no hope that it can be any other way. I concur on the first point, but not the second.
Bravo pop! Theory is a parable of the truth, not the truth itself. We have one model of measurement that works, and a thousand theories of why it is that way, all of them wrong, but perhaps useful. When asked why he spoke in parables, Jesus replied that the truth was beyond words. In science it is no different. We understand the system by some analogy that allows us to describe it. That analogy is not the truth itself. theory is not included in Science 2.0 except as made up stories consistent with the facts to some probability. The exceptions always prove the theory to be wrong. We can expert there to be exceptions as we observe exceptions without exception.
Knowing the half life of a particle is all Science 1.0 is concerned with. We are taught in school that atoms decay is random and happens spontaneously for no reason. At the same time we know a thousand things that would perturb the atom and cause its disintegration with a probability near one. A cosmic ray, or event a gamma ray for unstable atomic nuclei, or even a high enough energy undetectable neutrino. Presuming it can also happen spontaneously is silly. We can model atoms almost perfectly and see what sort of perturbation can result in disintegration, and test the result in the lab. So far matrix mechanics, Clifford or Lie algebras etc., are all batting 100.000000000000000000000000%.
It is true the future will always be unpredictable, but exceptions we should know about are those that happen often, and we can model possible causes and show which ones have analogy in the real world and which do not.
Science ought deal only with measurement and the model that best approximate measurement, the parables ought be deemed fantasies by Science, but the theory will continue to search well in the realm of human philosophy from which Science 2.0 will depart. Probabilities are not the actual influences in a system, and while the task of accounting for every exception is daunting, the new Logic 2.0 gets good answers to intractable problems.
The human reality is probabilistic, we are all lucky to be alive having fragile bodies on a dangerous planet. We are all idiots because everything we think is wrong and we are all savants because we think with perfect logic and share the same Blakian inner genius. Science 2.0 is not about the subjective human reality, it is about the physical reality and objective reality with no preferred participants.
It exhibits Objectivity 2.0.
Indeed, my dad is a great sage, but those are my words. It is not so much about cyclic orbs necessarily, but constructable system relationships in general.
My dad hates to admit it, but his strong tendency is to give the converse point of view no matter which position you take. This has reinforced in me the Socratic notion that we do not know what we think we know and that truth has a relative nature depending on logical context.
He has become a believer in the deterministic quantum and advocate of the notion that human thought is perfectly logical. But on reading Nassim Nicholas's "the black swan" and "fooled by randomness", he expressed Nassim's converse notion that emotions not logic rule human decision processes and thus human logic is inherently flawed and non deterministic.
Clearly there is usefulness in both perspectives and neither is really right or wrong absolutely, but each has a distinct context of applicability. The fact that we don't have and will never have enough information to determine the future makes the experience model not determinable without contracting its intrinsic determinism.
I question however that it is valid to separate emotion from reason in human decision processes. We indeed have studied abnormalities where emotion or reason is blocked do to brain damage. But when emotion is blocked, the human is incapable of making decisions and cannot even tie their shoes because they are unable to make the decisions involved. The possibility of the rational being that Nassam suggests we are not, is not in the realm of possibilities. In the biochemical mind the notion of emotion and reason are not separable such that there could be a rational being as he suggests.
"Passion and reason are the sails and rudder of the seafaring soul, without either, one can but drift aimlessly" - Kahlil Gabran
If we approximate the brain as a neural network, the behavior is the result of positive feedback, or maximum perceived reward. The action of the network is logical and correct based on the training of the network and how it is connected. But to know why the answer is correct, requires intensive study of all the network nodes and the reinforcement or damping effects on the response. It is not a rational of logical process in the sense Nassam envisions but it is also not a random or faulty logic process.
The emotions, in my view, are how we perceive the feedback resulting from the pattern recognition performed by our neural network and other bio mechanical components of our logical machinery. We get answers but only rationalize them after the fact. The answer are deterministic logic intrinsically, from the information it is based on, but may or may not apply to the real world context where they are applied.
From the Science 2.0 perspective there must be real example of Nassim's "rational being without emotion" that makes good decisions. While a neural network may be considered such a model, we cannot distinguish the non-lineal behavior of neural networks from emotional responses, and such a network does not exhibit the logical deduction implied by Nassim's hypothetical rational being unswayed by emotion. Such a being is a fantasy, in my view simply because it is based on Logic 1.0 which is known to be incomplete and get wrong answers.
With some encouragement from several people here, I have expounded ad nausium on the notion of Science 2.0 but without much feedback yet. This leads me to speculate that the world may not be ready for Science 2.0 in this melenium. Please share your thoughts in the discussion tab.
there is symmetry because there is diverse collective equal and opposite action.
Potentiality, not invoked is non existence. Until a potential action is taken, there is only inaction. Decoherence tells us what might exist, coherence is what does exist, equal and opposite action of potentials.
Diversity is a measure of the health of an evolutionary system. Extreme diversity is all possibilities where the greatest does not dominate, but nurtures instead, being the master cultivator.
Quantum effects are not constrained to the electromagnetic. All logical systems are manifest to some complexity. All together complexity is compounded. Those that conserve information, and exhibit growth are manifest and include the atoms, the stars and ourselves.
There is symmetry because only equal and opposite potentials are created or destroyed, only relation is manifest and all that exists.
Entanglement is the truth of whether independent state is exhibited
or not and in which twist of dimension segment instantiated by the discrimination of that truth. By the simple logic of the truth of independent state, all logical systems emerge, exhibiting complexity and diversity.
Whatever notion of existence may exists in our philosophy, only the manifest is part of Science 2.0 foundation for Philosophy 2.0.
Information nature is meme nature rooted in thermodynamic action.
Memes and memplexes are at the junction of physical thermodynamical information and extant abstract information, dependent of the physical, but not dependent on any particular identity in the physical as it is represented redundantly.
Memes, in my view, are what we call extant redundant information. Our classical experience of reality is composed of such information. Memes exhibit the behavior of all prions in exhibiting a whole that is the collective being of a system of actualized memes.
While abstract information is not bound to the first three laws of thermodynamics, they are bound to the forth, the Onsager reciprocal relations. It is this fact that binds existence of the abstract to the physical and the physical to the abstract relationally, in a statistical relationship (experience model) that is no less deterministic.
The meme has no reality except as a component of the greater whole it expresses. Its survival is tied to the survival of the whole information ecology it thrives in, not its selfish interest alone. A meme is just an quantum logical arrangement having a distributed identity. It is repetitive instantiating its existence persistently over time without singular manifestation. However, in this extreme view, all human experience is meme based, not just "memory objects" that are in the mind. Even electrons are no more than a probability that the potentials of an electron will be exhibited near by. The probability is a memory object, not a physical thing. I do not see any fundamental distinction between the ordinary interpretation of what a meme is and my extended interpretation that includes notions like particles and waves. They exist because they repeat. Repetition is memory. It is an abstract existence because it has no singular incarnation. Such is most all of what we experience in the physical as well as the imaginary. While physical experience is abstract, it is not imaginary. Neither are any expressed memes imaginary.
When we look at the ghostly and relative nature of an electron and find no absolute identity in the quantum system we see the limitations of the notion of the electron and exceptions to that notion. For this reason, Heisenberg considered the electron imaginary. But the reality of electrons is undeniable, as Einstein protested, most all that we experience may be accounted for by electron interaction, exhibiting most all the energy of our experience including light and the seeming solidness of matter that is mostly empty space. It is just not an object in any absolute physical sense. It is a pattern that emerges frequently in the propagation of potential interactions interpreted as an electron in reference frames where the potentials of an electron are exhibited.
Given what may be actualized, by non commutative relative nonlocal (bilocal) joint logical action relation, what is, in my view, is most certainly far beyond our imagination. In the early preon universe the manufacturing of atoms in stars and all else that has emerged could not be simply deduced. What we see is amazing. We can be certain that what we do not see is even more amazing. Diversity indicates the health of such systems, with organization on every conceivable channel of information where organization is possible beyond our wildest dreams.
In my view, a major challenge of Science 2.0 is to distinguish the absolute action of the quantum from the emergent reality of the redundant statistical memes of the experiential reality, which though unpredictable, is not without cause, and in fact has multiple causes in Science 2.0 where they fallacy of Science 1.0 cause and effect is acknowledged and objectively related multiple causes are explored, exposing the trick behind logical quantum and evolutionary magic that fails to obey Logic 1.0.