A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum (http://forum.wolframscience.com/index.php)
- NKS Way of Thinking (http://forum.wolframscience.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=5)
-- NKS one factor in upcoming scientific revolution (http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?threadid=1484)

NKS one factor in upcoming scientific revolution

The future holds for us a scientific revolution on the discovery that a wide variety of ideas such as Leibniz's Monadology can finally be described mathematically as a result of combining the new technologies and sciences of computing, artificial intelligence, neurology, and quantum mechanics.

It is customary in science to provide evidence for such a bold claim.

exhibit a.

to find quantum gravity, physicists have invented hidden dimensions and branes of reality parallel to our own as homes for the gravitational waves or graviton particles predicted by general relativity or the standard model of particle physics that have never been detected.

exhibit b.

the neurophysicist John Smythies has suggested there is a physical brane and a phenomenal brane.

It follows from exhibit a that mainstream physics research is already looking at the inclusion of worlds beyond our own in its theories.

And from exhibit b there is discussion of how consciousness works with these worlds.

If the conversation has started, as much as I may seem to be an unlikely contributor, I would like to make a suggestion:

In the future, perhaps soon, a computer model of a world will be built that contains an artificial intelligence based on neurology.

To me it seems that encoded within the neural network of the artificial intelligence is a set of data of a new and different nature than the actual data of the computer program.

If that were true, it also seems to me that the mind is the gate between the absolute and relative natures of reality, which confirms the philosophies held by Newton, Einstein, Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes, Kant, Plato, Zeno, Confuscious, the Buddha, Lau Tzu, Abraham, Isaiah, Jesus, Muhummed, and countless other philosophers and prophets.

Point by point

"The future holds for us a scientific revolution on the discovery that a wide variety of ideas such as Leibniz's Monadology can finally be described mathematically as a result of combining the new technologies and sciences of computing, artificial intelligence, neurology, and quantum mechanics."

Misuse of the term neurology which happens to be study of brain disorders. It is in fact its own area of formal research and has nothing directly to do with AI or anything like what you are speaking of. Though granted math and new advances in science may be applied to it.

Neurology does not equal neuroscience

"exhibit a.

to find quantum gravity, physicists have invented hidden dimensions and branes of reality parallel to our own as homes for the gravitational waves or graviton particles predicted by general relativity or the standard model of particle physics that have never been detected."

How is this evidence of what you stated earlier, this is string theory 101 with some mistakes in it

"exhibit b.

the neurophysicist John Smythies has suggested there is a physical brane and a phenomenal brane."

Thats nice but has yet to be prove just like the idea of branes have yet to be proven.

"It follows from exhibit a that mainstream physics research is already looking at the inclusion of worlds beyond our own in its theories."

This is a revelation, people having been doing this for years. I prescribe string theory, many worlds theory...

"And from exhibit b there is discussion of how consciousness works with these worlds."

Red haring leads nowhere consciousness and branes have little to nothing to do with each other. Unless you are trying to connect them, in which case some formal work needs to be done.

"In the future, perhaps soon, a computer model of a world will be built that contains an artificial intelligence based on neurology."

Nobody will ever build a computer based AI based on neurology, at least not based on what you think neurology means.

"To me it seems that encoded within the neural network of the artificial intelligence is a set of data of a new and different nature than the actual data of the computer program."

The story of every program new data is created through the use of the application no surprise here.

"If that were true, it also seems to me that the mind is the gate between the absolute and relative natures of reality, which confirms the philosophies held by Newton, Einstein, Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes, Kant, Plato, Zeno, Confuscious, the Buddha, Lau Tzu, Abraham, Isaiah, Jesus, Muhummed, and countless other philosophers and prophets."

This follows how A is not equal to B. I am compelled to ask what does this have to do with NKS?

Thanks

Re: Point by point

Misuse of the term neurology which happens to be study of brain disorders. It is in fact its own area of formal research and has nothing directly to do with AI or anything like what you are speaking of. Though granted math and new advances in science may be applied to it.

Neurology does not equal neuroscience

"To me it seems that encoded within the neural network of the artificial intelligence is a set of data of a new and different nature than the actual data of the computer program."

The story of every program new data is created through the use of the application no surprise here.

Ok fine, what's your deeper meaning?

Thanks

"To me it seems that encoded within the neural network of the artificial intelligence is a set of data of a new and different nature than the actual data of the computer program."


This is a very abstract concept.

The idea is to use one computer program, so that we have initial conditions and rules.

That computer program represents one set of data.

The abstract part is that the one set of data has A.I. in it based on neural networks.

This AI can make observations of its world.

Meaning, the neural network has a whole other set of data encoded within it.

The encoded data is what the AI has observed about its world.

So the deeper meaning is:

1. a single set of data in a computer program

2. yet through AI is able to produce a different set of data of a different nature

Do you understand the two sets of data and how they are different?

Still not a new idea what you have here is a video game that does not need a user and is oriented towards science.

Sorry but you can't make this idea seem new, no matter how convinced you are of its newness it just isn't.

Neural Network and AI are not the same as you seem to think "Meaning, the neural network has a whole other set of data encoded within it."
A neural net can be used in AI applications but is by no means the same thing as.

"1. a single set of data in a computer program

2. yet through AI is able to produce a different set of data of a different nature"

Yes and as I said before even an application like Microsoft Office does this applications that use AI do this, applications that try to assists the user do this. Truly not new.

"Do you understand the two sets of data and how they are different?"

Yes and its still not new and won't be no matter how you phrase it.

Originally posted by tomjones
"1. a single set of data in a computer program

2. yet through AI is able to produce a different set of data of a different nature"

Yes and as I said before even an application like Microsoft Office does this applications that use AI do this, applications that try to assists the user do this. Truly not new.

"Do you understand the two sets of data and how they are different?"

Yes and its still not new and won't be no matter how you phrase it. [/B]

"How are the two sets of data different in nature?"

So here's how it works simply, you write your program it has one set of data, within the program you write an AI code that has its own data set (a subset or not of the programs data set) that is defined within your AI. The AI operates with its data one the rest of the programs data set.

Or you can have your computer program that runs on one data set and then write an AI program that works on that data set this is a video game minus user input, the data contained in the AI is different from the rest of the data.

There you go...

The issue here is you are convinced of the newness of your idea but its not new you just are very sure that it is. Well its not and it won't be.

So now your assignment for the day if you wish to become knowledgeable enough to have an intelligent conversation, go and read some books philosophy, computer programming, AI, physics, mathematics and then come back and when you have some real knowledge about the topics you speak about.

Thanks

Originally posted by tomjones
[B]"How are the two sets of data different in nature?"

So here's how it works simply, you write your program it has one set of data, within the program you write an AI code that has its own data set (a subset or not of the programs data set) that is defined within your AI. The AI operates with its data one the rest of the programs data set.

Why you think they can be in the same memory?

IFF when you speak of computers you speak of current computers and you classify RAM as on memory and so on then sure they can be in the same memory. If your specific then no since only one word can be store per register at a time for the most part and each bit has its own location.

But this conversation is getting away from NKS, you can make up any program you want with AI anywhere you want, but your idea will not work in current computing since AI is not this abstract thing that can just be put in data...

But I fail to see how this relates to NKS... if you want to know how current computers work read a book...

Thanks

Originally posted by tomjones
Why you think they can be in the same memory?

Store them any way you want...

make the AI hardware and have it act on memory, or make it all software where the action happens in the processor and all the data to be processed is in RAM, I don't really care how you do it...

I have no idea what the point you're trying to get to is...

Thanks

Originally posted by tomjones
Store them any way you want...

make the AI hardware and have it act on memory, or make it all software where the action happens in the processor and all the data to be processed is in RAM, I don't really care how you do it...

I have no idea what the point you're trying to get to is...

Thanks

"That's not acceptable because my idea says the two data sets have to be of uniquely different natures."

What do you think that means?

It is what we call philosophical babble...

Not to mention a false conclusion since just because the idea calls for one thing does not make solution necessarily wrong if it does not completely agree with the idea, since the idea may be wrong in part or whole.

Originally posted by tomjones
"That's not acceptable because my idea says the two data sets have to be of uniquely different natures."

What do you think that means?

"To a common mind it means nothing.

To someone like Plato it is a fundamental truth of reality.

Your cocky attitude might make you feel alpha and powerful, but it won't help you grow.

"Mastering others is strength, mastering yourself is true power."'

Here Mike I am going to give you what you want, I think your ideas are very unique and special. They are special and unique in there myopic view of the topics they discuss. They are special in there own special form of blindness to prior work of others.

I realize that for someone like you who lives in there own mind it is difficult to grasp that there are things going on outside but its something you will have to come to grips with.

I also know you think that the problem is on my end that if only I would look at these things with an open mind I would realize just how great your ideas are and everyone would flock to agree and tell you how smart you are.

Well sorry to say that's just a fantasy a fantasy that is completely irrelevant to NKS.

You seem to be confusing you very limited and out of context knowledge of philosophy as real philosophy. You seem to think that by philosophizing on a science forum you'll convince people that your philosophies are science.

Not going to happen philosophy does not equal science. What constituted science in Plato's time does not hold today.

It is true that there are some people out there who have very good natural intuitions when it comes to science, but these people back it up by learning science. You on the other hand do not, and you fail to back you poor intuitions with even the semblance of knowledge.

As to me being cocky, it would be true if you were right. But thankfully you're not, and whether I feel superior to you or not is irrelevant, its not worth you getting beat in a serious contest of intellects. Do I feel alpha and powerful, not really these trivial conversations do nothing for me besides providing some mild amusement.

So are you ready to have a serious educated discussion now that you have gotten this foolishness out of your system or do intend to continue doing damage to your own character online?

Well that was fun I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I did writing it, but either way if you have any other ideas which you wish me not to take seriously I will only be to happy to help you out, on the other hand if you want help with understanding science I would be happy to suggest some reading materials for you.

Now if you'll excuse me I have serious work to do today including working on my PhD that I may complete it by the age of 24.

Originally posted by tomjones
What constituted science in Plato's time does not hold today.

Since your still willing to damage your own character on this forum allow me to help you out...

How does NKS make your old philosophical ideas more relevant as science? What part of NKS makes you think that?

Prove this:
"My specific notion goes beyond Bohmian mechanics or brane mechanics because it hinges on two data sets of different mathematical natures, one occuring as a result of the other."

Originally posted by tomjones
Since your still willing to damage your own character on this forum allow me to help you out...

How does NKS make your old philosophical ideas more relevant as science? What part of NKS makes you think that?

Prove this:
"My specific notion goes beyond Bohmian mechanics or brane mechanics because it hinges on two data sets of different mathematical natures, one occuring as a result of the other."

Absolute, mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external,

relative time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion

"My friend, if I could prove it, it would not be a speculative conjecture, as I admitted it was."

Well there is your assignment figure out how to prove it, and stop damaging your character online and get to work learning this stuff you so dearly love to speculate about...

There are phases of the scientific method that require imaginative conjectures.

Recognizing that does not damage ones character.

"There are phases of the scientific method that require imaginative conjectures.

Recognizing that does not damage ones character."

Incomplete: your phrase is only true if that imaginative conjecture is tempered with real knowledge of the area one is conjecturing about. In your case its not and thus your conjectures are just flights of fantasy. Thus you damage your own character by foisting your fantasies on others and when told to learn something about what you speak, you continue to play the role of a crank, exhibiting nothing but ignorance of the prior work of others, myopia in you scientific and philosophical views, logical inconsistencies, and general unwillingness to learn anything that you did not make up.

Thus you play the role of crank philosopher and crank scientist.

Now you may ask why I continue the conversation with you, simple because I find it both humorous and offensive being to a large extent self taught in science that you would treat science with such disregard and continue to speak of thing you know nothing of.

Thanks

Thanks Tom Jones.

You take empiricist philosophy as absolute fact and then rail against philosophy.

Cute.

Is there any adult here that wishes to discuss these things?

When you know what empiricist philosophy is we'll have something to discuss, i can't help the fact that my post went over your head.

To claim I am childish or not an adult because you just want to imagine and conjecture without knowledge, I don't really care. Have fun...nobody with a serious intellect and who wishes to do science does this... but then again you don't possess an intellect and you don't do science, so I guess it works out...

Knowledge is conjectural.

Einstein said something like:

"Observation doesn't give us a theory.
The theory tells us what we observe."

Not many people can figure that out.

Ok no more, this conversation is a waste of time, you want waste your time conjecturing without informing yourself at any point during the process fine, but stop wasting my time. Find someone who cares and who is not just stringing you along for the sake of stringing you along. I have not take you seriously yet and will never, so I've had my fun at your expense you have told me your ideas, don't care about them, so go and find someone who does... Unless you want to be the subject of a paper on statistical improbabilities being one of the few people who's ideas actually never get better as they get older, who continue at some fetal stage of understanding and then never develop further.

slow and slow

You guys got way off topic, I'm still trying to grasp this idea of the two differnt data sets and it is hard when dealing with these other more personal issues.

Instead of wasting time flowing through these emotionally cued constructs of language let us instead try to grasp this idea of the two data sets.
Perhaps further attempts at defining it will lead to further errors and confusion, but in the end at least the original author might have a slight chance at least to grasp more certainly their own idea within their own world of meaning and structure, no matter the degree of it's irrationality or self obsession.

Two differnt data sets..
Please, go back to this and try to describe what this is.

__________________
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.

I refer you to this entire thread, and ask do you really care about the question you ask?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....9773a9963779b42

The only thing one can do with someone like Helland is sit back enjoy the show while giving him some encouragement to continue being the class clown.

Mike is a crank philosopher not a scientist he believes that conjecturing without knowledge and posting it is valuable, unless you want to have fun I suggest not wasting the time, asking about any part of this thread.

As to emotionally charged maybe on his end but as for me I was enjoying parts of the word play without ever taking the content to seriously.

My paper follows the scientific method.

You should try to read it with an objective attitude.

Following scientific method does not equal science. I read your paper with an objective attitude and this is what you get. I am sorry I can't dumb myself down enough to find what you say to be even moderately intelligent, not even a single spark of amoeba like intellect to be found.

Any other worthless comments you'd like to send my way I would be only to happy to address with equal candor.

I would like to make a suggestion for your consideration: why don't you purchase a bell, and every time you are tempted to post, tell or write down one of your foolish ideas about science, philosophy or anything intellectual ring the bell and then pretend that the ringing of the bell is what ever you were going to do with the idea. So learn to associate the bell ringing with your idea being expressed. As I see it this would have two benefits: first it would give you a way to express your self without offending anyone of moderate intellectual capability. Second it would prevent you from suffering the derision that you suffer on every forum you post on.
But you never learn, this way you can continue to be a crackpot and nobody has to hear about it. Then at some point maybe when you have rung the bell enough times, you'll think to yourself this is dumb why don't I learn about this stuff that I was ignorantly posting on. Then maybe many years from now the light will shine and you will see how foolish your current ideas are, and make amends by educating your self.
I feel I should demand monetary compensation for reading this stuff I believe the going rate is about $120/hr, but we will forgo this if you manage to stop being a crackpot and start being the best amoeba you can be.

Thanks

Originally posted by tomjones
Following scientific method does not equal science.

Hmmmm... very interesting...

All the scientific method is, is a formal method for doing science it in and of itself in no way defines something as being science.

For example you say your paper follows the scientific method. Well lets see:
You conjecture profusely, so we can call those weak hypothesizes.
You don't really make a predication you more waffle about in philosophical vagaries, getting stuck in well understood snares...
You don't really test anything to be honest, or the tests are completely inadequate to support any conclusions. So poor tests
Then you fail to affirm anything, your primary excuse being that more work is needed.

To be honest Mike you are at best a fiction writer who thinks that all science is, whatever you imagine. Lest you think you should take up fiction writing, you are poor fiction writer at that.

So you follow the scientific method? No not so much.

In fact the scientific method was originally developed as a tool for searching for truth, it is used in science as a formal way to make progress in science, but it is by no means equal to science. Science has adopted it since much of science is building models of nature. It is an attempt to define a method that distinguishes good from bad science. Just like reading a book on how to drive a car is not the same as driving a car, the dichotomy between theory and praxis.

So all in all Mike you have much to learn my poor, pathetic, waffling, imaginative, crank, class clown.

You like that? I thought it was pretty good...

Thanks

I offer a hypothesis that is weak and flawed because it doesn't exhibit the type of complexity I was looking for.

I think with more research it could be found, and that looking for it would be a scientific endeavor.

Why are you so sure it can't be found?

I never said it couldn't be found...

"In the future, perhaps soon, a computer model of a world will be built that contains an artificial intelligence based on neurology.

To me it seems that encoded within the neural network of the artificial intelligence is a set of data of a new and different nature than the actual data of the computer program."

This is not a scientific hypothesis, this is a prediction of future technology, this is something a futurist would say. Assuming straight facts and real knowledge based prediction.

Complexity has nothing to do with a good or worthwhile hypothesis.

Your "hypothesis" is not some prediction made about nature or understanding nature it is a prediction about technology used to understand nature.

Not to mention the fact that you mix philosophy in there that somehow your correct by proving someone's philosophy. Not in science, in science you are correct by showing some hypothesis accurately models some aspect of nature.

John Smythies: Space, Time and Consciousness, if this is the paper you read (good for you reading something you didn't write) but this is hardly mainstream and is considered by some to be pseudo-science due to the lack of testable predictions. Not to mention the concept of consciousness and space-time link has never been proven and is still a matter of debate of which there are good arguments on both sides. I personally think this paper is garbage, but that is my personal opinion which is based on things I won't get into now.
Further more the idea of more then 4 dimensions has been considered by some to be ridiculous due to what some would say is being the rapid collapse of the extra dimensions.
I think the paper is a mix of two unproven theories both of which make predictions which I am not convinced are testable. String theory and its underlying concept of strings (which doesn't seem to be provable), and this idea of consciousness which does not seem to make testable predictions.


Thanks

Originally posted by tomjones
I never said it couldn't be found...

"In the future, perhaps soon, a computer model of a world will be built that contains an artificial intelligence based on neurology.

To me it seems that encoded within the neural network of the artificial intelligence is a set of data of a new and different nature than the actual data of the computer program."

This is not a scientific hypothesis, this is a prediction of future technology, this is something a futurist would say. Assuming straight facts and real knowledge based prediction.

Here is a paper that explains these ideas in more detail:

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

It prefers the general outlook of Leibniz over Newton, so I think it is of great interest to NKS and the possibility for a truly alternate approach to physics.

Mike I must confess you almost had me suckered in, I for a moment thought that you were restating well known philosophy and some questionable digital philosophy with an all time low record of errors, but then I saw figure a. This is the same theory you have been preaching for years, and its not getting any fresher or righter.

I think this sentence summarizes the problem:
"This computer world doesn't have to be, nor should it be, perfectly compatible with the laws of physics as we know them."

Hahahahaha... what in the world is that supposed to be? Let me use an example to show what I mean, I am going to build a house, but the foundation isn't going to be completely solid, oops my house fell down why?

Oh and I like this excerpt:
"A more refined computer world may exhibit complexity that somewhat resembles nuclei and atoms, and then even molecules and cells. In fact, a rather advanced computer world could display complexity that resembles a neural network thereby creating a new virtual resource for information to reside. "

What is this supposed to mean? First off this is not how a computer works, second do you even know what a neural network is? There is a formal definition it doesn't just mean whatever you want it to mean, like a brain like thing.

"Put another way, what is required here is that the complexity that results from the initial conditions and rules contains something that is aware of its environment. That observer will most likely exhibit complexity that we recognize as artificial intelligence operating on a neural network."

Hmmm... let me see here, so you have a program that generates AI, why? Why not just put an AI observer in the system and allow them to observe the system? Why even go to all this trouble, there is already a well defined set of theories about putting an observer in a model. I recommend you learn about them.

"In step 3, just as in information science, we determine the criteria for success. A successful hypothesis is one where the second set of information matches the observations and experimental results of our own world.

I said in step 1 that the computer world, the first set of information, doesn't have to match our world exactly. But in step 3 the second set of information does have to match. "

This has got to be the most backwards thing I have ever seen, you go about blindly guessing and flopping about and hope you get the right result. So you make your model then observe what your trying to model.
To show you how silly, and what a waste this is, consider this example: imagine you are going to paint some person that you hire to pose for you (whom you never seen) or whatever. You then instead of painting the person you paint a person from your imagination and then compare and see what matches in the hopes they are the same. If you think this is rational, then you are beyond hope, and you should abandon intellectual endeavor altogether.

I'm sorry mike the scientific method they give you in high-school or grade school science, would do you good. You are missing steps. You have not stepped through to your conclusion. You have essentially stated the same things you always say, having spent all this time and having learned nothing at all. Congratulations you have just further proved that you are indeed the worst scientist and philosopher yet.

A crank and clown, a con-artist, a minister of misinformation and propaganda. Please Mike shower us with more of your frivolous ideas that we may continue to laugh at you.

Thanks

Originally posted by tomjones


Oh and I like this excerpt:
"A more refined computer world may exhibit complexity that somewhat resembles nuclei and atoms, and then even molecules and cells. In fact, a rather advanced computer world could display complexity that resembles a neural network thereby creating a new virtual resource for information to reside. "

What is this supposed to mean?

Mike I save the term understanding for those things that have some intelligence (not your stuff). Don't worry for you to go over my head would involve us being on the same plane of intelligence. Well, were not, I reply to this stuff you post for amusement and to see just how dense you are.

I honestly don't care what you think I know that you'll never learn anything, and certainly you'll never publish due to the lack of logical, or intelligent thoughts.

For these and other reasons many choose not to respond to you. Think about it this way, you like to make stuff up, without ever learning anything, misuse terminology you don't understand, and then are offended by the fact that people think you are a crackpot. Or maybe you think everyone else is silly, who knows, I'm not apparently dense enough to make the connection with you.

I mean who knows what level I would have to descend to, for your ideas to make sense.

And thanks for misquoting me... not to mention your argument was still reduced to rubble by my ad absurdum attacks.

Not to mention you may have missed the question, where I asked what does that ridiculous statement mean? But I guess such simple things go over your head.

Whether that is the center or not, is irrelavent, your argument is still false, two wrongs and a right don't make a right. -1+(-1)+1 does not equal a positive number.

"A more refined computer world may exhibit complexity that somewhat resembles nuclei and atoms, and then even molecules and cells. In fact, a rather advanced computer world could display complexity that resembles a neural network thereby creating a new virtual resource for information to reside. "

I'm sorry mike for telling you that your wrong, and I am equally sorry that you can't see it. So I am going to be be nice for a moment.
A neural net is not a storage medium, its a mathematical model of biological neural nets and no matter how you use it its still doesn't serve the function you want. If you read my argument you will see how your argument fails.

You can build this rickety argument as many times as you want its still going to fall down. So now is there any other material that you want me to look at.

Oh yes and I missed a previous post of yours where you talked about:
"It is not a scientific hypothesis.

It is a step toward developing an entirely new class of scientific hypotheses.

While academics are allergic to that kind of statement, explorers are addicted to it."

Well you're right about the first point... good job...

Second point you don't know enough to develop a new scientific hypothesis, not understanding science or the words used. So no your playing, much as a child pretends to be something they're not, accept most people get past that, not you obviously.

Third the only person who is addicted to this is you because your the only person dense enough to think what your doing is worth call exploration. If you had any idea of what it takes to do science, you wouldn't make another post for in your case the next 10 years. But you don't so I'm sure you'll post a response to this.

Of course in this response you'll leave out all the chunks you can't deal with and focus on some offending comment that I made and go off thinking your the man. Well Mike you are in your world and only in your world.

But do respond please,... continue to make yourself the laughing stock of the internet with you name attached to all of this... cheers... or bottoms up...


Thanks

You are an interesting individual and I'm glad that you're posting here.

You seem to put many sentences into your responses, and I apologize if I've insulted you by selectively responding to parts of the conversation that I felt would be most relevant to us having a productive discussion.

You ask, to what level must I descend to understand my ideas?

I would say Leibniz.

If you could dive below your Newtonian intuition, and try to work out some new intuition based on Leibniz, or Greek Monism, that would be appropriate.

Of course, without backing up, you can only extend (or stay still I suppose).

Will Newton's basic foundations be able to extend forever.

Maybe.

Should they?

Hey whatever makes you happy if this qualifies as a discussion...

You have yet to answer my ad absurdem arguments, counter a single point i have made...

(and your inability to recognize sarcasm when it slaps you in the face scares me)


Leibniz eh, so I take it then you have a firm grasp of calculus, and by extension the math you would need to know, to claim that you are going anywhere in science especially beyond.

"If you could dive below your Newtonian intuition, and try to work out some new intuition based on Leibniz, or Greek Monism, that would be appropriate."

I can go beyond Newton without that thanks, its called Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

I am not nor have ever claimed to be firm believer in current methods, I am just a firm believer that you don't know enough about science to do what you claim.

And as I have said before philosophy is not equal to science... related not the same so this discussion has yet to touch science or for that matter philosophy.

Thanks

Originally posted by tomjones
I can go beyond Newton without that thanks, its called Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

"Einstein's theory is a modification and extension of Newton's laws of motion and gravity."

It is a unification of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, the idea of gravitational acceleration and its relation to the curve of space time, and Special Relativity. If you look at the math the understanding is really going beyond Newton's. Hence going beyond due to increased understanding whether modification or not.
But of course you have already mastered the advanced math needed to understand the Einstein Field Equations and the other formulas that go into GR.
For example I am sure you are familiar with Potential Theory, and Calculus of Variations, multivariable Calculus...

"What I was suggesting was not going farther with Newton's approach, but backing all the way up and following Leibniz's approach."

Neither did I... to the second why bother? I can get new places without ever doing that. I reformulate mathematics and go way beyond Leibniz.

"It's significantly different, and while rarely understood, widely documented to lead to many of the same conclusions of relativity and quantum mechanics."

Please cite your sources. Books, scholarly journals (no wikipedia) Oh and mathematical derivation would be nice. I eagerly await it, even though I know you'll fail to provide it.

Thanks

There has never been a mathematical derivation of Monadology, but I'm suggesting a multi-disciplinary research team could develop one following the three difficult steps described by my paper.

"There has never been a mathematical derivation of Monadology, but I'm suggesting a multi-disciplinary research team could develop one following the three difficult steps described by my paper."

So let's see here, you didn't cite your sources as asked, so I assume its all wikipedia and thus only around 70-80% accurate overall.

The three difficult steps in your paper have already been shown to be ridiculously inefficient, not only that but backwards. Read my posts.... I know its a lot to read... but I think you may with great difficulty manage.

No team is ever going to bother with this dreck, these dregs of ideas, this foul sludge that you call a theory. Its wrong you have been told that shown that, and yet as a fool would do you continue to think it.

Indeed the crackpot the antithesis to all science lives and is well and his name is Mike Helland...

Enjoy

I never called it a theory.

I called it an inventive approach to making a hypothesis that combines information science and neuroscience to derive the complexity of a quantum and relativistic world.

Mike your reaching now:
"I never called it a theory."
Is this the best you can do? Well we know the answer it is, you simply have failed to answer any of my arguments and now are reaching for any feeble statement to cling to, that may you think somehow discredit me. Sorry Mike your wrong theory or no theory.

"I called it an inventive approach to making a hypothesis that combines information science and neuroscience to derive the complexity of a quantum and relativistic world."

And yet it is still wrong and still lousy. And by the way the atomic/ quantum world is in way dependent on our minds. In fact our brains are built of atoms and thus atoms then brain so combining information theory and neuroscience (wrong term) gets you AI and other such things not QM or GR.

Mike find yourself a new idea... this is one dead horse that love to beat. But its dead Mike I'm sure you'll recover even as small a mind as your can recover.

Thanks

I'm not alone. Robert Lanza has been talking about a bio-centric view of the universe.

The idea here is all physical matter is an invention of the mind, whether it is a single electron or atom or an entire brain.

The mind is made of "metaphysical" matter. Something Leibniz would call monads.

That might be too speculative for most people.

But these are the ideas that inspired the creation of science in the first place.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Mike your never failing ability to think about something and come to the wrong conclusion is quite astonishing.

I am seeing clear picture of Mike Helland, you read that which agrees with you only, and it must be wikipedia since books are too difficult.

I know your idea and its not science its speculation unproven and considered by many to be fallacious.

Speculative, ok, Mike's speculative, what am I supposed to do with that.

You don't know you head from your elbow in science, why should anyone give your speculations any value whatsoever?

Anyways mike you change your tune every-time the wind blows, then as soon as the wind stops you back to you normal con-artist routine. The only reason you always think you are right is because you change your ideas around or ignore large swaths, or all of your opponents.

On the issue of Lanza, he has credentials and is intelligent, he can say these things with a straight face. You have neither, and thus are nothing but a fool, con-artist and class clown, selling his cheap hollow ideas to anyone who will listen.

Not to mention mike none of your ideas are anything close to Lanza's. to put yourself in the same sentence is a disgrace to you and to Robert Lanza.


Thanks

Mike why don't you go back to google groups where you'll be appreciated. That way you can disgrace and group of your making rather then some perfectly decent forum like this one.

And if you like I can continue to use you as an intellectual punching bag...

Or just stop being a disgrace to mankind, intelligence, philosophy and science.

Thanks

So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage.

What is that compelling criticism again?

Oh yes:

My ideas haven't made it to the status of a fully working hypothesis that passes experimental tests.

I never claimed they did.

But does that criticism alone mean the conjecture has no value?

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Mike, just how thick is the wood? How incredibly dense are you?

You haven't read a single thing I've written, have you?

You're like talking to a wall... no effect whatsoever...

Read my post that starts "Mike I must confess you almost had me suckered in, I for a moment thought that you were restating well known philosophy..."

look at the examples, re-read others comments like Jason's of your ideas. Thats your criticism, the general idea

Conjectural without knowledge

Backwards, and unnecessarily inefficient

No prior understanding of previous work that directly relates

Changing your tune, just to avoid being wrong

Failing to answer questions when asked

Failing to provide a conclusion that follows from the premises (idea or not logic still applies)

Mistaking philosophy as science

Misunderstanding for example Robert Lanza's idea and thinking it supports you...

Thinking you can revolutionize science with no apparent understanding of math

Considering your ideas to be new because you fail to do proper research

And so on...

Yes mike your ideas are utter garbage... now with that bitter taste in your mouth, that spark of self realization (hopefully sincere), go hit the books learn about the stuff ask insightful question and then in a few years come back and maybe you'll have something to teach us.

Mike you should leave now the scene of the battle since its only a matter of time before I break you, and its already begun with your statement:

"So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage."

and if we continue, I can finish you off...

Thanks, Enjoy, Bottoms up...

Originally posted by tomjones

Conjectural without knowledge

Backwards, and unnecessarily inefficient

No prior understanding of previous work that directly relates

Changing your tune, just to avoid being wrong

Failing to answer questions when asked

Failing to provide a conclusion that follows from the premises (idea or not logic still applies)

Mistaking philosophy as science

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

"Conjectural without knowledge

Backwards, and unnecessarily inefficient


Both untrue.

I have a knowledge about the things I'm talking about.

Basically what I'm saying is mathematics is nearly to the point of making the same expression that philosophy from Plato and the Buddha to Spinoza and Leibniz has."

Prove it.

So what, how would you know, is this from stated anywhere besides you, or do you know mathematics well enough?

I doubt it...

"No prior understanding of previous work that directly relates

Changing your tune, just to avoid being wrong


For example?"

Let see I refer you to your statements about neural networks, or about all hidden variable theories.

Changing tune:
"I'm not alone. Robert Lanza has been talking about a bio-centric view of the universe.

The idea here is all physical matter is an invention of the mind, whether it is a single electron or atom or an entire brain."

Go from computational model to biology based

"You wanted cites about Leibniz?"
Yes that you read not off wikipedia, do I really need to specify?

Have you read a single one of those sources?

Just for good measure let me illuminate some of mine that I have read:

Blatt, John Markus, and Victor Frederick Weisskopf. 1991. Theoretical nuclear physics. New York: Dover Publications.

Bohm, David. 1989. Quantum theory. New York: Dover Publications.

Cooper, Jack R., Floyd E. Bloom, and Robert H. Roth. 2003. The biochemical basis of neuropharmacology. 8th ed. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Fain, Gordon L. 1999. Molecular and cellular physiology of neurons. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Greiner, Walter, and Andreas Schäfer. 1994. Quantum chromodynamics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Milne-Thomson, L. M. 1996. Theoretical hydrodynamics. Dover ed. New York: Dover Publications.

Patterson, David A., and John L. Hennessy. 2005. Computer organization and design : the hardware/software interface. 3rd ed. Amsterdam ; Boston: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.

Petrovskii, I. G., and Abe Shenitzer. 1991. Lectures on partial differential equations. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Weinstock, Robert. 1974. Calculus of variations, with applications to physics and engineering. New York: Dover Publications.

C.H. Edwards, Jr. 1994. Advanced Calculus of Several Variables. 1994 Edition ed. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Original edition, "Advanced Calculus of Several Variables", Academic Press Inc, New York, 1973.

the list goes on

"You're talking about induction or deduction.

That's not how science works.

Science works through falsification.

I mentioned that to you in another thread, but it was of no interest to you then.

Philosophy solely relies on deduction and induction.

Science doesn't rely on them solely."

Since according to you these are just ideas and garbage at that, then what do you care about science . You certainly don't show a keen grasp of it. ie statements made of computer simulations, physics, neuroscience...
Why can I say this, well having designed computer processors, VR and AI simulations... and spending the last 6 years of my life studying neuroscience... I think I can say your wrong.
Not to mention contracting work I have done or the company I am starting... all these things give me the right to say you haven't got a clue.

"Mistaking philosophy as science


Irony."

Only if you were right about philosophy...


"You have many insulting things to say, but no compelling criticisms."
Don't kid yourself, I haven't even tried yet, and as to the second, failure to read opponents arguments, or failing to understand them is not the same as no compelling criticisms.

Though I am insulted that you thought this was a serious intellectual endeavor, not even close.

Due to an overwhelming body of evidence the court finds Mike Helland guilty of self deception and psychological projection.

This hearing is adjourned due to lack of brain voltage from Mike Helland.

Thanks Mike this was fun... but all fun things even making fun of you must come to an end sad but true. I can imagine that your intensely disappointed but hey whatever, I personally could not care less.

Oh an just by way of further note, the other aspect here is relative intelligence as I have spoken of, you can read this any way you want, but since I don't really use this forum except to have fun at your expense I'll bring it up.

My IQ is 180 sorry pal... i think I got you beat on the scale of measured intelligence... oh yes and the fact that I taught my self calculus and and differential equations by the age of 18.

Thanks, goodbye, go think of some more theories so others can poke fun at them.

Originally posted by tomjones

Changing tune:
"I'm not alone. Robert Lanza has been talking about a bio-centric view of the universe.

The idea here is all physical matter is an invention of the mind, whether it is a single electron or atom or an entire brain."

Go from computational model to biology based

My IQ is 180 sorry pal... i think I got you beat on the scale of measured intelligence... oh yes and the fact that I taught my self calculus and and differential equations by the age of 18.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

I know the other post I said would be my last but this last horror of yours is just what I had hoped for. This is what I was gunning for and thanks to you, I have what I wanted.. you walking right into the ideal ending to this conversation/ time waster/ best fun you'll ever have...

"My abstract says "neuroscience" and "computing" play a role in the new model.

I've claimed both are important all along."

You think neuroscience and neural networks in computers are one in the same... hahaha

"Whereas at 18 I only had a career that lead to an early retirement."

Yeah making cash register software, and store software... oooh...

where as I developed an external parallel graphics processing system that was marketed to the DOD

or the company I am starting at 22 to make body armor for the US Military

"I feel so stupid."

Well don't say that your great the way you are....

but hey, enough of this...

you're now a retired... pseudo software designer, who does amateur thinking. Where as my career is just getting started... and retirement isn't really in the plan, running my companies and research is (payed research.

Wow that was a fitting magnum opus to this wonderful opportunity to show mike's true colors.

Thank you for you assistance Mike, and to all our readers out there I hope you enjoyed this program. Stay tuned for more ideas from mike helland (amateur thinker).

Originally posted by tomjones

You think neuroscience and neural networks in computers are one in the same... hahaha

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm