The Diversity of The Nature and The Information Transmission

Table of Contents

• 1 The Limit of Knowledge
  • 1.1 The Physical Limit
  • 1.2 The Conscious Limit
  • 1.3 The conscious level of the limit may have a purpose
• 2 The Asymmetric Information Influences the State of Knowledge
• 3 The Tautology Establishes the Shared (Social) Knowledge
• 4 The Diversity of the Nature

1 The Limit of Knowledge

1.1 The Physical Limit

There various kinds of information in the Nature. In order to clarify the point, let us take an example of human observers. Well, that's us! We have in general the five senses that catch the incoming information. They are sight, smell, hearing, touching, tasting. For now, let us take a close look at the sight.

We see objects around us. Scientifically this signifies that the visible light has been traveled from the objects in question by reflection to the eyes, which play the role of censors. Here it is important to notice that the visible light is the only information that we, human observers, can actually catch. We have already acknowledged that there are many kinds of light (photons), which is more technically called electromagnetic waves (from now on, E&M waves). The names of the E&M waves change depending on their frequencies, and a small range of the frequencies would become visible to human observers. Well, we can detect the other E&M waves with the help of a sophisticated apparatus but let's not get into it. The point here is that we, human observers, can only gain such small portion of the E&M information by nature. In other words,

Observers cannot receive all possible information.

or

There is the limit of knowledge.

1.2 The Conscious Limit

The physical limit of obtainable knowledge is intrinsic to the Nature, and this aspect seems to influence the conscious level of human observers. Although this part needs to be developed (or will be developed naturally in the future) further, I have added it for the sake of argument. Probably the model of observers (in this case, human observers) needs to be replaced.

In our languages, the name, "apple", indicates the type of fruits that is in general red, if it is ripe, and is sweet and sour. Its size is about a little bigger than a baseball. An apple-tree produces many those "apples" and the productions contain many seeds for reproductions. Well, the point here is that even though we call them all "apple", there is no identical twin of them. All apples are distinct from each other in terms of the color, size, and taste. But we ignore such differences.

This is the conscious level of the limit of knowledge.

1.3 The conscious level of the limit may have a purpose

Why do we have such tendency to ignore the details of objects in question?

Well, the answer is probably because the observers (information receivers) must minimize the incoming information in order to grasp the world of Nature. If we name each individual apple uniquely, the list of names is too large, which is out of our hands. Moreover, the importance of the differences is subtle, and of course, most of us never do pay attention to such differences purposely.

We, human observers, have been developed that way.

But this idea may be generalized to any observer (or in more general term, information receiver).

2 The Asymmetric Information Influences the State of Knowledge

The asymmetric information occurs quite often in our lives, although most of us hardly recognize it. The following example is an extreme case, but it will helpful to clarify the point.

The existence of black swans was discovered not too long ago. It defied our concept of this particular bird, swans. In Japanese, the swan is called "hakucho" which literally means a white bird. The name is coined to describe the appearance of the bird.

The black swan looks very different from white ones. We may claim that there is a DNA malformation in the process of reproduction. Well, even so, it comes down to the question of why we consider white swans to be normal rather than black. The answer is quite simple; we see white swans more often than black ones because it is still statistically true that most swans are white.

As shown above, we, human observers, intrinsically possess the well-developed foundation of knowledge about swans that they are normally white. We have learned it through the process of growing up in school or family. The Nature does not, however, intend such outcome, though.

From the perspective of Nature, the difference between a white swan and a black one is extremely subtle. Only a small portion of DNA functionality is responsible for actually coloring the outer skin of swans. In other words,

the information that human observers gain from the appearance of swans is incomparable with the information that the Nature produces.

The asymmetric information is the intrinsic nature in the natural world.

3 The Tautology Establishes the Shared (Social) Knowledge

Let us raise a question.

Why did we believe that swans are white, even though each individual human observer may not be able to see them statistically?

The answer is simple. The knowledge of swans is shared among other people (human observers) and

The figure above shows the image of how people share the knowledge. Of course, in reality, there are more people who share the knowledge and that is why the knowledge becomes more solid. And furthermore,

The more people share the knowledge, the stronger the reaction is when it is defied.

Let us imagine a society consisting of only a few people. Some of the people have seen white swans and he told other people about it. Now all the member of the small society shared the same knowledge. One day, they saw a black swan. They may be surprised but they reformed the knowledge among them relatively easily.

The discovery of black swans surprised many people in the world because the knowledge that swans are white was shared among people across the countries. The level of shared (social) knowledge corresponds to the population of the observers which share the knowledge.

4 The Diversity of the Nature

Now let us consider a more general case. The ideas are

• Knowledge has the limit
• Information can be asymmetric
• Knowledge is shared among others

Let us consider three cases.

The figure above shows that the subject 1 passes its own information to the observers A and B, but not C. The observer A and B share the knowledge of the subject 1; hence, they have the common recognition. However, the observer C gains the information by sharing, although it does not obtain directly from the subject 1. There is the asymmetric information: the difference in intention between the subject and the observer. The subject 1 may appear to the observer C differently than it does to other observers.

The second case is that all observers gain the information of subject 2 but the observers do not share the information among them at all. That means that there is no way to confirm that the observers actually see the same subject. This is also a possibility of the asymmetric information.

The third case is that only observer A cannot gain the information of the subject 3. This means that the subject 3 does not exist for the observer A.

The subjects appear and disappear depending on how the observers gain the information. And also the subjects look differently depending on how the observers gain the information. Even the same subject may not look the same to all observers. Sometimes it is impossible to confirm the sameness. If they do not recognize the existence of certain subjects, the interaction between them cannot be achieved. Even a simple model can show the diversity of subjects in question. If they repeat reproductions, the diversity of the Nature gets more and more complex.

The diversity of the Nature can be described by the transmission of information.

Japanese version is available

I also have created the Japanese version of the main idea.

Go to here.

The Conceptual Explanation

Science applies special rules

Normally, "observation" implies to directly see a subject in question. That is due to one of our senses, sight. This is how science originally started. The contemporary science requires more sophisticated apparatuses that can measure (observe) beyond our senses. Even so, a primary assumption, which science itself deliberately or unconsciously makes, is to apply special rules to the region of interest. For example, take a look at the following diagram.

It shows a conceptual image of how we, human observers, actually observe the subject. The animal in the circle is chosen for no particular reason; it represents an active subject of interest. Later, we will see that the subject is universally applicable to any material including inorganic things.

One of the rules that the observer applies here is that the subject (the animal in this case) is independent of the surroundings. He sees the subject as if it is the only entity that exists and is self-contained. In fact, Nature does not provide such thing as self-contained subjects.

The diagram above shows a more realistic situation. The subject (if assuming, it is an animal) needs various things such as food and water to maintain its own organism. Also, it needs to manage body wastes. More clearly, the subject is a continuous entity that can never be independent of the surroundings. Science studies ideal regions. Certainly, there are branches of science that actually take some surroundings into consideration; however, no matter how we develop or enlarge the areas of knowledge, it is impossible to cover the entire region of Nature. There is a large boundary of knowledge, at least for the contemporary level.

I believe that this boundary makes it impossible to observe the cause of life.

The Least Possible Memery System

From the idea of splitting a concept into three basic elements, we continue the discussion.

In order to actually observe something, the observer must have the memory capacity. Certainly, if he forgets what he has seen a moment ago, there is no point in pursuing the observation. Here, we are not simply talking about taking notes; it is rather a crucial point.

An observer and a subject(s) in question cannot be discussed separately.

It sounds a common sense?

Not quite so. In the ordinary science (let us forget about quantum mechanics here! We will get to that later), an observer is assumed to be completely independent of the subject. The observer is like a god, watching and manipulating a portion of Nature.

Here, we would like to develop an idea that an observer and a subject form a group altogether, where they are inseparable. And this idea is directly connected to quantum mechanics, where the way of observation matters greatly.

In order to apply to more general case, the "system" in the following figures represents the observer. The point here is to show how the memory system that the observe intrinsically has.

External Interaction

The memory system matters when information reaches the system from outside. The external interaction receives the incoming information from an exterior source for processing. Once a life-system receives a piece of information, its state changes.

The Cyclic Action

The cyclic action makes the cycle of recollection. The system can make comparison by revisiting how the original information was stored.

The Structural Similarity

By receiving another information (information 2) which is slightly changed from information 1, the system recognizes the difference between the former and the latter. The structural similarity senses the difference.

For the further development, go to here.

The Spontanesou Action As The Fundamental Cause

In physics, for example, we often discuss time-dependent problems. We set up a scale in time so that subjects in question change their own state such as positions, velocities, and other properties accordingly. These problems are the applications of time-independent ones, which are stationary in terms of time.

In order to discuss the time-dependent problem (or implicitly time-independent problems as well), we make a basic assumption: the changes in state of the subject in question are due to other factors other than the properties that we observe. For example, a person pushes a wooden object hard on a floor so that it slides. But its velocity rapidly decreases and eventually stops on the floor. In this case, the person exerted a force on the wooden object and the floor also exerted a force of friction to the object, causing it to stop. The assumption says that the person and the floor exert the forces (other factors) and he observes the velocity (the state) of the object.

In other words, the change in state is due to external factors. Of course, Newtonian mechanics is defined to that way. There is no better way to describe the motion of sliding object on a floor other than considering the exerted forces.

The problem arises when we apply the same assumption to other fields of science. Biologists may study how cells behave, implicitly assuming something causes the life-activities. Geologists may observe the long-run changes of rocks as if there are some other causes of such changes. The scientists do not explicitly admit that there are perhaps the causes of the subjects in question. However, their observations primarily focus on small regions of the fields, wisely eliminating the question of the fundamental cause(s).

The modern scientific knowledge has a foundation without directly referring to the most fundamental cause of all. Although some part of physics may in fact pursues such particular purpose, the aim is to reduce the physical size of our attention. So far, it is unlikely to describe the cause of larger scales such as biological cells and others.

The resolution is, I believe, to rather assume that the spontaneous action is fundamental. Things maintain constantly changes. (Here again, the word, "constantly", does not neglect the effect of the Theory of Relativity.) As explained in the previous entry, "The Stationary Mind", we have a tendency to consider things stationary. And now let us start the argument from the spontaneously active objects.

For further development, go to here.

The Stationary Mind and the Existence of Time

We, human observers, think better if we consider things to be stationary. For example, if we look at a wooden object on a table, it seems stationary and stable. Unless we choose to actually touch it and move it, it sits there forever. Well, if there is an earthquake, it may in fact fall onto the floor, though.

There are things that change themselves in a long period of time. Such span of time is normally much longer than the average life-span of human beings. Based on our perception, hence, it is reasonable to consider that inorganic materials are actually stationary.

This stationary perceptions are not a coincidence but it is rather an inevitable consequence.

The illustration above shows that the human observer is also a part of Nature, where his thought (or the capability of observations) runs in parallel with the other objects surrounding him. We are part of Nature. Our functionality also keeps running just as other things around us. Since they run in parallel, the subjects in question in respect with the observer seem stationary. Of course, in this case, we are disregarding the Theory of Relativity for the sake of argument.

Certainly it is easier to see stationary things rather than active ones. We would like to start developing thoughts from a simple foundation. The start is simple. And the following applications may become difficult. Objectively speaking, this seems that we, human observers, manipulate Nature. But in fact we have created this concept by ignoring the fact that we are also part of Nature.

The point is that our mind creates the stationary perception. Of course, in some particular fields of science, they objectively discuss the gradual changes of matter through time, which is difficult for ordinary people to conceptually grasp. If we reconsider that Nature plays the main role rather than our observation, there is no stationary matters at all.

At the same time, the stationary mind does create the concept of time. Time is not substantiated. Time is not observable even indirectly. Time is the mirror image of the stationary mind. We will come to that later.

This also explains time-dependent problems, which are mainly discussed in the language of mathematics. The time-dependent problem is considered to be an application of stationary problems. And it is in general much more complicated. It is more complicated only because we assume that time-independent problems are more fundamental, although there is no such thing as time-independent objects. Although many objects seem time-independent, Nature does not provide such things.

Unfortunately, our well-developed knowledge has been based upon the premature foundation that had no consideration of stationary mind.

For further development, go to here.

The Asymmetric Information as The Intrinsic Nature

The asymmetric information occurs quite often in our lives, although most of us hardly recognize it. The existence of black swans defied our concept of this particular bird, swans. They look very different from each other. We may claim that there is a DNA malformation in the process of reproduction. Well, even if so, it comes down to the question of why we consider white swans to be normal rather than black. The answer is quite simple; we see white swans more often than black ones.

As shown above, we, human observers, intrinsically possess the well-developed foundation of knowledge about swans, which believes that swans are normally white. We have learned it through the process of growing up in school or family. Nature does not, however, intend such outcome, though.

From the perspective of Nature, the difference between a white swan and a black swan is extremely subtle. Only a small portion of DNA functionality is responsible for actually coloring the outer skin of swans.

In other words, the information that human observers gain from the appearance of swans is incomparable with the information that Nature produces. The asymmetric information is the intrinsic nature in the natural world.

For more developed version, go to here.

The Speed Limit

The modern physics has already discovered that light is not a continuous stream of something. It is rather a chunk of discrete things, which are called photons. Although the whole idea of "life-system" is to start from a new concept, it does not mean that we deny the achievement of the scientific development. The discrete nature of light is undeniable. It is a fact.

Because of the discontinuous collection of photons, the information delivered to an observer is discontinuous as well. Now we discuss how an observer sees an moving object now.

The memory matters

Let us say there is an observer that sees an object move.

Initially the observer confirms that the object at the position, h = 0. Then after the object moved a bit to the position, h = -1, the observer obtains the information of the new position. At this point, observer compares the new position with the old position that is stored in his memory. He confirms that the object moved from the old position to the new position. And so on.

This whole process is continuous. The observer receives the similar sensation as the case of wrist watch. Time does not exist as any kind of form but it exists as a consequence of the memory functionality.

The Limit of Memory

If the moving object increases its speed (in our ordinary sense), the observer needs to catches the information of both its (though arbitrary ) start and end in order to sense the speed. Hence the memory-system of the observer must work accordingly. However, as mentioned above, the process of storing and recollecting the incoming information is discontinuously because of the discrete nature of information (photon).

In other words, the state 1 and 2 (states gained the information of "start" and "end") can be very close to each other but cannot be completely overlap with one another. That is to say, it is impossible to recognize the infinite speed! No recognition implies no existence, so there is no such thing as moving object at infinite speed.

The Imaginary Time

People believe that time flows. It sounds as though some invisible thing called "time" moves one place to another. We confirm the changes in time by watching a clock on the wall. The hands of the clock changed their positions, and this fact tells us that some time has passed from the moment we checked last time. In other words, we remember where the clock hands were moment ago.
So can anyone observe "time" at all?
Most certainly we can observe the change in time, and we can do so indirectly by confirming the change in the state of something. This does not confirm the existence of time at all. It rather signifies that the existence of time is imaginary.
Instead of discussing "time", we need to pay attention to our memory. In order to clarify the point, let us start some thought experiment.
Now we are sitting in a dark space. There is no sound. Not even the flow of air exists. Complete tranquility surrounds us. We do not even feel hungry or thirsty. We are being in such a boring space for a while. How long? We do not know. We do not even have any clue to know it. We do not move ourselves. Only our mind captures the darkness and nothingness. There we feel like time has actually stops.
In other words, the concept of time appears if the information is stored and made comparison with another.
The new concept, life-system, is capable of explaining the existence of time in terms of memory. The memory system is a combination of the three basic elements.
The concept of time is already incorporated. Since life-system shows activities, it is already dynamical. There is no need to introduce an additional parameter for analyses. Time is a product of our stationary mind. Since life-system is not stationary from the first place, time does not play a role here at all.
For more information, go to here.

Why do we split it into three?

Let us call an entity of the new concept "life-system" in order to distinguish it from living-organisms. It includes not only those living-organisms but also inorganic materials that do not seem to perform any spontaneity. The inorganic things seem stationary only because our mind is stationary. We will get to that later.

In order to scrutinize the life-system, we need to split it into three basic elements. Namely,

• 1. Structural Similarity
• 2. Cyclic Action
• 3. External Interaction

(the order is unimportant)
A life-system performs spontaneous action. In the ordinary science, we observe it and describe in terms of "time". The concept of "time" is, however, a fiction so that we can discuss qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Here, we wish to develop a better fiction so that time is a consequence rather than a basis.

Why do we need to split it into three basic elements?
Well, a life-system spontaneously changes itself. The changes may not be suitable for both qualitative and quantitative analyses. We need something steady even though the changes are constant.
So each of the basic elements represents a steady change of the life-system.

Contradiction Keeps it Going

Contradiction Keeps It Going

I hereby introduce three fundamental elements that establish the new perspective.

• 1.Structural Similarity
• 2.Cyclic Action
• 3.External Interaction

First of all, these three elements do not exist and play independently. They are three aspects of the abstract concept that we need to discuss. We, human observers (scientists and/or mathematicians), may deliberately ignore one or two of the elements so that we can conveniently develop static theories, which are the ordinary scientific theories.
Another characteristic is that these three elements encounter each other mutually contradictorily. As shown below, each one of them has negative influence upon other two.

From "Structural Similarity" point of view,

• It wants to remain itself as opposed to "Cyclic Action" that proceeds the cycle of life.
• It wants to maintain itself as opposed to "External Interaction" that wishes to influence and add external elements to enlarge it.

From "Cyclic Action" point of view,

• It wants to finish the loop of life cycle as opposed to "External Interaction" that tries to change it by giving additional elements from outside.
• It wants to proceed the life cycle as opposed to "Structural Similarity" that wants stay as it is.

and so on.
This balance of contradiction keeps things going. The spontaneous development comes from the contradictory aspects that Nature intrinsically possesses.
Of course, it is important to notice that this is only another man-made perspective. It is designed to depict Nature conveniently. It does not mean that Nature has such intrinsic nature in itself.
For fully developed version, go to here

An Intermediate Summary

An Intermediate Summary

• A concept based on life
Life organisms are the fundamental. It is pointless in searching for the cause of life. Scientists may believe that there is some kind of driving force for life. But it is yet to be discovered. To this day, the accuracy and the variety of scientific fields are much greater than the time of the birth of science itself. People have started developing science based on such primary knowledge. It does not go any further. We need to resume from somewhere else.

• It represents three elements
• Structural Similarity
Life always tries to reproduce based on what the producer already has.

• Cyclic Action
Life is cyclic action. In other words, the attempt to maintain cyclic action is life itself. It may consists of various intermediate processes but they must all lead to where it started.

• External Interaction
Any life-organism interacts with other entities. The interaction consists of information emitting and receiving. This is another way to understand "observation". Through the interactions, individual life-organism recognizes the existence of others.



• These three elements exists inter-connectedly
In order to represent life, the elements cannot exit independently. Rather, they appear so for the matter of explanation. Life is a single concept. It can be visualized if we consider three mutually dependent aspects of it.

• Old theories can be derived by ignoring their connections
• Structural Similarity - generalization (or categorization)
• Cyclic Action - inertia
• External Interaction - observation


• Problem
I have not been able to discover a clear explanation of how to explain the "inter-connectedness" of three elements. And this is crucial. There must be many problem in this project but without breaking through this point, no further development will be expected.

For more developed version, go to here.

Life-Activity Defines Cycles

A Natural Disaster Deformed The Cycles of Life-Activity

The large earthquake, which has occurred in Japan on March 11th 2011, terminated many life-activities. But here I am not to discuss a tragic story about the disaster. I would like to discuss the concept of Nature based on the social observations. Although it is based on social observations, it is fairly applicable to natural sciences. The reason will, I hope, be clear at the end of this article.

Despite the tremendous power of destruction, fortunately there are many survivors. It is, however, very crucial to support those survivors by means of food supplies and life-line backups such as gas, water, and electricity. Those survivors used to live without the external support, but all the sudden, additional supplies have become inevitable. It means that the earthquake has terminated not only individual life activities but also social life activities.

Military-trained People Perform Self-Completing Cycle

Japan owns the self-defense force, which is in general functionally equivalent to military. Those military-trained people have urgently come to the place of disaster and supported those in need in various means. They supply food and water. They fix the roads and other infrastructures. They medically treat injured people. They secure the area where no police is in action. The military-trained people are different from civilians because they can perform a complete cycle of life-activity for their own. In order to live, a human being requires food and water, of course. He/she also needs a place to sleep and a way to deal with body wastes. They complete all the necessary cycles of life-activity without founded social infrastructures. That is why they can fully perform their duty even in the destroyed region.

A Life-Form As A Cyclic Concept

The point in here is that a life-activity requires a complete cycle. And let us claim that life can be represented by a abstract concept that is cyclic by nature.

For example, take a life sample, A. A takes a next action A'. But A spontaneously completes its own cycle, so A' → A. This is a very small life-cycle.

For another example, take a life sample, B.

B → B1 → B2 → ... → B

for a larger cycle. Although the intermediate process is not shown, B certainly comes back to B itself.

In other words, instead of introducing some force deriving the cycle to complete, the concept itself intrinsically possess such nature.

In the above case of the disaster, the military force, M, has its own cycle. So

M → M' → M

But survivors, S, cannot complete its own cycle. So

S → ... → 0

With the help of M,

S → ... → M → M' → ... → S

S can complete its cycle.

For more developed theme, go to here

A Great Earthquake Hit Japan

March 11th, 2011, the largest earthquake in history of Japan has hit the east coast of the country.

A series of huge waves took a number of people, and still there are the incredible number of them is still missing.

At this point, the estimated casualty is more than 10,000.

I live in Tokyo, 250km away from the stricken areas, but I felt large quakes, which I have never experienced in my life.

I could not keep standing up at all! And this place is far away from the point of origin.

I am deeply sorry for those who lost their lives and sincerely hope that they can save as many lives as possible.

I thank a number of people from all over the world who prayed for us and have actually come here for help.

Mathematics Is Based On Counting

The Development Of Mathematics Is Backwards

Certainly arithmetic is based on counting. There is no doubt about that. But do they know that mathematics has been developed from arithmetic?

The development of mathematics is in a sense backwards. First of all, they had found integers rather than rational numbers. Then they have discovered topology and set theories. Yes, topology and other abstract theories are the base of mathematics. But these theories have been developed in accordance with the numbers that people primarily had known. Using a metaphor, they had built a house on the ground. After that, they have started dug up the ground in order to establish a solid base for the house.

Mathematics certainly is based on abstract theories like topology and others. But this foundation deliberately designed to support integers and counting.

The Logic Engine:Introduction

The Logic Engine

1 The Essence

-What is the Logic Engine?

-It is a newly invented idea that generates a sequence of spontaneous actions.

-What? A piece of logic generates actions? Doesn't make any sense.

-It does not have make sense at all. We make up a thing that does it. So get used to it.

-What a selfish idea… Are you saying that we better choose to deny the existing knowledge?

-I'm not saying that. The existing theories and knowledge are great. They are useful. They have certainly achieved many incredible developments. They will be useful in the future as well. But when it comes to certain subjects, they seems to fail to work or to describe. So the central idea is to start from somewhere else.

-Somewhere else… Well, find a point for extensions from the theories we have so far.

-Unfortunately there seem to exist.

-So what's it do?

-It is a concept that consists of three elements.

1.Structural Similarity

2.Cyclic Action

3.External Interaction

-And they are not independent of each other. They are not detachable.

They are not detachable but the elements that comprise a single concept?

-When thinking of a new concept that does the desired job, it seemed to conclude that those three but dependent elements characterize many aspects of living-organism.

-So this concept describes living-organism.

-Yes. But the meaning of "living-organism" is much broader than it is normally used.

-More than those in a biological sense?

-That is where the problem arises.

-What do you mean?

-The term, "biological", narrows our attention. We, human beings, seem to unconsciously limit the possibility of living-organism. When we discuss living-organism, we only consider biological entities such as human and animals.

-Yes. Because they are the only ones that are alive actually.

-No. It is our common misconception that we see only those animals alive. The problem of classification, this is. We limit the possibility of expanding knowledge by focusing the attention. There are various forms of living-organism besides animals. A society is one example. It grows and dies… It gets excited and sick. It behaves very much like a living animal, although its appearance says otherwise.

The Basic Idea: Life As The Cause

Life As The Cause

Human beings have developing their knowledge ever since their birth. Its origin is probably counting the number of objects, which are around themselves. Counting is fundamental even today. We start learning from counting. Put differently, this is the foundation of our knowledge. And at the same time, this is the problem.

Not many people believe that there is a problem in pursuing the course of knowledge in academic institutions. Sure, it is because no one ever asks oneself, even people teaching students, what we have has the solid foundation.

Yes, it is solid. But it is the problem because it is solid enough.


In order to clarify the problem, I claim the solution first.

Instead of starting from counting, we now start from life itself.

Scientists have been trying to find the cause of life. Life is mysterious by nature. We still don't know why we reproduce, why we move, or why we grow. There are a number of theories that explain how they work. But it never explain about the cause. So the idea is that instead of going from the knowledge that we have developed already, we start from the fact that life governs all.

Life is the cause of all.

The entries of blog would become temporarily ordered, and it is difficult to follow. So, the whole thesis is here.

A New Site Now Open!!!

I have opened a new site.
It will show my thesis project.

http//thesis.soichi.info

The Relativistic Nature of "Nature"

The Life Appears and Disappears...

We, human beings, have developed a misconception that life is organic and biological. Throughout the history of mankind, they have tried really hard to find that cause of life looking into the smallest possible realm of physics, which unfortunately does not seem successful to this day.

Let us take a look at a stone which you may find in a park or at river-side. It seems stationary. It is solid. Even if you place it for a while, you will not see any difference whatsoever from the appearance of it. Scientists generally agree that the stone consists of inorganic materials, which supposedly have no life within itself. It seems reasonable.

Well, what if a person of many generations future sees the same stone placed there? He may see a difference. In fact, in the course of a long period of time, even stones change their appearances and compositions. Scientists may explain that this is the erosion.

What if we consider this slow but certain change in appearance of the stone is a proof of life?

That is the start of the idea.

the charging time is over...

Long time no update...

The continuation of the thesis seemed troublesome without a solid foundation, which I was not able to find.

I have spent some months to consider the possibility of discovering the core idea.  And I believe that I have found the one.

thinking...: The Project is in trouble? Or It is the Chance?

Right now, I keep thinking about the possibility of finding a principal backbone that is solid enough to establish the foundation.  Various ideas come and go, but it seems that any one of them does the job properly.

The backbone of this project is how to see it.

Common sense?  Not really.

Human beings have developed numerous theories based on how they saw throughout their history.  The rotating sun is a good example.  They used to believe that the sun was rotating around the earth.  The fact is that it does not matter, although the theory (?) claiming that the earth is rotating has been winning.  Whichever rotates around the other, it is a matter of choice.  But people tend to establish a solid foundation of thought without recognizing the risk of doing it.

Force is another example.  Force is defined.  It is not a natural product.  It is what we believe is there in observable motions of objects.  Certainly, it is much easier and more efficient in considering the motions of objects within the realm of classical mechanics.

Without such foundation, it is impossible to proceed.  It is also impossible to share the understanding with others.  Yes, the foundation of thought is something common to all people.

The problem of this project is obviously what to be chosen as the foundation of thought...

To be continued...

Information Seems Vague by Nature...

In developing the thought itself, a starting point is information.  But it seems vague because ordinary physics studies the nature of exchange of particles that work as forces.  So, one of the possible couter-arguments is that information is merely the generalization of particles including both fermions and bosons.

Sure, so far the project does not show what the information is.  Well, all we could say is that it is not the point.  The question is how to explain it.

The Information As The Driving Force

A local spontaneity seems work independently.  That is because observers pay attention only to the local region.  Every local region is connected with other local regions.  Like a human life-form needs nutrition and air for living (spontaneous activity), the spontaneity is linked to other spontaneities.  Air flows.  Nutrition grows or deteriorates.  These links are intricately established and impossible to disconnect.

One local activity is well connected to another, then we can claim that an activity is the driving force for another (others).  How are they connected?  It is the information that does the job.

Information delivers driving force(s) from a local spontaneity to another (others).


or the driving force(s) is(are) the information.

This is another definition of information.

Definition: The Local Spontaneity

Since the spontaneity largely depends on the frame that observers chooses (see here), we call this local spontaneity.

Well, a question naturally arises, of course.

Is there any global spontaneity?

So far, we are yet to find it.  But observable spontaneities are due to the global structure, so the entirety should matter.  The question is then how.

When referring to local, we mean that the particular spontaneity is paired with corresponding observer(s).  For example, a human life-form has the spontaneity for activities from the perspective of an observer (another human) watching only the person.  If the observation is widen to some larger extent, including nutrition and air, the human life-form performs those activities with the connections to the environment that performs activities by all itself (like air flows, and nutrition grows and deteriorates, so on).  In this case, the local spontaneity is a little wider than paying attention to only the life-form itself.

Hypothesis: The Boundary of Entity Appears If...

A life-form seems to have its own boundary (see the previous post) that draws line between its living-functionality and the outer world.  Remember, it is important to emphasize the word, "seems", because the boundary is subject to the observers.

On the other hand, elementary particles do not get disturbed by the boundary like this.  Some of them can penetrate freely the boundaries, and others may stick to other elementary particles that are part of the living-organism.  The idea of relativity may help understand this discrepancy.

Proposing an important hypothesis:

The boundary of an entity is subject to observers.

Remember, the observers are not only human but also anything that emits and receives information.  In other words, human observers create the boundaries of life-forms and unconsciously cut them off from the natural world for consideration.

The Spontaneous Action

One of the ideal consequences that this project seeks is to explain the spontaneous action.  In order to do so, we must deepen the understanding of the spontaneity.

When observing a subject in ordinary scientific sense, one tends to limit the range of observation.  Such tendency is well described in the Newtonian mechanics when referring to "...external force...".  Why external?  Nature has not boundary in itself.  The human observers unconsciously draw the line between what they wish to observe and what they do not.

It is like trimming a part which they want from a picture that extends itself to infinity.  Then, they make up stories that would best suit the particular part they chose.  And whatever coming into the selected piece of the picture with the story would be called "external".

When describing "spontaneity", they mean that a subject in question changes or moves itself without "external" influence.  In other words, the spontaneity is only meaningful if the range of observation is limited.  All actions are connected to other factors without boundary, hence the spontaneity in the newly developing sense is pointless.

For example, a human being is said to be an independent life-form.  It seems independent.  But he needs continuous feeding and breathing.  He needs to excrete as well.  Without those connections to "external" worlds, it is impossible to maintain the life-form itself.  That is to say, he is connected to the natural world without boundary.

The whole point of project is to develop the idea without boundary.

thinking...: How Human Observers See The Difference

An entity emits information to an human observer.  This entity consists of, say, internal members.  The question is how the observer recognizes it.

There are two possibilities.

1. A general characteristic among those internal members that compose the entity (or group).

2. The collective action that entity as a whole produces.

These two possibilities are two aspects of information emitted from the entity.

But what is the difference in roles?

The Collective Action And The Generalization

A groupe of entities can perform an action which cannot be done individually.  Often times such activities are to be described statistically.  We call this the collective action.

The collective action is a behavior that seems like an independent entity, but in general, physically bigger.  The figure on the right shows the direction of action, although the direction itself has no meaning but to make it relative to the generalization that follows.

The generalization is, on the other hand, a passive analysis.  Observers may find some common ground within things that seem random.  They may claim that this common ground is the cause of randomly generated behaviors.  The direction of generalization is opposite of that of the collective action.

In developing ordinary scientific theories, they tend to confuse one with the other.  Those are different concepts in ordinary science.

We claim, however, that those are the two aspects of the same thing.  Both arrows play the role of funneling information.  They form an important framework of information structure.  Just we are careless to use those two aspects without recognizing this fact.

How are we to incorporate them?

Not yet to be done...

Not In Non-Repeatable, But In the Whole Structure

If one claims that we only swallow repeatable knowledge, it may sound like that there is more possibility in expanding the knowledge itself.

Non-repeatable knowledge is in fact incorporated as part of statistical analysis, for example.  It may be physically impossible or theoretically pointless to keep track of individual behaviors of entities, so the statistically collected behavior plays the role of repeatable knowledge. Non-repeatable piece of knowledge does not come to be useful to human observers.

The point of this project is not to explore those non-repeatable possibilities but to develop the whole structure of knowledge-flow.  Knowledge itself does not stand alone just like life-forms.  Knowledge is the connection among various entities and information.  It is always dynamic.  It may sometimes look static.

Here statistics plays the flow of knowledge.  This particular subject collects the individual behaviors of many entities and produces a collective knowledge.

The Consensus And The Repeatable

Science is said to be the study of repeatables.  Any scientific theory and proposition must be reproduced for confirmation.  This repeatability is a clear indication of the consensus-oriented scientific knowledge of ours.

Any proposed scientific theory is to be tested experimentally by other scientists.  If the predicted result is reproduced, the theory is to become valid.  Unfortunately, though, this signifies that we limit our knowledge to the range of repeatability.

Here it shows that the limit of knowledge; observers cannot obtain all information coming to them.

to be continued...

The Consensus For Establishing Scientific Theories

People use to believe that the earth was the center of the universe.  Stars are rotating around this particular planet, but not opposite.  Today, the majority of people believes that the earth is actually rotating around the sun.  

Einstein says, on the other hand, that it does not matter.  Whichever we choose, it's OK.  There is no absolute reference point.

Scientific theories are established upon the consensus of people.  The more people believe it, the more reliable theories they become.  They are subject to the support from people but not to the validity of truthfulness.  Of course, logically flawed theories are more likely to be rejected by many scientists, then they will never take the place in the knowledge of the man-kind.  

But the thing is, though, the logical thought itself has been established upon consensus.  So, everything that we think of is in fact the question of whether or not it has reached the consensus among human observers.

The point here is that the consensus is the one among human observers.  If we suppose that any entity that can emit and receive information is an observer, then this consensus is no longer valid.  Amazingly, Nature is full of disagreements.  There are rarely observers that share the same understanding.

For example, we, human observers, used to believe that swans were all white.  The discovery of only one black swan is enough to defy such understanding.  From the perspective of Nature, however, this problem is completely different.  The difference in color of the appearance is very subtle in terms of DNA structure.  In other words, Nature may clam, 

"What's the big deal about the blackness?" 

Mathematics Hasn't Been Born At The Time Of Maturity

The origin of mathematics goes back to the time without civilization.  It is easily imaginable that people started counting the number of various objects.  Then, after a while, the development of mathematics takes a course that is independent of ordinary life-activity.  The independence of mathematics from this simple role as part of lives was in fact premature.

Once mathematics becomes independent and does not need any concrete objects which this particular subject represents, the course of generalization has been inherited.  The origin of mathematics has been born by generalizing what people actually see (for example, we see five "apples" although there is no identical twin of apples), but the development of it has taken the same route: namely, the generalization of mathematical ideas themselves.

For example, integers, like 1, 2, 3, and so on, and rational numbers, like 1.2, 3.556, and so on, can be more generalized in terms of groups.  Numbers in mathematics are a mere portion of abstract existence in this subjects today.

Now problems seem to appear when they reapply those abstract concepts to the natural world.  Deeply generalized ideas are used to describe physical entities in Nature, and such development may encounter a dead-end.  The application of abstract mathematics to Nature may not be a satisfactory comprehension.

The point here is that the development of mathematics has taken an interesting course; once it becomes independent of Nature, it becomes artificially part of Nature as applications.  Does it really have to take such procedure?

The idea, which we are trying to develop in this project, is that since we all know many about Nature, it seems more reliable and reasonable if we start by having an idea that covers the entirety of Nature from the first place.

The entire structure and possibility are getting hotter.

The Pattern And The Logic

The logical thought has been established based upon the patterns stored in the memory.  For example, the diagram shows the idea.

A simple logical statement, "A > B, B > C, then A > C", is meaningful because we all have experienced similar facts around ourselves.  The apples are only one example.  They can be replaced by the height of human beings.  Or even the speed of car can be a representation, instead.

Again, such simple logic is meaningful because we all share the similar experiences.  We need to pay attention to two keys here.

1. The establishment of logical thought requires the fact that comparable observers (human observers in this particular case) must share the similar events.

2. The process of the establishment is functionally equivalent to the following:
  a. funneling information
  b. minimizing information
  c. generalizing information

We will go through the origin of mathematics and possible breakthroughs.

The Creation of Pattern from Memory Mechanism

Logical thoughts are not an ability to foresee the future.  It is merely a collection of patterns.  The memory keeps track of the identical (or more precisely, similar) behaviors of things around the observer.  The memory continuously stores, retrieves and compares the incoming information.  Eventually, the static information of patterns is established.

Based on the pattern. the observer may be able to predict the future behavior of subjects.  So, logical thoughts are nothing but the collection and repetition of memory-activities.

This come down to the idea shown before, "The simplest memory system".

thinking...: The Difficulty in Limiting My Own Thought

Only human observers can expand the knowledge beyond their direct observations.  This is the power of logical thinking.  Yes, the logical thoughts have been developed in order to expand actual observations, which are based upon our physical senses.

Now the next step is to find the connection to the logical thought.  Some animals other than human beings seem to have the ability to expand their knowledge beyond observations.  It is worthwhile to consider the existence of additional candidates having such capability other than mammals.

There seems a great gap between what we perceive through the logical thinking and what actually happens among natural entities.  Our perceptions are somewhat limited to forming models rather than to realistic understanding.  The establishment of models such as mathematical ones is helpful in understanding Nature, of course.  There is no doubt about it.  But the models are no more than artificial creations of ours.

Our purpose is to dig up the understanding more deeply as well as more coherently.  Mathematical models are only superficial one of all possibilities.

experimental concept: Thought Without Physical Size

After all, we, human observers, can only think partially.  It is impossible for us to think of the entire universe and atoms simultaneously.

Our thoughts are bound to deal with physical comparables.

Things that need to be done,

1. Symbolic representations of the ideas.
2. One representation covers both big and small.

Especially, the symbolic representations are important because the project needs to be formalized.

to be continued...

The Tendency To Expand The Consideration Beyond Boundaries

When considering a piece of idea, we tend to extend it as further as possible.  For example,

"There! A star is shining brightly!"
"I wonder how the light reaches here..."
"I wonder how the star is moving around the sun..."
"I wonder why the star does not fall and collapse with the sun at all..."
"I wonder how the sun produces the gravitational field..."
"I wonder what if we can split the sun into two piece...Does the gravity change?"
"I wonder if a small pebble has the ability to produce gravity..."
"I wonder if... how... what if..."

The series of questions keeps coming up.  The curiosity of ours has no limit.  That is not a bad thing at all.

The thing is, however, that such ability to expand the idea is our specialty.  Only human beings, having the capacity to think deeply, can do such job.  Other observers, including animals and inorganic materials (remember, anything can be an observer!), cannot do it.  We tend to push the limit beyond boundaries.

The point here is that natural observers do not expand ideas this far.  In other words, our unlimited curiosity is in fact the greatest burden in understanding Nature because we unconsciously expect other observers do the same.

Observers (anything that can receive information from others) have the limit of knowledge so that the incoming information becomes funneled to suit their capacities.  The limit of knowledge is the start.

The Whole Is Simple, The Parts Are Complex

One of the purposes of developing a scientific theory is to find an easy way to understand Nature.  Well, "an easy way" is only the hope.  Even if we try hard to develop such theory, it could become a big mess.  But the mess could be in fact the easiest possible one, where no easier ones will never be found.

Like Newtonian mechanics, human beings have started developing the process of understanding from small local subjects.  Of course, at that time of Newton, the subjects were certainly big enough to cover their interests.  We today know that the attention was only locally applicable.

Throughout the history, the course of the development of science has started from a physically small portion, and it reaches now the stretch of the entire universe.  Since they started the small AND simple theory, the entire structure becomes more and more complex as we move the attention to the larger subjects.

The point here is that this project starts from the entire structure and go way down, although such process is yet to be complete.  Furthermore, the simplicity relies heavily on where we start.  The understanding of the universe today in a language of the ordinary science seems complex because they have started from a local subject.  Now we turn it over (again, it is yet to be complete at this point).

"The Tendency to Think of Only Comparables" may indicate the nature of establishing relations with other entities.  The entities, which appear throughout the project, interact only with those which have the comparable physical sizes.  Well, then we can ask ourselves,

Does the entire universe have a comparable counterpart for the interaction?

The answer seems no.

The interactions become more and more complex if the number of interacting parters increases, meaning that the physical size of attention decreases.  The entire structure is in fact the simplest one because there is no possible interacting partner!

Without Cause

When Newton was observing freely moving objects, he has reached a conclusion that the cause of such motion is gravity.  This idea was innovative in a sense that things, which seem random, can be explained in terms of only one principle.  The existence of gravity is the common sense to all of us today.

Even when considering various subjects, not only in science, it is advisable to think of the cause of happenings.

We are accustomed to figure out a single cause in order to solve problems as shown in the diagram.

The previous post indicated, however, that this idea is based on the human perspective.  Even things look like the "cause" causes those happenings, the eventual outcomes may not take it that way.  Rather, the entities A and B look the whole event differently.

The point here is that the entire project concerns the flow of events in a way that there seems to be no cause at all.  Since finding a cause of things is only the human perspective, we are to develop the idea from all possible perspectives as well.  The entire foundation of thought can be reconstructed.

Processing Information Depends on The Environment

A single entity evenly disperses information regarding itself.  The receivers of this information are located randomly, so those receivers (other entities) do not interact with each other except for the one emitting the information.

Here we need to pay attention to the point of this part:

Since the receivers catch the information independently, there is no way to confirm each of those recognizes the information in the same way.

The ordinary science makes an assumption that if a single source emits something, that something is identical to all receivers.  But this is due to the perspective of the emitter.  What we need to emphasize is that the receiver-side may not recognize the information identically even if the source is common.

For example, we may ask ourselves,

We are listening to music together.  Can you identify the sound that one of your friend?

Even if he explains in words to you about what he hears and feels, it does not confirm the complete sameness between what you hear and what he hears.  Sharing the information verbally is only superficial.

And again, that the information is emitted from the common source does only explain that THE emitter did emit a single piece of information but does NOT explain that all receivers did receive the information identically.

This is the key to the categorizing nature of human observers.

To be continued...

experimental concept: Two Kinds for The Preservation of Species

A life-form does not stand alone may be developed to the existence of two sexes among many of those life-forms.  I know that it is forcible.  But it is just an idea.

But it is worth considering.

experimental concept: The Dynamical Nature of Efficiency

If we claim that a system is looking for the efficiency in the process of changing itself, it seems bizarre.  Because it sounds as though the system itself has an intention of changing itself.  It is one way to understand the behavior of systems such as a chunk of air trapped inside a glass bottle.  It is important to emphasize that it is a way to understand it.  It does not say that Nature has the intention.  It is an explanation that we understand how they behave.

Unless a system is well developed like a human form, it is hard to claim the existence of such sophisticated causes of action.

On the other hand, an entity, a member composing the system, has the intention of changing its environment or its own behavior in order to achieve the efficiency, then the argument comes down to a smaller level of the same thing described above.  An entity is now a system that behaves like having an intention for achieving the efficiency.

Well, there is a difference, however.

case 1. A system looks for the efficiency of the internal structure.

case 2. An entity looks for the efficiency for the external system including itself.

There are two ideas that can collide with each other.  Neither each entity nor a system consisting of those entities seems to have the intention for some ideal state of its own.  The relation between those two perspectives may be a good start for further development.

to be continued.

question: Does Nature provide the equality-emotion?

Observing the behaviors of human beings in a society greatly inspire the motivation for further development.  Since the explorations in the ordinary science seem customary, obtaining ideas from social aspects may help.

People tend to think about the equality among others in a society.  If someone is more rich than others, then everyone may envy the social status of his.

The question is,

Does Nature provide such emotion for the equality?

For example, in considering subjects scientifically, they believe that systems in Nature look for more stable states.

A state of equilibrium is a good example to start.  The entities in the system spontaneously change their locations and physical statuses in order to find the most stable state.

Can we call this stable state efficient? Or equal for all entities?

The urge of the equality is possessed only by humans?

The Formation of Stable Systems

Continued from the previous post.

When entities are in progress of forming a system, there may be a (future) member, which is yet to reach the realm of others.

The figure above shows such situation.  If the information of existence from the external entity has been already reached the others, the system has the potential of gaining it as another member.  In that case, system is yet unstable.
Once the all possible entities have joined the others, the system is now at equilibrium.

The point here is that the limit of the speed of transferring information, there is a temporal lag until reaching the equilibrium.  Until then, the system has the POTENTIAL.

The Information Dynamics: Without Memory

Now if the observer has no ability to store memories.

As described in the previous post, the observer does not recognize the existence of the star until the information reaches it.  Once the connection by the information is established, the observer has the knowledge of the star's existence.  But in this case, by a sudden change of environment, the connection may be terminated.  Then, since the observer cannot store the information at all, once again it does not recognize the star's existence.

Without the memory system, the situation is completely different.

The Dynamic Information

Einstein has come to a famous law.

No information can travel faster than the speed of light.

This fundamental fact has been the core of modern physics.

Well, this idea is very important for this project as well, although it is not the start.  Only a motivation for further development.  Einstein's idea will hopefully become a partial aspect of the whole.  Here we take it as a start of the discussion.

Since information implies existence, the limit of the light-speed actually does not convey the information of existence instantaneously.

The figure above shows the idea schematically.  Even if there is a star, the ray of light from the star does not come to the human observer instantaneously.  So, until the moment when the observer receives the information, the star does not exist in his perspective (it may exist to other observers staying nearer the star than this particular observer).  Once the information has reached the observer, he now recognizes the existence of it.  And furthermore, the information of the existence of the star is now recorded in his memory.  The memory may not be erased forever (forget about getting old or brain-injuries for now!).

The point here is that the existence of something is dynamical.  The existence is not to be assumed in Nature.  It can only be recognized dynamically (temporal lags may occur).  At a certain point of time, the existence of something is revealed.  Until that moment, it did not exist at all in the perspective of a particular observer.

The Framework And the Objectivity

In perceiving things objectively, there must be a framework.

In other words, an objectivity resides within a framework.  There is no absolute objectivity.

Let us consider an economic problem in a society.  Economics is a study of human collective actions due to the influence of internal and external factors.  One of the goals that economists must achieve is to find the most efficient way of distributing various resources such as tax and labor.  We, human beings, tend to consider the importance of each individual, however, the efficiency of the whole requires the perspective of the whole, which is in this case the entire society.  The perspective of the society is the framework of the objective purpose: namely, the most efficient policy.

An entity in Nature neither can receive nor want to receive all incoming information.  There is the limit of obtainable information for each individual entity.  Even in forming a group of those entities, the collection of physical ingredients plays a role of an entity at the higher level of physics.  Then simultaneously the objective framework is formed for it.

But there is a question.

Isn't there really no absolute objectivity?

If it is possible for us to develop the scheme of forming framework, that can be the absolute perspective?

to be continued...

The Objectivity Needs More Discussions

This project repeatedly comes back to a concept: objectivity.  There is no doubt that this concept is and has been center to various discussions scientifically as well as philosophically.

Regardless of such interest among human beings, the whole picture of the concept is still ambiguous except for one aspect: the perspective of us, human observers, is always assumed.

Since Nature does not intend us to be center of itself, it is arrogant to make such assumption.

The Memory of Earth...?

Dinosaurs have been left as fossils.  The shape of mountains can be a proof of the moving plates underneath.  There are a lot of memories of this planet.

These ordinary concepts are not of course immortal.  They seem stable and static, but in fact they do not remain intact for good.  The elapse of time will eventually erode them without specific protection.

There is no static memory of the earth at all.  They look static within the span of human life.  And of course, we, human beings, may be the only ones that can deduce the cause of temporal change, which has happened to those memories of the planet.

The point in this post is that certain forms of systems consisting of many entities temporally become stationary at some physical levels.  In the particular case of fossils, they are stationary to human eyes: the level of visible light and human life-span.  Observers other than human may in fact find such situations themselves at other physical levels.

An Intermediate Summary #3

In order to explain life-forms, we must not pay attention only to the subject in question itself. Instead, the system that surrounds the subject, including the observer him(it)self, must be taken into account.

For example, a bacterium swims upstream the gradient of higher glucose concentration, which is its food, with its own will. In ordinary science, we try to explain this spontaneous behavior of this life-form as a completely independent subject. In the new scheme, however, we need to consider the observer, which is actually observing the bacterium, to be a part of the system. The motion of the bacterium is constantly captured in the memory of the observer, and he continuously (though unconsciously) compares the stored information with what he is actually seeing at this moment. Furthermore, the glucose also plays an important role as a source of information, which is very profitable to the bacteria.

Human observers have considered that their manner of observation was in fact objective enough. Unfortunately, that is the arrogance of ours. The most important point of this project is to reconsider the whole knowledge based upon the understanding that the observers are part of Nature.

And hopefully, it will find an explanation to the mystery of life-form, which has been the center of our curiosity.

The problem in proceeding from now on is that the spontaneity of action is to be more formally explained. So far, various attempts have not made any good conclusions.

An Intermediate Summary #2

The Framework:
An entity exists only if its information is to be received by others.  The framework of this new concept is based upon the emission and the reception of information.
The information can take various forms such as photons and sound-waves.  Here it is more general: anything that can be emitted from a source and received by other entities.

The more sophisticated framework:
The storage and the retrieval of information are the sophisticated form of the concept.  It is essential to understanding of life-forms.
Information itself does not stand still.  It does not spontaneously come out of a bottle all the sudden.  There must be a system that is developed enough for playing the role of memory.
The memory system is not a glass jar having a lid, which conceals and preserves the content.  It is not like an electronic disk that maintain the information as the form of digital combinations.  It is rather a system that many entities compose.

A life-form does not stand alone:
A living-organism does not live by all itself.  It needs foods and other important materials in order to preserve its functions.  Hence, a living-organism is only a part of Nature.  It is a mistake to observe a living-organism an independent entity.  It is meaningful only if the surroundings are to be taken into account.

Newtonian mechanics works only with the memory system:
When observing the motion of an object, which is under the influence of some external forces (in the ordinary scientific sense), the observer has to have the memory ability.  Without the memory system, which retrives and compares the previous information taken a moment before, the object does not look like moving at all.  We tend to believe that OUR observation is objective enough.  In fact, we are only part of Nature.  And that is the core to this project.

An Intermediate Summary #1

Since the project requires a number of concepts that are intricately interwoven.  A summary may help us refocus the problem and goal.

A goal of the project: 
We establish a new framework of scientific knowledge.

The motivation for the project:
Although mathematical analyses have greatly contributed to the development of science, the expansion of the knowledge seems to face a dead-end.  Many of scientists may claim that this difficulty is only due to the fact that we have not discovered enough.  The project does not deny the existing path towards new discoveries.  It only attempts to discover a new path that can reach unknown frontiers.  The new path may need to restart from the birth of mathematics itself.

The problem of counting:
Human beings have established the foundation of mathematics (arithmetic) when they started counting the number of objects in front of them.  Counting requires ignoring the details of the objects.  For example, there is no identical twin of apples, so when counting the apples (even calling them "apples"), we ignore the tiny details of them.  In other words, human observers categorize targets in order to minimize the information that they need to store.

The limit of knowledge:
Observers have an intrinsic limit of obtainable information.  The ignorance of counting, expressed above, is not intentional but natural.  For example, human observers have the limit in their sight within the range of visible light.  And of course, the ignorance in counting is another level of the limit.

to be continued...

The Weight of Categorization

The previous post has introduced a new concept: the weight of categorization.

An entity may have the ability to categorize the incoming information into some convenience.  Each category has more importance than others.  The importance signifies the rate of observing attention.

For example, the color of outer skin is more visible for human observers than any other biological functions that reside within a target in question.  The color of the appearance is weighted.  A weighted category tends to give the observer an impression that it is more important that other factors.

The point here is not only to introduce the new concept but also to pay attention to the subjectively intended action.  Human observers do tend to focus on what is visible by sight.  It is a natural tendency.  In the ordinary science, they tend to minimize such subjective tendencies and to establish what they call "more general" perspectives.  For example, the color of the appearance is only one factor, which is equally important in comparison to others.  Well, this is more unnatural.

We are to accept natural tendencies, which seem more objective, rather than to intentionally found a norm of categorization.

The Mutation

Mutations occur in the natural world.  The frequency of the occurance is not too high, but when it does happen, the impact upon human observers is tremendous.
Here we have a basic assumption: the observers are all human.

We now try to develop more general ideas concerning the mutation.

The mutation is mainly due to a relatively large contradiction to the information stored as memory of a group of observers.  It is important to emphasize the word, "group", because the mutation is to be achieved by collective observations.  Any single observation due to an observer does not necessarily signify the mutation.  It could only be a mistake.

A group of observers possess the memeory of a certain pattern of natural behaviors.  For example, almost all swans are to be white, rather than black.  Human observers intrinsically have the memeory (or knowledge) that swans are white.  When a black swan is born, a contradiction of this newly produced information confuses the knowledge of human observers.

But has Nature intended such a huge gap between the new life-form and the human memory?

We need a new concept in order for further discussions.

The weight of categorization: the importance of categorized information relative to the particular observer.

For example, the color of the external skin of swans is extremely visible to human observers.  It is more noticable than any other categories of biological structures.  So, the importance of this category, the color in this case, is relatively large (extremely large in fact) to human obsevers.  That is to say, the weight of categorization relative to human observers is put on the color.

On the other hand, the color is only a tiny portion of the entire biological structure of swans in concerning the perspective of Nature.  A life-form has, in general, more factors than the external skin such as the functions of internal organs, the circulation of blood, and the behaviors of muscles.  For the sake of argument, if we assume that all biological factors have the equal weight of categorization relative to Nature, then probability of choosing a color, black in this case, for the external skin factor is extremely small because of the large number of factors that compose a swan.  Even if a dice switches on and off the color, "black", the probability of producing a black swan is to be negligible.  We may be able to conclude that the mutation is one chance among many equally distributed possibilities.

This argument is still experimental.  It is to be continued.

experimental concept: The Categorization of Information

When considering tremendous amount of information, the categorization or tagging becomes important in organizing the whole.  By doing so, the amount of work that manipulates the information can be greatly reduced.  But the problem is clearly how to categorize it.

Any kind of information can be categorized into more than one group, at least from human perspective.  Furthermore, the categorization is subject to the one that executes it.  In other words, subjective points of view may confuse among observers, which most likely the executors of categorization.

The questions are following.

Do we need to have the objective categorization?

If we do, what does it look like?

The Black Swan effect is a good example of categorization.  Nature produces almost identical life-forms, one is white and the other is black, and the difference between the biological structures between those swans is extremely subtle, even negligible.  But human observers capture the difference in color as to be primary rather than negligible.  The contradiction between the categorizations may cause a serious problem.

experimental concept: The Spontaneity of Reception

When describing information emitted from a source to an observer, it sounds that it has the will to flow from one place to another.  This spontaneity of delivering itself is always implied.

What if an observer rather has the willingness to grasp or forcibly obtain the information from the source?  It seems ridiculous but it must be considered at least until the invalidness is confirmed.

If information flows from a source to an observer, this observer simply waits there until some signal ignites its receiving mechanism.  Then, the spontaneity is entirely due to the automatic(?) flow of information rather than the observer or a system containing it.

To be continued...

experimental concept: The Information Cloud

Information is not point-like.  It has no physical appearance.  It can take any kind of form.

Here we experimentally introduce a new concept: information cloud.

The information cloud is similar to a term which is currently very famous: cloud computing.  It has no definite physical appearance.  An entity receives information from the cloud but it does not need to know where it is emitted and what emitted it.  The information literally takes the form of cloud, surrounding the entity ambiguously.

This is only a test for a new start.  Starting from a new idea may help us develop the thought further.

Groups of Men Sharing Knowledge

The previous post explains that even human knowledge exists in a group of those who accept it.  Knowledge does not stand by all itself.  It lives like a ghost by continuously transfered from one person to another.  The media, which are responsible for the transmission, may take different forms, depending on the convenience and the era.  Historically, written materials, currently known as books, are the major players, whereas recently the Internet tends to take over the role.  Regardless of the forms of the media, the basic principle of transmitting the knowledge has been always the same: languages.

After the invention of printing-device, the acceleration of the spread of knowledge has become tremendous.  Even so, oral expressions still have taken place in order to pass knowledge to others.  Of course the languages are not the knowledge itself (although they are part of it).  They are mainly the media.  Knowledge only exist and is meaningful only if it is to passed around us.

The point here is that this idea is probably an easily imaginable picture of this project.  Since the fundamental concept is universally applicable, it must be applicable to the knowledge that we possess as well.

A person plays an entity.  A group of those people forms a system.  Knowledge or information is shared among them, then the information is meaningful.  Information is passed from a source, then for the received person (observer) confirms the existence of the source.
The spontaneity of the spread of information is mainly due to the act of human observers (entities).  The cause of the spontaneity is yet to be determined because of the complexity of the system in question.

One of the future plans is to show the importance of the change of media.  By shifting or replacing the responsible media, the behavior of systems may change.  But how?

A Social Contribution Due to the Innovation

Hopefully, my thought will change the fundamental knowledge of man-kind.  Although any scientific discovery may not contribute directly to social lives of ours, the curiosity that we intrinsically possess needs to be fulfilled satisfactorily.  In that sense, a social contribution will be possible.

Furthermore, in the society people frequently encounter problems due to their prejudices.  For example, a group of people often produces an atmosphere that all the members must follow.  The atmosphere is due to the act of searching for the common interest shared among the members.  In other words, acting similarly benefits almost everyone in that group.

Knowledge has had a similar characteristic.  Knowledge, especially scientific theories, is to be accepted by people only if it obtains the support from as many people as possible.  Knowledge lives within groups of people.
If such knowledge benefits everyone, that is fine.  But in reality it does not.  Especially, social knowledge like customs or habits sometimes bothers the lives of many.  Commonly shared knowledge does not always make people happy, not to mention that a new one may not as well.

The point here is, however, that avoiding innovations of thought may not improve the current situation.  Most likely it would rather worsen it.
So, by breaking through the existing knowledge (or theories), people trapped in the cage of prejudices would be able to gain the courage to change their own situations.  Even popular scientific knowledge, which may be known to non-science people, can be overturned, and this innovation hopefully changes the will of living.

The Appearance of Knowledge

To be meaningful as a scientific theory, it must be coherent with what actually happens in the natural world.  The scientific procedure is the repetition of constructing and confirming theories.  Science is said to study only repeatables.  That is to say, if someone claims a theory, any other people must be able to reproduce it.

The knowledge of science is limited to the realm of this reproducibility.  But seemingly Nature provides more than the repeatables.  Sure enough, the problem is that it is impossible to show what happens only once in Nature.

Information implies existence.

The information includes, of course, this repeatability.  Then, it seems reasonable to claim that non-repeatable phenomena in Nature are pointless to discuss.  It sounds forcible, yes.  But if it is not repeatable, the information does not settle as a part of memory, which is to be retrieved in the future.  The information stored as memory signifies the repeatability.

The whole project implicitly claims that knowledge is not to have a physical appearance.  Rather, it is to exist in Nature itself.  In other words, information continuously flows from one place to another, and any observers possess the information temporarily, where the duration of possession could be an instant or more than human-life long.  Information as knowledge is never stationary.  And it is impossible to capture, at least in a sense of the ordinary scientific process.

Then, what can we do about it if it is impossible to capture?

We reconstruct the whole knowledge based upon this basic assumption: information never stays still.