towards The Dream of The Grand Unified Theory

The Diversity of The Nature and The Information Transmission

2011-06-20T19:28:00.003+09:00

1 The Limit of Knowledge
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.

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

2011-06-20T15:15:00.002+09:00

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

Go to here.

The Conceptual Explanation

2011-06-12T20:05:00.001+09:00

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.

2 Scalable Concept

In order to step over the rigid boundary, we must start from the very bottom of the knowledge. It certainly requires a reconstruction of thought.

Take a look at the diagram below.

There are many (although the diagram temporarily shows only two) perspectives, each of which represents an ordinary ideal region of interest. The difference is perhaps that each of the perspectives may not include actual (human) observers. We will get to that later.

The point here is that the concepts covering those perspectives are primarily interconnected.

There are three basic elements that can altogether form an active subject.

Structural Similarity
Cyclic Action
External Interaction

Also, they are flexible enough to cover enough regions accordingly.

To be continued…

More fully developed version, go to here.

The Least Possible Memery System

2011-06-06T19:57:00.008+09:00

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

2011-06-03T19:22:00.001+09:00

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

2011-06-02T19:58:00.003+09:00

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

2011-06-01T16:06:00.005+09:00

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

2011-05-26T17:04:00.002+09:00

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

2011-05-25T16:24:00.002+09:00

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?

2011-05-20T19:46:00.002+09:00

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

2011-05-09T19:37:00.003+09:00

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

2011-03-25T18:13:00.003+09:00

An Intermediate Summary

A concept based on life

It represents three elements

Structural Similarity

Cyclic Action

External Interaction

These three elements exists inter-connectedly

Old theories can be derived by ignoring their connections

Structural Similarity - generalization (or categorization)

Cyclic Action - inertia

External Interaction - observation

Problem

For more developed version, go to here.

Life-Activity Defines Cycles

2011-03-22T16:46:00.003+09:00

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

2011-03-13T19:18:00.003+09:00

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

2011-03-11T12:22:00.001+09:00

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

2011-03-10T15:29:00.002+09:00

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

2011-03-07T16:32:00.003+09:00

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!!!

2011-02-28T16:41:00.002+09:00

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

http//thesis.soichi.info

The Relativistic Nature of "Nature"

2011-02-18T17:47:00.000+09:00

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...

2011-02-16T15:15:00.001+09:00

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?

2010-09-29T19:21:00.000+09:00

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...

2010-09-25T18:26:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-24T19:01:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-23T19:04:00.000+09:00

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...

2010-09-22T10:50:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-21T19:51:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-20T19:18:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-17T14:03:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-16T11:11:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-15T19:19:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-13T19:40:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-12T19:12:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-11T17:17:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-10T19:55:00.001+09:00

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

2010-09-09T19:30:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-08T16:39:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-06T19:17:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-04T17:05:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-03T17:12:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-02T18:13:00.000+09:00

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

2010-09-01T19:22:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-30T20:00:00.000+09:00

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?

2010-08-29T20:04:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-28T16:46:00.001+09:00

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

2010-08-27T15:43:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-26T17:00:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-25T19:05:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-24T19:19:00.000+09:00

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...?

2010-08-23T19:46:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-22T16:39:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-21T16:55:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-20T19:06:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-19T16:49:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-18T15:55:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-17T18:58:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-15T18:08:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-14T18:27:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-13T15:08:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-12T19:12:00.000+09:00

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

2010-08-10T18:59:00.000+09:00

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.

A Contradictory Recognition for the Spontaneity

2010-08-09T13:55:00.000+09:00

Let us consider the simplest possible case, which has only two entities.

Every entity has the limit of obtainable information. Counting is a good example. A human observer recognizes all apples to be identical, even though there is no identical twin of apples. We, human observers, ignore the tiny details of apples and consider them to be identical. Then, we count them as one, two, three, and so on. Although it is possible to detect the details, but we unconsciously neglect them and form the imaginary existence in the mind: namely, completely identical apples. In other words, the receivers of information have the limit of its capability.

Say, an entity, which plays both emitter and receiver, can receive the information from anther entity B. On the other hand, the entity B cannot receive the information from A. There is a contradictory situation.

Information implies existence. So, for A, B exists. But for B, A does not.

Furthermore, A wishes to form a group with B because the physical identity is comparable. But B does not recognize the existence of A, so it is impossible to agree upon forming the group.
B cannot simply escape from the influence of A because "escaping" requires recognition as well. In other words, since B does not recognize A, it is pointless for B to simply escape from the influence of A.

The entities A and B form an interesting relationship.

They do not escape from each other but do not coherently form a group.

Hypothesis: This is the motivation for the spontaneous action.

The Intrinsic Knowledge of a System

2010-08-07T15:47:00.000+09:00

Information implies existence. Without acknowledgement via information, it is pointless to discuss the existence of particular entities. If such entities emitting information form a group, they internally play the role of the intrinsic property of the group.

Within the system (or the group), the consisting entities exchange information that confirms the existences of each other. This internal spontaneity may cause the external action as well...

in progress...: The Intrinsic Memory to The System...?

2010-08-06T15:57:00.000+09:00

Each individual entity may not have the memory ability. Elementary particles are a good example. But when a collection of such individuals forms a group, it has the intrinsic knowledge, which works as the memory.

It seems strange. Yes. But it is worthwhile to consider it.

The Environmental Memory

2010-08-05T12:16:00.000+09:00

Suppose there is no observer having the ability of memory. There are only, say, inorganic materials.
It is important to remember that even inorganic materials can in fact receive and emit information, so it is natural to consider them to be observers. The crucial distinction is whether or not they have the memory ability.

Since the observers having no memory cannot compare what they saw and what they are seeing. It is rather pointless to even discuss the validity of the spontaneous action. Here the observers only receive the information of current occurrences, and the all the received information is to be discarded immediately.

How do they see the action of spontaneity?

The continuously changing state towards equilibrium does not look like a continuous action at all. Those particular observers only repeat capture and discard the fragments of information.

If a certain condition is met (like "The Organic Functionality"), inorganic materials can possess the ability to store and retrieve information hence to have the ability of memory. Under such circumstances, inorganic materials that form a group play the important roles for each other in order to establish the environmental memory. The members of the group (in this case, the inorganic materials) behave so that the group as the whole tries to reach the state of equilibrium to the eyes of human observers. Remember, they look moving spontaneously because we, human observers, who have the memories, are watching them. The members themselves may not recognize such motion at all, although they could do it with the help of this environmental memory (see "The Organic Functionality").

The point here is that each individual entity, in this particular case an inorganic material, may not be able to recognize the spontaneous action, the system or group of the entities as the whole can play the role instead. Although each member of the system does not recognize or store the knowledge of the action, the system maintains its own knowledge within itself.

thinking...: The spontaneous action needs observers with memory

2010-08-04T16:58:00.000+09:00

Similar to Newton's law of motion, observing the action of spontaneity of the system in question requires the observers having the well-established memory.

For example, watching the the flow of air in a sealed room with the help of colored smoke needs comparing the memory of the image captured an instance before. At a moment, the observer renders the moment that the air distribution is uneven. A few seconds later, he sees the air is more and more mixed. Sometime later, he now considers the room air to be evenly mixed: the state of equilibrium. He continuously compares the memories captured instance prior to the current image, then he may conclude the spontaneous action of air looking for the state of equilibrium.

When discussing the action, which is normally described the change in time, the observers need the process of comparison with stored memories. In other words, if there is no human observers that do this job, there is no point in discussing the action at all.

In ordinary science, the action leading to the state of equilibrium is said to be intrinsic, meaning that it is a fundamental aspect of Nature. Like "Not a life-form but life-forms", such aspect is only meaningful if there is appropriate observers. Hence it is now important to discuss this problem where the system includes observers with memories.

thinking...: What causes the spontaneous action...?

2010-08-03T17:47:00.000+09:00

Well, the whole point of the project is to establish the framework that is applicable to all physical levels. The entire picture of that is becoming more and more sharpened and concrete.

But a question is not yet avoidable: What causes the spontaneous action?

In reaching a state of equilibrium, the system in question changes itself and it looks as though it has own intelligence to do so. The action is spontaneous. In science looking for the cause of phenomenon is crucial. If we wish to replace such motivation, it is inevitable to replace the explanation as well. And it is yet to become apparent.

Now at least we know where the problem lies. It is a good place to resume.

The Resistance to Disruptions

2010-08-02T10:53:00.000+09:00

A state of equilibrium shows the resistance to the change of its own. It is unlikely to change from inside. It is more likely that some external influences may attempt to change the state. The resistance to such changes are observable in many aspects, including not only the world of Nature but also the world of human societies.

Once human beings establish a stable society, the people inside do not wish to change it. Small number of attempts to disrupt the state of social equilibrium enlighten defensive actions by the members of the society. Even if troublesome social states become equilibrium and henceforth many people understand the need of change, any weak attempt to redirect the course of society would be blocked by the force of equilibrium.
And this phenomenon is not unique to a particular culture; it is universally observable.

The point is that the behavior of groups, consisting of many entities, is not unique to the natural world. Similar instances are to be observed in social aspects; hence, it is reasonable to consider this idea to be universally applicable. That is, one abstract model that describes the behavior of the entities can be used for any other situations regardless of physical sizes.

When scientific knowledge has been established, they believed that such perspective was objective enough. But in fact the developers and the acknowledgers of the perspective are also part of the knowledge. We are not only the ones who observe Nature, but also the ones who are being observed.

Memory and Equilibrium

2010-08-01T16:16:00.000+09:00

"The Organic Functionality" shows an important connection to equilibrium. Well, in fact, it is not a connection to it. But it is equilibrium itself...

Although this part is still in progress of developing, the idea seems very reasonable.

The memory system is the state of equilibrium.

In case of two-body, the entities repeat the same motion, so that can be interpreted as being the state is stored as memory. They do what they did because the memory is recollected.

A state at equilibrium maintains its physical appearance because the state and its compositions have clear memories about what they were an instance before.

This idea is fascinating but needs more development.

Rotating Bodies

2010-07-31T18:09:00.000+09:00

Rotating bodies are a good example of equilibrium relations. For simplicity, we consider a two-body case.

Two bodies, one small and another big, maintain certain distance between them. The distance may change by time but the change is periodical so predictable. They maintain the relation and form a system that is at equilibrium, which can be well explained in ordinary science.

Again, we pay attention to the system consisting of more than one entity. Instead of thinking of a body and a force, we now think of the system being maintained by the relations among the entities.

In case of single-body, the inertial motion is in action...(which is to be developed further)

Finding a Pattern of Action

2010-07-30T13:12:00.000+09:00

Each entity of a system may not become stationary after the system has reached equilibrium. The meaning of equilibrium here is general; the entire system is stable in a physical sense.

That the system is stable does not mean that all entities are stationary. Some of them may be in fact stationary, but not in general. The entities composing the system continue their motions even after reaching equilibrium. But the behavior of each entity is now customary.

When discussing the motion of an object, we have tendency to focus on the subject in question. It is very important to remind ourselves that the point is the relation with other entities.
Information is the proof of the existence. Existing entities confirm each other by exchanging information. The information relates one with another. In the state of equilibrium, the relations among entities become customary, which is another way of saying that the behaviors do so.

Some of you may wonder that in the world of elementary particles, it is impossible to detect the motion of each entity. Yes. But those indistinguishable particles can form relations with any one of them by replacing with identical particles in the same fashion. The above statement can hold.

still in progress...The Inertial Motion?

2010-07-29T19:15:00.000+09:00

The problem of equilibrium appears to be very troublesome. That is because the equilibrium depends on what an observer perceives.

In ordinary science, for example, pressure and volume are the important framework for establishing equilibrium. But here we do not refer to them at all. Those man-made concepts are irrelevant.

Now, a new candidate is the inertial motion with boundary-free universe. Each entity creates its own universe. And a collection of such entities creates the universe and that is equivalent to inertial motion.

Entities execute inertial motions in order to reach some equilibrium...it seems reasonable but not quite good enough.

trouble in progress...: The Equilibrium

2010-07-28T18:08:00.000+09:00

Right now, a problem is occurring. The key to the whole project, the equilibrium, does not seem to become coherent with other concepts. There is a spontaneous action that leads to a stable state. Then, without reference to forces, such action must be explained.

The point here is how we should perceive the action towards equilibrium. It does not necessarily mean that there is a force leading it. But this concept should work well with the whole structure.

plan:The Components That Need to Be Built

2010-07-26T19:17:00.000+09:00

There are too many concepts that have important roles in the project.

information justifies the existence of an entity that emits it
scale free: a framework is applicable to all physical levels
an entity plays a piece of the whole
each entity plays the whole of its parts
information is the connection to other entities

The action is spontaneous. Right now, where the spontaneity comes from is the key for the further development. Equilibrium and disequilibrium are a good place to start. First, we need to define them both.

The difficulty in setting the goal e

2010-07-23T16:04:00.000+09:00

In the process of researches the most difficult part is to where to stop.

Someone has once told me. And now I understand it finally.

Even though ideas come out for development infinitely, the end of the project seems far away. Every step of manipulating ideas does not make me think to approach a goal, if there is any. Some ideas seem to turn around and see a new direction which is not pointing the goal. Fragments of thoughts have no cohesion within themselves.

It is simple to ask what I want to do with it.

The starting point is where I was. But where I want to go is not known unless the entire map is completed beforehand. And the map did not even exist at all.

The only thing I had known before starting to walk is that the existing map was drawn with wrong pencils. There was a belief that drawing the map could be more realistic than simply sketching. Human observers try to simply build new thoughts upon old thoughts. They believe that knowledge is to be stacked up. And they never wonder the possibility of having built our thoughts upon a wrong foundation.

That's right. The goal is to show that knowledge is to be developed differently. The entire knowledge can be reconstructed. The reconstructed knowledge is more useful and flexible. There is no foundation of the knowledge. There is only a framework. The framework is applicable to all levels of Nature.

Now it seems understandable why I get to lost sometimes. In working on the framework, which is not based on anything, the entire picture blurs.

So the next step is to organize basic criteria.

What are the least necessities?

The Stability and The Frame

2010-07-22T17:11:00.003+09:00

The stability of a state depends on the frame as well. The dependency is critically important.

First of all, we need to define the stability. A state in question is stable, then it is unlikely that the state will change in the near future. Here we make an assumption. Namely, the criteria of the state are ambiguously understood among observers.

In order to clarify the point, let us say that an orange is stable. Then, we, human observers, simply assume that the color and the size of the orange are unlikely to change right away. In this case, the color and the size are the frames that the observers have chosen, although there are infinitely many possibilities for the frames. When discussing the stability, the frames are important. And the frames depend on he observers.

Up to this point, however, it seems like a common sense. In physics for example, physical quantities, such as temperature and pressure, are critical in asking the stability. The point here is that such physical discussions are in fact too naive for understanding Nature. There is no such thing as a completely isolated system in the natural world as well as any man-made systems. The existence implies the information. A system exists, then some observers, including non-human ones, receive some kind of its information.

To clarify the point, let us go back to the case of an orange. The color and the size of the orange seem stable at least for a certain length of time. But simultaneously water goes out from the orange. The air flows around the orange. Some ingredients other than water come and go. The state of the orange changes constantly.

You may ask, "So what? We ignore the details for simplicity."

And you yourself point out the most important point.

The observers set the frames in observing the stability as well.

More precisely,

Observations are frames.

You may ask as well,

"If setting frames is inevitable, there is no point in discussing it."

Yes, there is. Because human observers are not the only ones receiving information from subjects in question. Other inorganic materials can in fact receive information of subjects such as oranges. The air around the orange for example receives the information about what it can take and carry from it and to it. Water inside the orange receives the information about if it should stay there or leave there for good.

Nature is full of the exchanges of information. Every system constantly flows information with other sources and receivers, and in order to do so, considering frames is important.

The Frame of Information

2010-07-21T16:35:00.000+09:00

When receiving information, the receiver sets its own frame. The frame is directly related to categorization.

For example, the color of swans is a frame for human observer. In the process of recognizing swans, one of the simplest way to minimize the information for storage is to categorize them in terms of colors. Setting such frame is a way to gain benefit, namely, the simplification of incoming information. It is beneficial for the observers (receivers of information) to set a frame, which in this particular case is the color. So, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that...

The frame of information is equivalent to the benefit of the observer.

By observing the frames of observers, it is possible to understand what they look for. However, things are not so simple because the frames are relative.

From the DNA stand-point, Nature does not set the frame of "color" for human observers. The color of subjects in question is purely human-made. It is not clear to understand what Nature looks for.

But it is a good start...

plan: An Experiment with the Internet

2010-07-20T09:07:00.000+09:00

If we consider an Internet user as an entity for emitting and receiving information, it may be possible to actually observe the memory dynamics.

Since the entire perspective covers the entire Internet, which is spread all over the world, the activity of each user can be point-like. Although this plan is yet to be ready (far from ready!), it can be a good candidate for testing methods.

The fundamental idea of the memory dynamics should be applicable to any physical level of consideration, so it should not matter if the subject in question is much bigger than normal physics tests.

In order to execute it, one must manipulate the information on the net at least in a statistical sense.

The Memory Dynamics

2010-07-19T15:40:00.000+09:00

According to the preceded discussions, it is reasonable to consider that memories are not static at least in an organic sense. Unlike computers, information has no concrete appearance. It is like a ghost. It appears as though an existence by all itself. But it also appears as though a chunk of vapour that vanishes all the sudden.

A piece of memory is only one aspect of a entity in question. The entity reveals its memory when some external influences make it do so. If the entity stands completely alone, there is no point of discussing the memory that it owns.

For example, when we take exams at school, we may recall learned information but we do it because test questions explicitly ask us for it in relation to the particular information. The questions on the exam are the external influences. When we try to remember answers, we unconsciously imagine related subjects or words. The intended information does not come out by itself.

This concrete example seems irrelevant in the discussion of Nature at the fundamental level. But this general idea can be in fact applicable to all levels of scientific knowledge. Or that is to say, such general nature of fundamental physics is as well applicable to an aspect of living-organism.

Our normal (in comparison to more general) observations such as Newton's law of motion need the memory system. Without memory systems, it is impossible to even feel the motion. A moving object is a collection of previously stored (henceforth, retrieved) memories. From this understanding, a life-form may accordingly reveal its secrets.

With A Tiny Deviation

2010-07-18T12:06:00.000+09:00

If the incoming information has a deviation from the original, the treatment is similar.

After the change of its state, the entity recognizes the secondary information (below in the figure) to be the same as the original if the deviation is small enough in comparison to the information itself.

This is the manner of counting. We count the number of apples as though all apples are identical. We ignore tiny details of apples by counting. The apples are recognized as a single kind.

The Simplest Possible Memory System

2010-07-17T10:52:00.000+09:00

Let us consider the simplest possible memory system, having the ability to store and retrieve the gained information. Remember, to store is functionally equivalent to to retrieve (reference: "The Memory System")

The figure on the right shows such memory system.

An entity (in this case, it could be both organic and inorganic. The difference is irrelevant) receives information indicated as "A". Because of the reception, the entity changes its own state. The same information "A" arrives at the entity again, but gets refused at this time because it does not need it anymore (see "The simplification and abstraction").

The point here is that the entity does retrieve the memory of information when the same thing comes again. The entity may not recognize itself that it has stored the information. But when the information is retrieved, it recognizes that the storage was completed. In other words, the storage and the retrieval happen (or more precisely, are recognized) simultaneously. They are identical activities.

The Memory System

2010-07-16T11:15:00.000+09:00

The memory system is one of the most important features of living-organism. Without this functionality, one cannot learn anything. It is also plays a core of this entire project.

Ever since the birth of computers, the storage of information has become a central issue of their development. The digital form of information can be physically stored in a hard-drive, for example. The appearance of this stored information is easily readable because the information itself maintains its fundamental structure and it is reconstructible physically.

On the other hand, memories of human being are not so easy. Even if we dissect a human brain, which we now understand the core of thinking-process, it is impossible to reconstruct the information of the memories from it. It is even difficult to find a trace of it. (Here we are not to consider DNA, which is the memory of species and its reproduction)

The figure from the previous post is modified slightly. Now the observer has the memory-system. Generally speaking, the memory has two main functions.

1. to store
2. to retrieve

This figure seems a good generalization of such system. However, a close attention to the figure reveals an important point.

There is information that the observer cannot retrieve.

Well, what is the point of retrieving what is impossible to do so? Now we make an assumption.

The storage is equivalent to the retrieval.

The observer store information that is retrievable. That is to say, when information is retrieval, it is stored. This is the point here.

The importance of this point is that a memory-system can be established if retrieval situations are to be set. And these situations are much more general that we normally imagine like human-organisms.

Observations Are Relative

2010-07-15T13:34:00.000+09:00

If we accept that an observation is in general to receive information from some source, then observers can be other than human ones. First of all, Nature does not imply that we, human observers, are the center of the natural world. What we have considered as scientific knowledge is only valid from our perspective. It is our arrogance that makes us center to Nature.

Since the existence of an entity is confirmed by observing (receiving) the information from it, the question is whether or not the observer can in fact receive the information. In other words, the entity does not exist if the observer cannot receive information from it.

The figure show the idea. The observer can only limited kinds of information. Then, the sources of information, which the observer cannot receive, do not exist FOR THE OBSERVER.

Observations are relative.

What we see is not absolute. What we see is only valid for us.

Indirect Observations

2010-07-14T09:47:00.000+09:00

The existence of physical entities has been controversial among philosophers. For example, they argue, "Is there any sound of a fallen tree-branch in a deserted forest?" "Deserted" means that there is no human observer. The answer seems yes and no. It depends on what we consider to be an "observer".

The existence signifies the emission and the reception of information. If something exists, the information of its existence must be transmitted to other receivers. In other words,

The existence is equivalent to the information.

Consider the case of the diagram.

The observer (in this case human one) can receive information from the entity A directly, whereas cannot do so from B. But the entity A can recognize the existence of B by receiving the information. The observer may in fact recognize the entity B through A. That is to say, a composition (or a system) of A and B is to be recognized as an entity by the observer.

This case shows that the entity A plays a role of observer for the entity B. Our knowledge can be more fascinating if we accept observers other than human ones.

The Limit of Observation

2010-07-13T09:11:00.000+09:00

The modern science has revealed that it is impossible for human observers to directly observe elementary particles. It is even irrelevant to discuss the possibility of such observation. That is because the physical size of those particles is comparable to that of the transmitting media, photons; hence, a chunk of photons cannot codify the existence of particles in a way that we, human observers, can directly see.

We observe those particle with the help of experimental apparatuses. In other words, for a kind of observers, there is the limit of observation. Without the intermediate process (in this particular case, the experimental apparatuses), the limit of observation cannot be beat.

The point here is that we, human observers, tend to assume that we can observe everything. Well, yes, and no. Yes, if the apparatuses are available. But no if an observation is to be defined as the direct one.

Direct observations are those the observers can perform with the their intrinsic properties, such as sight, touch, and smell. Observers are those having the ability of gaining information from outer sources. That is to say, there are observers other than human ones?

The Simplification and The Abstraction

2010-07-12T13:38:00.000+09:00

Simplification is functionally equivalent to abstraction. We unconsciously abstract the incoming information in order to minimize what we need to store as memory.

For example, the name, "apple", is given to all apples, although each of those is slightly differently from others in terms of size, color, and shape. No identical twin of apples exists. But we call them all "apple". We minimize the information regarding this particular kind of organic materials by categorizing them to be the same sort. Only single term, "apple", represents uncountable objects, which have existed, which are existing, and which will exist. The potential of this term is infinite.

The role of mathematics is the application of this idea. We count five apples, for example. The term, "five", implies that counted apples are all identically recognized. We count the number of apples by assuming that these apples are identical. In other words, we ignore the detail of the apples and consider only their categorization, which is known to be "apple".

Why do we do this?

We need to simplify the information because our storage of knowledge is not infinite. We look for the minimum amount of information that describes as many subjects as possible. Naturally, the abstraction is the course of action.

What if we pay close attention to the details of apples in counting them?

Well, it is impossible to count them anymore because "counting" has no meaning whatsoever. Now all apples are distinct objects. We need to rather accept the tendency to ignore the details.

The limit of knowledge is the potential range of obtainable information.

This is the basic idea.

The Contribution to The Society

2010-07-11T07:35:00.001+09:00

I wonder how this project contributes to the society. Every work of art is meaningful only if it has the potential to make something better. Understanding the natural world is to fulfill the curiosity of man-kind. But is it enough?

The application to new technologies is one way. New technologies have brought better lives to people. On the other hand, the fundamental levels of research may not in fact contribute to the world at least in an obvious way.

Breakthroughs in science can breakthrough our perceptions. We unconsciously tend to live within the realm of ideally constructed thought. It is not easy for most of us to get away from it. Breaking through such recognitions can help those do it.

But simultaneously it makes people anxious because going into some unknown world is a challenge for us, even if it is the world of thought. We rather live in the world where every aspect is explored and understood.

A society of people may lead itself in an unwanted direction. The knowledge and beliefs tend to become self-contained because the people in the society would not have the motivation to redirect their attention. Because of the lack of the objective perspective, people do not seek solutions to the known problems in the society. One way to breakthrough such situation is to show that the most fundamental thought of all has been only a portion of something bigger. The project may hopefully show the people in the society that even the foundation of their thought can be rebuilt, hence there is no need to fear the reconstruction of the society itself.

The Knowledge of Inorganic Things

2010-07-10T12:03:00.000+09:00

Inorganic things seem to have no intellect. They seem to act based upon their environment, not upon their own wills. Certainly, they have no intention to act the way they do. But it does not mean that they have no knowledge.

Just like the case of living-organism, we need to pay attention to the environments as well as the targets in question. Inorganic things do not stand alone. They act coherently with their environment.

For example, the behavior of electrons changes depending on their states. Free electrons act differently from those trapped within atoms.

Entities are points of attention in order to understand the systems better. Every system in question is to have potential connections to others, and these connections are the information that the entities exchange.

The Simplification

2010-07-09T11:59:00.000+09:00

Simplifying the incoming information is very fundamental. Any entities (observers) may be overwhelmed by the accumulation of information without it. The process of simplification functions at the most fundamental level, and as a consequence macro observers such as human beings act based upon this mechanism.

The simplification is equivalent to funneling. Observers funnel the incoming information so that it becomes easier to obtain, to store, and retrieve.

Life Is Not Stand-Alone

2010-07-08T12:50:00.000+09:00

Paying attention to a life-forma does not solve the riddle. We need to pay attention to its environment as well.

A human body looks an independent biological entity. But in fact it can only maintain itself with the connections to other sources such as air and water.

Food is an example of information that keeps a biological body alive. This transaction of information (in this case the food) is the connection to the environment. We unconsciously pay attention only to the body itself and consider other sources to be subordinate, but this is a mental (or arrogant) aspect of human observers.

The Motivation for the Reconstruction

2010-07-06T09:23:00.000+09:00

Science studies only repeatables.

This statement well describes the nature of scientific knowledge. It is admissible only if we can reproduce the subjects in question. Experimental tests are essential.

But those experimental tests are human manipulated. They are ideally organized. They are subjectively chopped off from Nature in order to fit the demand.

The motivation for the reconstruction is to overcome this prejudice. Every entity has the possibility to connect itself to others. The entity does not exist, otherwise. For example, we SEE an entity, then it is somehow emitting or reflecting the information of existence.

The existence is the proof of the connection to other entities.

Life is Relativistic

2010-07-05T09:34:00.000+09:00

A system of entities that functions like a living-organism, then it is a matter of the attention that draws a line between life-forms and others. If observers pay attention only to these entities rather than the entire system, it may look inorganic. But once the attention is redirected to the system itself, a life-form comes into the view.

Life is relativistic.

Life-forms changes their appearances depending on the perspectives. They are all the same. But they may look differently.

The Organic Functionality

2010-07-04T08:16:00.000+09:00

Inorganic receivers can act like an organic one, having the ability to store and retrieve memories. When it is surrounded by other information sources, rather than isolated, the environment itself functions as a single system, having the organic capability.

The point here is that the boundary between organic and inorganic observers blurs. They seem distinct from each other because we, human observers, mentally draw the line between them. Nature does not provide such distinction.

Black Swan : The Case of Inorganic

2010-07-03T11:14:00.000+09:00

Inorganic materials do not possess the ability of memory storage. Without the memory, it is impossible to funnel the incoming information. But it is only true if the inorganic receiver is isolated.

If the inorganic entity is surrounded by other information sources, which continuously provide the information of "A", then the receiver funnels "A" out of "A' ".

The point here is that the ability of storing and retrieving information as memory is this mechanism that functions as an independent entity. In speaking of an "inorganic" entity, we mentally isolate this particular one from the environment. In speaking of an "organic" entity, on the other hand, such entity AND its environments are function as the whole.

The Background Information That Rejects Disruption

2010-07-02T14:11:00.000+09:00

Every life-organism establishes the background information that is the basis of understanding Nature. When the incoming information is "Black Swan"-like, the observer may reject because his background information does not process it smoothly.

The figure shows the schematic diagram of such transaction. In case of apples, shown above, the observer recognizes both "A" and "A'" to be "apple" because the background information such as the size and color is well established. Whereas the figure below shows that a black swan has not been part of the background information, although the categories other than the color, such as the name and shape, are well matched.

Black Swan as a Fundamental Concept

2010-07-01T11:00:00.002+09:00

The discovery of only one black swan is enough to negate the belief that swans are white. But exactly what is the difference between white swans and black ones? Statistically speaking, black swans exist but are rare. They barely exist. It is very difficult to find one. But that one is extremely influential. Yes, it is influential to human observers.

Say, we have two apples. Since there is no completely identical twin of apples in the world, these apples are slightly but definitely different from each other. At the first glance (by human observers), they show no difference whatsoever. Rather, we tend to identify them as the members of a single category: namely, "apple". The categorization is a man-made concept, which Nature does not exert itself. It is doubtful that these apples recognize themselves as brothers or the same kind, even if they have such ability to do so.

The point here is that the recognition is purely a human-side activity. Nature does not offer such categories but we do so in order to minimize the incoming information. In other words, we can now ask ourselves, "What if we consider a nature-size activity?"

More than 90% of DNA configurations are identical among all human beings. That is to say, in terms of biological structure, black and white people, having different colors of skin, are almost identical from the perspective of the biological stand-point. Similarly, all apples have almost identical biological structures, where more than 90% of DNA structures are shared among them. No wonder that we recognize them almost identical.

What about the case of swans? Black and white swans should share almost identical biological organizations just like black and white people. But the recognition by human (outer) observers is contradictory to that of Nature.

draft:Introduction

2010-06-30T16:25:00.001+09:00

The objective of science is to be objective. This simple statement describes well the purpose of scientific activities. The objectivity means in general that what someone observes is true for anyone. In other words, all observer recognize a natural phenomenon identically. This is, however, the fundamental flaw.
"All observers" imply all "human" observers. Our knowledge is to assume that understanding Nature is human-centered. But Nature does not by itself guarantee the absolute existence of man-kind, rather we, human spices, are only a part of the natural world.
Another fundamental flaw is that our established knowledge is based upon the inorganization. Mathematics has, for example, its root in counting the number of objects, which has no living structure within itself. So, one of the main ideas is to reconsider our knowledge starting from living-organism.

draft:Definition: Information

2010-06-29T08:55:00.000+09:00

Prior to the formal development, we must define an important concept: namely, information. The information is not only what we read in newspapers and web pages but also vision, sound, and other senses. What we read in newspapers is a kind of visionary information which photons play by bouncing off the surface of the newspaper to a retina. The meaning of information in this discussion is more general.

Information is what is emitted from a source to an observer.

It is that simple. In other words, the whole discussion is based upon what entities exchange. Instead of defining a force, we are to define relations among entities. Since there is no such thing as a completely isolated object in this universe, any entity has at least one relation with others. The relation with others is the meaning of its existence, so to speak. In order to understand the natural world in the most simplest way, we need to develop the thought based upon what is common to all entities in the universe.

http://www.reconstruction-thought.appspot.com/

The Existence of Optimization

2010-06-28T09:00:00.000+09:00

In mathematics, there is a method of analysis, called "Optimization". It is a well-established and useful way to understand the natural world as well as to engineer new technologies.

There is a basic assumption in this method, however. That is

We primarily know what is to be optimized.

It is questionable that Nature would have such knowledge prior to its development. It is reasonable to conclude that this method is idealistically man-made.

draft:limit of knowledge

2010-06-27T09:27:00.000+09:00

When we count the number of apples, we ignore the tiny details of them. We simply assume that all apples in question are identical. But there is no completely identical twin of apples in the world. All apples are distinguishable.

The tendency to neglect details is not a human nature. It is one of the fundamental concepts that Nature exerts. In order to clarify the point of argument, we need to rule out our psychological reluctance to pay attention to details. The point here is that any observer tries to minimize the incoming information for establishing efficient memory systems.

It is a funnel. In the process of gaining information from outside sources, the effect of funneling takes its action. The receiver (observer) obtains only minimized information. The mechanism of funneling resides within the receiver, neither the emitter of information nor the space between them. Observers have the ability to decipher the information from other sources, and retrieve only what is meaningful and efficient for the future use. Once a kind of information is stored in the memory, a similar one can be deciphered easily, or even rejected for efficiency.

The idea in this section is to generalize the organic process of receiving information, and this idea will be applicable to all

http://www.reconstruction-thought.appspot.com/

Exposing A Theme

2010-06-26T09:18:00.002+09:00

Newton's law of motion had been the foundation of almost all scientific fields. Its significant influence has no room for disagreement. Although quantum mechanics and general relativity have shown greater possibilities of understanding the world of Nature, Newton's contribution is still indispensable in many macro fields. The discovery of the new realm including both quantum mechanics and general relativity was in fact enormously difficult for scientists because of the duration of Newtonian era, which had continued almost 200 years.

The primary philosophy of Newton's law of motion is to understand the most fundamental rule that governs the motions of various objects that seem random and independent. It eventually comes down to three laws, though we are not to go into the details of them here.

In this part, we are to explorer the possibility of finding a new framework for Newton's law of motion. This new framework shows that the ordinary Newtonian mechanics is based upon an assumption: observers are independent of what they are observing. More specifically, if the observers and the observed targets form a system of interest, the comprehension of the motion of objects is not as simple as it has been.

This specific example will hopefully lead to the formal development that follows.

towards The Dream of The Grand Unified Theory

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

Japanese version is available

The Conceptual Explanation

Science applies special rules

2 Scalable Concept

The Least Possible Memery System

External Interaction

The Cyclic Action

The Structural Similarity

The Spontanesou Action As The Fundamental Cause

The Stationary Mind and the Existence of Time

The Asymmetric Information as The Intrinsic Nature

The Speed Limit

The memory matters

The Limit of Memory

The Imaginary Time

Why do we split it into three?

Contradiction Keeps it Going

Contradiction Keeps It Going

An Intermediate Summary

An Intermediate Summary

Life-Activity Defines Cycles

A Natural Disaster Deformed The Cycles of Life-Activity

Military-trained People Perform Self-Completing Cycle

A Life-Form As A Cyclic Concept

For more developed theme, go to here

A Great Earthquake Hit Japan

Mathematics Is Based On Counting

The Development Of Mathematics Is Backwards

The Logic Engine:Introduction

The Logic Engine

1 The Essence

The Basic Idea: Life As The Cause

Life As The Cause

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

Life is the cause of all.

A New Site Now Open!!!

The Relativistic Nature of "Nature"

The Life Appears and Disappears...

the charging time is over...

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

Information Seems Vague by Nature...

The Information As The Driving Force

Definition: The Local Spontaneity

Hypothesis: The Boundary of Entity Appears If...

The Spontaneous Action

thinking...: How Human Observers See The Difference

The Collective Action And The Generalization

Not In Non-Repeatable, But In the Whole Structure

The Consensus And The Repeatable

The Consensus For Establishing Scientific Theories

Mathematics Hasn't Been Born At The Time Of Maturity

The Pattern And The Logic

The Creation of Pattern from Memory Mechanism

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

experimental concept: Thought Without Physical Size

The Tendency To Expand The Consideration Beyond Boundaries

The Whole Is Simple, The Parts Are Complex

Without Cause

Processing Information Depends on The Environment

experimental concept: Two Kinds for The Preservation of Species

experimental concept: The Dynamical Nature of Efficiency

question: Does Nature provide the equality-emotion?

The Formation of Stable Systems

The Information Dynamics: Without Memory

The Dynamic Information

The Framework And the Objectivity

The Objectivity Needs More Discussions

The Memory of Earth...?

An Intermediate Summary #3

An Intermediate Summary #2