ATON is a hopefully evolving classification theory. It aspires to unify knowledge around numbers and prefers naive methods. Some of the older posts are wrong but I'll keep them for the sake of continuity.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

A classification of life and universe

The universe starts from a fuzzy state;

0. {universe}

and it remains essentially fuzzy while building structures. Then it polarizes into a mediated duality;

1. {sense,{field}}

The transition {} --> {,{}} has two implied directions of evolution;

{,{}} = [,[]] + [,[]]*[[],] + [[],]

Where the format is loosely stated, but it is somewhat like the Clifford algebra. It is undecidable whether 'sense' leads to 'field' or vice-versa. Like the chicken-egg dilemma. The fuzzy parent state transforms to [,[]]*[[],], and becomes the mediator of the duality. Like a tossed coin settling on it's rim, or having sexually fuzzy offspring.

The mediated duality form is observable in many areas;

. {mathematics} --> {operator,{number}}
. {quantum mechanics} --> {observer,{observed}}
. {music} --> {listener,{performer}}

Then, iterate again to get offspring functionality;

1. {sense,{field}}

2. {exclusive,{inclusive}, {space-time-gravity*-light, {weak-strong}} }

Where 'exclusive' stands for 'observe-move' or soft interaction, and 'inclusive' for 'reproduce-feed' or hard interaction. '*' stands for the field-antifield pair.

The combination 'space-time-gravity*-light' is non-intrusive or soft interaction, while 'weak-strong' is hard.

In mathematics;

1. {operator,{number}}
2. {additive,{multiplicative}, {0,{1}} }

'additive' is not intrusive like 'observe-move', yet 'multiplicative' is intrusive like 'feed-reproduce'. '0' and '1' are are the identity elements of the operators.

Therefore, 'field' seems to correspond to 'higgs'. The scalar field and it's associated operators are at the foundation of all systems. Like numbers for mathematics, money for economy.

Then, iterate until 6;

2-0. {exclusive,{inclusive}}
3-0. {observe,{move}, {reproduce,{feed}} }

2-1. {space-time-gravity*-light, {weak-strong}}
3-1. {space-time,{gravity*-light}, {weak,{strong}} }

;;;

3-0-0. {observe,{move}}
4-0. {analyze-hear,{imagine-see}, {sustain-propel,{navigate-manipulate}} }

3-0-1. {reproduce,{feed}}
4-1. {non-sexual,{sexual}, {taste*,{smell*}} }

,,,

3-1-0. {space-time,{gravity*-light}}
4-2. {space,{time}, {gravity*,{light}} }

3-1-1. {weak,{strong}}
4-3. {neutral-weak,{charged-weak}, {strong,{residual-strong}} }

The symmetry of 'weak' seems to be the symmetry of reproduction. Taste-strong correspondence is reasonable. Residual-strong refers to the force between nucleons.

;;;

4-0-0. {analyze-hear,{imagine-see}}
5-0. {analyze,{hear}, {imagine,{see}} }

4-0-1. {maintain-propel,{navigate-manipulate}}
5-1. {maintain,{propel}, {navigate,{manipulate}} }

,,,

4-1-0. {non-sexual,{sexual}}
5-2. {self-repr,{shared-repr}, {female,{male}} }

4-1-1. {taste*,{smell*}}
5-3. {taste,{untaste}, {smell,{unsmell}} }

...

4-2-0. {space,{time}}
5-4. {along-space,{lateral-space}, {along-time,{lateral-time}} }

4-2-1. {gravity*,{light}}
5-5. {gravity,{antigravity}, {electric,{magnetic}} }

,,,

4-3-0. {neutral-weak,{charged-weak}}
5-6. {organism-cell,{dna-molecule}, {star-planet,{moon-comet}} }

===> There seems to be a problem here with 'neutral-weak' to life mapping. Star-weak mapping seems to be OK. Still thinking about this.

4-3-1. {strong,{residual-strong}}
5-7. {black-hole/galaxy,{neutron-star/white-dwarf}, {hadron-lepton,{neutron-proton}} }

Male/female and star-planet/moon-comet correspondence rings a mythological bell.

;;;

5-0-0. {analyze,{hear}}
6-0. {specialize,{generalize}, {left-hear,{right-hear}} }

Analyzing is dual and performed by the two halves of the brain. While one side concentrates on detail, the other side concentrates on the context. This gives a clue to how we hear as well. The {bass,{treble}} duality of music corresponds to this.

5-0-1. {imagine,{see}}
6-1. {plan,{aim}, {left-see,{right-see}} }

Imagining is also dual, but lateral to analyzing and in the forward-backward direction. The frontal cortex does the long term planning ('aim' above). This gives a clue to how we see as well.

,,,

5-1-0. {maintain,{propel}}
6-2. {sustain,{break}, {propel-forward,{propel-backward}} }

Breaking is a part of maintaining, like sustaining.

5-1-1. {navigate,{manipulate}}
6-3. {left-turn,{right-turn},{make,{unmake}}

Navigation seems to be more than just left and right turn, but in general this is the case. Cars have just a steering wheel for navigation.

Manipulation is essentially an upmarket type of navigation involving choices along the way.

,,,

5-2-0. {self-repr,{shared-repr}}
6-4. {undifferentiated,{hermaphrodite}, {host,{guest}} }

5-2-1. {female,{male}}
6-5. {feminine-female,{masculine-female}, {masculine-male,{feminine-male}} }

,,,

5-3-0. {taste,{untaste}}
6-6. {eat,{drink}, {defecate,{urinate}} }

At the 6th step, sense becomes organ related.

5-3-1. {smell,{unsmell}}
6-7. {breathe-in,{breathe-out},{impregnated,{impregnate}}

Nose and sexual organs are closely related.

---

5-4-0. {along-space,{lateral-space}}
6-8. {forward,{backward}, {left,{right}} }

Space is essentially one complex dimension. Complex numbers are closed, and they have one along and one lateral dimension; {1,i}. There is only one space dimension between two objects. The surface of the earth can be viewed as a complex plane. There seems to be 3 perfect dimensions of space, but this is never the case, since there is always gravity distortion. Space can not exist without gravity. I think the apparent threeness of space is related to it's content; matter.

5-4-1. {along-time,{lateral-time}}
6-9. {forward,{backward}, {left,{right}} }

This point is also surprising for me, like the previous one on space, although it is well known that time is complex. Time travel is predicted here.

,,,

5-5-0. {gravity,{antigravity}}
6-10. {+gravity,{-gravity}, {+antigravity,{-antigravity}} }

Gravity is a polarized field like electric field. Anti-gravity is predicted here and it maps to magnetic field below, to give a clue about it's character. It seems anti-gravity can be produced by electric currents.

5-5-1. {electric,{magnetic}}
6-11. {+electric,{-electric}, {+magnetic,{-magnetic}} }

The poles of magnetic field do not exist separately, but electric field's do.

,,,

5-6-0. {organism-cell,{dna-molecule}}
6-12. {organism,{cell}, {dna,{molecule}} }

===> There seems to be a problem here with 'neutral-weak' to life mapping. Star-weak mapping seems to be OK. Still thinking about this.

5-6-1. {star-planet,{moon-comet}}
6-13. {star,{planet}, {moon,{comet}} }

5-7-0. {hadron-lepton,{neutron-proton}}
6-14. {hadron,{lepton}, {neutron,{proton}} }

5-7-1. {black-hole/galaxy,{neutron-star/white-dwarf}}
6-15. {black-hole,{galaxy}, {neutron-star,{white-dwarf}} }

***

Senses and fields expand into two parallel binary trees complementing each other. The numbers involved correlate strongly with mythology.

(6,5,4,3,2,1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6)

They add up to 2*(1+2+3+4+5+6) = 42 (The answer maybe 42 after all!). The tree expands into 64 distinct categories at the outer edge. Reminding I-Ching and the Jewish mythology about creation. Many more interesting numbers can be extracted from the tree, depending on how it is looked at.

Complex numbers, modular group and Mobius transformation are closely related.

A link to computers is also made. Electronic computing is based on binary trees. The universe seems to be a boolean computer at the overall category calculation level.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

'If we wish to understand the nature of reality, we have an inner hidden advantage: we are ourselves a little portion of the universe and so carry the answer within us.' - Jacques Boivin

As in..
'as above so below'..?

I think we already know, it's the details that trouble us.

Akira Bergman said...

Yes, but a comparative study has not made it into the universities. For example physics is studied in isolation from life, specially the vertebrate body. Maybe it has too much religious implications and no one wants to touch it. And most religious preachers are ignorant of sciences. I think (and hope) a fusion is unavoidable.

Anonymous said...

I think maybe it's not a matter of wanting or not wanting to touch it, but of not knowing how. Fusing two things that are already one at essence is a daunting task for a preacher or a scientist. Not that I know much of religion or science, especially physics.

Akira Bergman said...

The good old Tantric Buddhists have tried it (and others that I don't know much of). With the recent discoveries of parallels between quantum mechanics and the ancient religion-sciences, I think there is a revival of this sort of study. I don't think (and hope) that too much technical detail has to be known to figure out the general patterns, which is what I am trying to do.

About Me