This website that I have created is about my favourite interests that include Science, as Astronomy and Physics, Space Art and Music. Some of my original scientific thinking and straightforward ideas, in astrophysics for example, are now simply integrated into my Quote of the Month pages (see links below for these). Part of this site also contains an old magazine.






NEW UPDATES indicated directly below - they tell you what is going on with my site and I have copied my introduction from http://www. cthisspace.com/intro.html onto the top of this page too - see below.



Website last updated December 1st 2015. What's been added? - December and November Countdown (2 in one this month) To The Quote of The Month --> 2014 Countdown To The Quote of The Month Page Next link is the archive 2008/13 Countdown To The Quote of The Month Archive Page with an update there (edited July 21st 2013) whereby in the last few years I have created this idea called 'Countdown to the Quote' that is connected to my twitter page here --> http://twitter.com/ClaireCSmith but see more information about this in the 1st part of my Quotes page 2008/13 Countdown To The Quote of The Month Page I have also updated the top intro part of this page..More editing to occur on this other great page very soon --> http://www.cthisspace.com/anniversarytext2009.html The next link was complied by a member of Northwest Astrofest in Oct 2013 https://www.dropbox.com/s/60hqntdali3ljm0/CCSmith.mp4 My twitter copies page (just incase)


Where it all started...


Science and Art in the 1970's



Certain things just stay in your mind. When I was about 6 years old, I loved and used to delve into two subjects, science and art, especially physics, astronomy and art. At about the same age, I got hold of a book called ‘The Wonder Book of Science’ by Harry Golding http://childrensbookshop.com/book.php?cno=59908 this book set me off on a journey into the wonderful world of science and ultimately astronomy and all the things related to it. I remember seeing a fantastic picture of an electricity bolt near the front of this book and a saying at the start of the book, referring to science as a 'magical carpet’ and this was enough for me to read more. The book was printed in 1931 so the science then was very different to about the early to mid-70’s but it served as a precursor to what became an interest that remains to this day


Light and Dark

This title light and dark, refers to an explanation that I put in one of my Quote of the Month instalments where the theme that month focused on dark (I will do a light theme in the future) - this was in December 2012 (see link for the quote of the months). I will explain here in a bit more detail what I mean though. When I was younger I often used to study a glass ornament that was displayed in our south facing lounge window sill. When I looked at it closely, I noticed that the Sun would make it reflect light in different colours. In my mind this was a science and an art. It also gave me an incentive to study further.

I called this website cthisspace with the emphasis on the letter c denoting the speed of light in physics, also meaning to see in art and then space. It was later, at about age 7-8 that I came across a copy of Scientific American magazine when visiting my Aunt and Uncle's house. I remember reading this mag that took most of my afternoon and evening away, which lead me into another world of interest about science. I remember the magazine had an article about light, and from this I had my first read about the real science and physics of light. This was one of the first subjects that got me interested in physics and astronomy. I remember it showing diagrams of lasers and how light bounced off various mirrors to create a 3D image, which was all the rage around that time. Complete with another article further into the magazine, which was the part that got me into astronomy, was the new theory of Black Holes and radiation - a big contrast to light! I remember reading about the fact that at that time, there was a theory that Black Holes emitted radiation and I read a small caption near the picture and thought this was great. I couldn’t put the magazine down and ended up taking it home. Jump forward another 30 or so years and I still have that same magazine, be it rolled up in my drawer..

At around the time of school age, I had still had an interest in astronomy and science and kept a notebook that I used to jot ideas down onto, which I still have. I also used to create a lot of art and loved space pictures. I didn't do great at school but I loved learning in my own time and caught up a bit at night school and further education later (I studied courses for my day job too). In around 1999 I studied physics O level at night school and a few interesting events occurred. If I found some of the equations hard to do I would find it easier to write and read them backwards. My thinking was, if an answer is converse (closes into one) a question is often diverse (opens up possibilities) so it was sometimes better for me to study and write certain equations in reverse, leaving other students thinking my method was amusing. At one point in the course I was watching the physics lecturer put equipment out for a physics experiment. As he placed a rheostat on the bench, I guessed correctly that the subject was going to be about, which was resistance and he was quite shocked! (Excuse the pun)

In about 1999 I decided to set up this website. The idea was to put all my passions rolled into one www.cthisspace.com This website was really a spin off from a free non-profit internet magazine called FTL at the time (FTL is on this website copied as a subsection) that a friend had started. It has done well since. This website has my ideas about science and some space art that I used to create with a simple art programme, so they are quite old now. Later some of my work was used in book covers and exhibitions. One of them was at Harvard and later one of my theories/ideas was included in a book. This website has generated lots of other things since, as I continue to build it now. When I first started it, which was over ten years ago now! I found it difficult to put my ideas in text because I am dyslexic so I typed most of it straight onto here without using a Word programme. It means some older text might be full of spelling errors but I have left them the way they were, just for the fact that the essence of the ideas and thinking, which include the errors, are all there to see and perhaps makes for a more interesting read. Today I use a Word programme that sorts the spelling and grammar out, then I copy them into Notepad (the Dream Weaver Software I use for my site doesn’t like text straight from Word) then I put them here. I also use Dragon Pad speech to text software for my text now. This means it is easier to get my ideas down. Having had a job in education, I decided to overlap some subjects from that to here, in my Quote of the month page http://www.cthisspace.com/quotes2.html Here is the archive http://www.cthisspace.com/quotesarchive.html I have noticed because I’m dyslexic I think sometimes it tends to be an advantage to put some self-made ideas into a personal website

Jump back to the early 90’s. At about this time I bought a small bright yellow telescope, called a short tube 3” Catadioptric. I already had a hand held captain cook type of telescope, but the Catadioptric was the next step up. I used to stack the normal eye pieces on, then put the lowest magnification one loosely onto the main one and got great Moon pictures, but I quickly learned they moved across the frame very fast. It also had a small bit of chromatic aberration by the time I had done all that, but it was worth seeing the Moon craters, even if that did move past very quickly. Since very young, I have collected about 80 to 90 books on astronomy, astrophysics and physics and science in general. These books are now on display along one of my walls in my house, all in a large bookcase behind glass doors and even though we have the internet, I still refer to them to this day.

Today in 2014, as well as having this genuine 14 year old website that I contribute space, astronomy, astrophysics, physics and art to, not forgetting a personal twitter account, I also successfully promote my local astronomy Society, BADAS, on twitter. Because I have hosted their twitter page over the years, the work I have done has now established a half full massive hall of new astronomy members, which is increasing! In 2013 I did an astronomy presentation for my society which was called excellent by a member. I think my experience as a tutor and working in education, as well as my long term interest in astronomy, made these real events happen.

Today it’s all about twitter and blogs and the internet is a vast place. Being a restless thinker, expect more ideas, which of course would only happen if you come back to c-this space…

This website linked to me being lucky enough to meet astronomer, Sir Patrick Moore at his house in 2008, which was at a party he held there. Due to being interested in astronomy on my website and having a friend who had his work regularly shown on the BBC programme The Sky at Night, anything to do with The Sky at Night was always a hit to link here. There is more about this fantastic event on my site here: http://www.cthisspace.com/anniversarytext2009.html

In about 2006 I went to my first Astronomy Society, which wasn’t in my hometown at that time, but near a place of work. At the time I thought there must be one nearer, so looked online and joined that too. I am now only a member of my local town astronomy club where I live. At about the same time I bought another telescope which was a 6” white Russian Tal 2 reflector. With this I got many images of the Moon and stars. It has a motor mount so it can get clearer pictures which have been good to capture since.

In November 2011, I thought about doing my local Astronomy Society’s twitter page https://twitter.com/badas_tweets and it’s taken off since then. It has attracted lots of followers because of our unique location - Blackpool!

The latest project I am doing is called 2008/13 Countdown To The Quote of The Month Page which has lots of ideas rolled into a monthly quote - you might notice some scientific themes in there too.

I will always be interested in astronomy because it combines so many subjects, mainly science, physics, art, photography etc (even music if I may add). Astronomy is very accessible and live because anybody can just go and look at the night sky and see, for free, at how amazing the stars and planets are and not only that, it makes you think how wonderful our universe really is.


Us Girls In Astronomy

I think women have a very important part to play in astronomy because; we can capture the imagination of the public using social clues that make the subject welcoming and interesting. For example, Carolyn C. Porco, an American planetary scientist, who is in the area of exploration of the outer solar system, has great reaching power that communicates the subject on more concrete levels. There is directness in her work that can reach beginners and professionals alike. I also think that, although I don;t have children, because women are closely tied with children, we have a unique capability to connect the two together, enabling us to get children’s interest in astronomy at an early age that uses astronomy as a vehicle as a way to make children see the relevance of science in general. Astronomy and space is an art and science that captures people’s imagination and we ladies have that unique talent in making that happen!

Beautifully majestic - the stars, planets and space, all involved in an interspersed cornucopia of forces, in the laws of scientific events.

Below this text are some links to events relating to my site then VERY old random thoughts. This page was originally called Harvard Pics. If you scroll down, it shows some artwork for an exhibition for them that I did a few years ago.





Click here for space art gallery

Click here for introduction

Click here for art pictures

Click here for cartoons

Click here for short illustrated story

Click here for links

Guest Book





Twitter copies page edit. Something about a portrait I drew of Prince William many years ago on my twitter copies page, but link here - http://www.cthisspace.com/cthisart/william.html. Edited (changed quote) April quote of the month and a new page of copied Tweets from my external Twitter page See my Twitter copies on this site. A tribute is with link to two videos for Jan quote. This site will be ten years old Jan/Dec so preparing to add more to the second part of the 10 year anniversary text here10yearanniversarytext2009.htmlfor this cthisspace website. 'Is It Just A Piece of Foil?' under construction on this page. Along side this site, I am also on Twitter http://twitter.com/ClaireCSmith.

3rd edit on random thought/chunck of text on here, below pictures, you have to scroll down. More edited text to the likes of another Sir and an OBE below and Feb quote.

(2008 updates in this paragraph- a couple of edits Feb 09) To tie in with the June quote, and April this year, as a member of my local Astronomy Society, I was recently privileged enough to be able to attend one of Sir Patrick Moore's recent celebrations of a special edition of The Sky at Night at his home in Selsey, which was one of the longest running programs on the BBC. Also attending the event were noted scientists, Colin Pillinger, other professional astronomers, professional amateur astronomers, one being John Fletcher who showed me Patrick's observatory, all of whom were very inspiring to talk to and author Sir Terry Pratchett, who said to me that he thought it was great to get lots of people interested in the same thing all in one place, also BBC presenter Heather Couper who showed me her new book. The day before, I stopped off at beautiful Oxford for a while, a place I always wanted to see and visited the Royal Oak pub in St Giles (it was because I needed to ring for a taxi in a quiet place to get back to my hotel, not because I needed a pint). I noticed the historic buildings were wonderful. With regards to the South coast of England (and considering I am a home buddy) although I've been to London and Cornwall on a few occasions, I had never been to Selsey either. The day after Patrick's I went to a private invite at the South Downs Planetarium in Chichester which was hosted by Dr John Mason OBE, who is an excellent Astronomer and speaker. I have added a link to the South Downs Planetarium, there is already a link to Patrick Moore. Chichester is wonderful place and I will no doubt love to visit West Sussex again just for the sheer beauty of the countryside and friendly people, and yes of course for the subject of Astronomy, I mean, you know, I couldn't forget that…(2008) (edited Feb 09, another Sir, OBE etc)

May Quote of the month. I added a link to the BHF on links page on March 10th. Edited this bit of text here again. I have added a couple of links to Gresham College on the links page. One is about the brilliant, inspiring and enthusiastic Dr. Allan Chapman, Gresham Professor and who appears on ' The Sky at Night ' TV series which is hosted by Sir Patrick Moore. Dr. Chapman is from the University of Oxford and is a historian of science, with a special interest in astronomy and fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, as well as a Gresham College speaker. Having met Dr. Allan Chapman for the first time in December 2007, after a grand meal I attended, consisting of 3 groups of Astronomy Societies, I was inspired to create a link or two to Gresham College. I ended up by random chance, sitting next to two of Allan's mates during the meal. Throughout they said Allan has a love for cups of tea and that Dr Chapman likes his regular cups of tea. This became apparent when Dr. Chapman covered his tea pot in a party hat to keep it warm during his speech (it was still warm after the speech). Second link to Professor Ian Morison, of the Jodrell Bank Observatory, who is also a Gresham College speaker. I also met Professor Ian Morison months before in 07 and asked him for an autograph. I gave him a pen to write it down with (who had a nasty cold at the time. The pen didn't have the cold, Ian did) after he gave a speech at my local Astronomy Society in mid 2007. About a week later I had a cold, on this occasion I blame the pen. (2008)

Dec Quote. New thought added, Pokerverse (scroll down). Working on others. A new book called,Trinity: The Scientific Basis of Vitalism and Transcendentalism (Paperback) by Stephen P Smith (Author). Stephen P Smith PhD, co-wrote an idea with me a few years ago, (this idea is on my site already, here on this Harvard Page quite far below) so I have placed two links to this book he wrote on my links page. The book was just published this May (2007) and it is in greater expanse than the original idea or theory on this site.

In April 2007 the BBC Radio 4 presenter Mark Lythgoe asked why are scientists and artists so different? I send a comment to him. They publish it. They edited it, but that's ok. I add a link to this from my links page. The origianl comment is on my links page.

Quite a lot more added and a big edit on links page. April quote.

In early 2007 in March, I became a member of 2 Astromony Societies and if you look on my links page, I have added links to the official site of the most inspiring Sir Patrick Moore, his Wiki site and him on a BBC section.

Feb 2007 I will add the general theory behind latest text on Harvard page. I have edited the warning bit, the copyright notice and added more links to referals to this site, one being my blog (not that I need one). The site changes were to come but decided that the site layout will be tidied up rather than a completely new layout. More ideas will be added. I wanted to edit my old thoughts but left them as they are to see how they have evolved over time (in a hobby website kind of way).

Jan Quote. HAPPY NEW YEAR! Circle and Line edited third time(well, we know that don't we). A new link to Thinking Training taught by Dennis Perrin, who offers professional accredited Edward de Bono courses. In the next week I'll add some thoughts to the Harvard page about thinking training and creativity. See guestbook for his comments.

2006. Edited warning section and decided to remove thle examples from it which is a better decision and will include new thoughts when less busy! September quote and some new thoughts on the second page (link above) later this week beginning Sept 2005. August Quote. A warning for both intro and harvard pics pages were you can read this just above this text. July quote. I will do some comments comments about What We Still Don't Know in a while. Questions... soon after, comments on What We Still Don't Know. Quote and soon be commenting on What We Still Don't Know. Sid In The Way. Feb Quote (Please check out the yellow link above for the quote). I will mention something about the recent Channel 4 series called "What We Still Dont Know" in the New Year (when I have watched my recordings of it, although sadly I did miss one programme)(Dec 2004). All next years quotes will be on a new page. Thunks (Nov 6th). November Quote. Thought 1. 1Ltr Bottle Of Creativity. Oct quote(a bit of a late one due to being very busy then catching flu!) I will be back in full swing very soon. Me on Tooning (see cartoon section). I will put about 7 new thoughts in the second intro page in the next week or two that I wrote and drew on paper a few months ago. Text on site about a re-format. Late September Quote. I have posted on E De B's new site. It stays so far but I still cannot edit my mistakes. A link to my site about an answer to a mathematical camel conundrum from http://www.websiteoftheday.info/2004/07/camel_conundrum.htmlhttp://www.websiteoftheday.info/ hosted by Miles Mendoza from the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/wright/wotd.shtmlwho says he is "the webby bloke on Steve Wright's show on Radio 2 and Website of The Day was launched in May 2004 as a companion to the Website of the Day pages on the official Radio 2 site...." A July Quote. Text and Mind/Hand paper By Yacov Levi. Add on and re-hash text. A sentence or two about IQ on my links page (see megalinks). Quote. The Three Laws Of Irony (can you find them on this site?). Something about The Ultranet (2003). I have put new thoughts on my Harvard page (see above for link) (2003). I have discovered that my posts over the years are still on the net at Edward De Bono's forum and the Superstring Theory forum after all but the site masters have taken the links out that are to them (October(ish) 2003). I have put a whole copy of the contents of the old FTL mag here (late 2003). I will put something in the second intro soon about Channnel 4's Programme about the Soul that also talked about creatvity and logic that starred Roger Penrose and Gregory Chaitin (mid 2003). So far, so what's going on? The site was down due to Easyspace server problems for a day(early 2003). I'll add something in the next week (can't remember 2003). New section in the "C- This Story" part will soon include music lists that I like (August 2003). Quote and Mega Foundation Invite and second FTL page and Unity Theory in the second intro (Mid 2003) (then see second intro link below in yellow) in the Add On Bit part 2,

Old Updates below

The Mega bit. The Megaboard hosts Gina LoSasso PhD (Psychologist) and Chris Langan (the guy with the highest IQ in America) have recently invited me to their Megaboard, TOE and Genius webpage forum (gulp!) Their website talks about high IQ and Creativity, everything about Intelligence! Have alook at the links to it on my links page (mid 2003).The art bit. Harvard page is now the second C-This Add On Bit but next moths (ish) I will be puttting the FTL Magazine that I contributed to many years ago (had changed hands many years ago but now is off line. It's a shame because it started up many pictures and ideas that I have here.) here (Ian will help me on it, the other Ian) as a copy (the whole mag) for now a link to one of its pages is here, it has Ian (that Ian), Ian and Ian on it--->Link to the Old FTL but Contributors page only The previous editor seemed to have lost interest. Here's the home page so far http://www.cthisspace.com/ftl/The mag includes old Space and Science Magazine news and my artwork. The FTL mag is (see last line)http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/30/2010/ Ian's favourite mag, which Ian? Yes that Ian (Mid 2003). Now, look at the two pictures in this link that says Harvard ---> Harvard pics and second intro page , you will see my Earth With Sun on both (early 2003). The science bit, at one point someone who I knew (still know) with a PhD called Stephen P Smith on the internet, re-wrote a few of my ideas out in a paper, without asking me 1st but it was ok. I thought he could have gone into perhaps more depth in some of it but [erhaps he thought that kept if it was simple it was more readable so it turned out ok. I kindly asked him if he could ask me 1st, if he used my ideas to be re- written in a paper next time, and that if they were included in a paper that he also threw some of the copyright weight in my direction and add my name. He did do, so that's ok, so very large proportion of my ideas from the last few years have contributed to a paper (as well as a few other people) that has just been published. So the very clever Dr. Stephen P Smith PhD who is good with format helped them through to this stage. The references to the books are books he has read. I haven't read any of these books but alternitavely I thought and created some of the ideas that are used. See the result of this athttp://www.emergentmind.org/smith.htm(early 2003). Also I've moved an old chunk of intro text from up here, to over/above the title "See This Add On Bit" quite far below this part because I felt like it. Link to my book cover (my art concept is the shooting meteor shower "The Day Of The Triffids" (see original image in c-thisspace) here#s the link>http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0-8129-6712-7(ealry 2003). The Kurzweil website moderators have recently ID'd their forum having asked me to launch it with them 1st! nd now I can post without the copycats (early 2003). Ok, this page REALLY is getting too big isn't it? So now I have to get technical with HTML which I don't like, I might leave it abit longer...or you could go to the 2nd (C-This Add On Bit) page at...

The Legal Bit

(With an archive of an old magazine copy thrown in) all original artwork and ideas written or otherwise on this cthisspace.com site are Copyright Claire C Smith © 1999-2012, except specific content on FTL Magazine archive (sub-section) that is Copyright of its ---> contributors, for example, if you are wanting to use work by the math and geometry Professor Ian Stewart, it is better to let him know first. Before using material from cthisspace.com it would be a preference that you ask for permission via e-mail. It would be good if a credit note was included and my name and this web address, if you do ask for permission, which you probably will get. The same applies for FTL Magazine and its contributors.

The How To Get Hold Of Me Bit

Mail to: claire"at"cthisspace.com. Unfortunately you will have to type all of my e-mail out with the correct "at" in it, which means replace the "at" with the correct @ sign in my e-mail address. This is above your "?" key. Now you are probably wondering why I have my e-mail shown like this here and ask why I haven't used the @ in it, in the first place, well if I do, it turns into an automatic link! and if you get too much spam you might know what Iam talking about.

The Warning Bit

As with the random art work, on a more light hearted note, this page may contain random thoughts that are very random and very thought like. The thoughts may follow a change in direction quite often. Everyday causality thinking practices might not be so common place. Other than that... (edited March 11th 08)

Pictures taken at the Traveling Cosmology Exhibition, opened in Boston last September (2002) organised by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (Spot the 2 pictures of my artwork "Earth With Sun" from my website in the exhibition below)

Welcome Home
Solar System

C-This Add On Bit Part 2 (random thoughts)

Is It Just A Piece of Foil (Under contstruction,)

Form and Function (Planes, wings, chairs...)

I was thinking about form and function. Evolution and biology and human physiology itself is based on function, it is more about processes, whereas human biolog is about form. Physics is both but the classical stuff is more often about forms that affect other forms. Another idea later in a date to suggest more about this wil be added here. The classical laws of physics that are used as an assumed form, were the resulting effects on one another is a logical occurance, is used in Newton's Laws as an example. Although knowing what the forms are, when useing them to create the net result, other forces can change their behaviour if the form is out by a small degree. I have just watched a very fascinating programme on UK TV about the engineering of the Airbus Super Jumbo A380. I am in awe of the structural mechanisms and origins of how, for example, the wing tip sides are shaped in order to create maximum affect. The wing shapes are already apparent that we know for the Bernoulli's principle. This principle is already used but seems over looked here. I am interested in an inconsistency. It's first takes into acount the conservation of energy in a steady flow, the sum of all mechanical energy in fluid behavior, along a form or a stream, is the same along all points on the stream or that form itself. But it's up to a point for the wing. First the wing length cannot be too long nor short. The principle states that with a certain shaped wing, the pressure due to fast air flow above the wing is decreased, the pressure due to slower air flow below the wing is increased which results in lift. Up to the point were the wing has to change shape it means there is a physical point, which in this case is the length and end of the wing itself, that shape or form has to change to make any corrections. Assuming an unchanging form, the result are in effect, correct for this law. This fascinating TV programme showed how the ends of the Airbus wing had to have a system, whereby the ends where then later re-shaped or reformed to stop vortices flowing around the ends of this original form in order to conserve more energy. This outer new form cut the air flow, or the original vortices that didn't support as much lift. The Airbus wing aerodynamics were changed for the better. Sense there. It was only a small percentage but it made all the difference. The rule must go all the way round the wing. The engineers looked at bird wings etc… worked it out from there, note then, evolutionary forms and function got there quite early. For the same reason the natural wing itself maximises the potential of all forces around it to create lift by it's shape or form, without compromising any small part on it. If this lack of care about form and its effect, were used on a man made object, like looking at the building of furniture as another example of form and function, it would be amusing if someone building a chair assumed or just stopped at some point, say along a point creating a Dove Tail joint, were two bits of wood be just happily sitting together, but not quite... they would just walk off thinking it was all done. Not until later when someone sat on the chair they woudn't. (Feb 09)

With regard to the concept of -interesting- I was thinking about an analogy I use often which fits in with physics and the way people think. It’s simple and the idea starts with the human thinking system to be likened with the forces that we work within classical physics, or what is learnt early on. The clue is we need both. Start with logical deduction (formal logic is another way to explain this) and the pattern for formal logic or logical deduction, is thorough but stops short when we assume or deduce an answer. In other words, when we have the right -answer- we often stop short of thinking post formally, we assume a dead end and are less likely to ask, are there other answers? Or, why not have more than one answer? This pattern is likened to -scale- and -magnitude-. It is that we are -right- but being right (deductively so) is just -size-, it only has magnitude, it is a scalar. Like temperature, or speed, deductive thinking stops at being just right, stops and at size, is a scalar. Going back to what is -interesting-, it could be that when the thinking system is interested, although at the expense of not just being totally on the mark for deductable correctness or being -right- like a scalar, a vector, like acceleration, has greater diversity whic is the direction part and able to evoke a lateral view as a result (liken to inductive reasoning). So here starts the second analogy to the vector quantity. Interesting is in the vector. How about, being -interesting and right- as apposed to just being -right-, or having only magnitude, the vector has both magnitude (scale) and direction, it is both interesting and right. Incidently, I am making a hypothesis and it need not be right, but it’s interesting. (2002 and 2007)


(Playing Poker With The Universe orts There First)

Is it trickery?

We often ask questions like, what do we think of the universe? And can we understand it as a whole entity? Etc…but it might be just as good to ask, can the universe guess what we are thinking before we think of it and what would happen if it did? The nearest to this is the wave collapse function or particle duality on a smaller scale. The velocity or speed and position of a particle in the quantum world cannot be determined at the same instance according to Heisenberg's theory of Uncertainty. Quantum world takes into account human observer participation as part of the problem of this function, or so we think but if we didn't think, what else could it be? Under the atomic microscope of general discovery and standard thinking, what is being done still is the observing, but even in our technological age we still don't know why or how observation has an impact on what we obverse, we only think of what is being observed as the end point. An interesting idea to think about is, who gets there first, us or the observed? Here are some points to consider:

1) Humans predicating a -human speed observational value- at current energy level (Heisenberg job).

2) Humans predicating a -human speed observational value- at observing at higher energy levels. Higher energy physics.

3) A value for which the -human speed observational value- and the speed of human observation technique is an intervention. How does other participant get there first, or where are the tracks of observation at different energy levels and what materials are used i.e., (large magnets and larger collider than the size of the planet at present to find that!) but it could be that it is in the material type not the size of the detector itself (rather strange occurrence).

4) To find out other participant speed of observing (if there was one) and does it trick us?

5) Observed position of observer (Probably quite hard).

6) Human observer speed and position that evokes other observer speed/position and value. They (the universe) have already banned us before we knew it. Time lapse Uncertainty and problems with energy limits.

In Game Theory and Travellers Dilemma it is assumed that each participant guesses the manoeuvre of the other before they take part, like Poker. In relation to these points above, it is probably not good to suggest the universe has a mind of its own and one about us, but it is best to not let it be ruled out. Claire (19th September2007)


Real Graffiti which (could create a thinking excercise) is defined by myself, as wording that uses hardly any good grammar, proper spelling (not that I would have any trouble here) or function to good use, which other than to be informed that


doesn't really appear usefull at all at first. Real Graffiti is scratched, sprayed, drawn, marked or even carved into stone. Its stays there forever and it really has no uses in society apart from creating this idea I have here, whcih I call Artificial Graffiti (AG). Artificial Graffiti (AG) is based on using real Graffiti combined with intelligent knowledge of science, math, art etc... references (this could be infinite). An example is to change the nouns but keep verbs, this is just a starter idea. It can get better the more you play around. It could be a good idea to show in brackets your reasoning to use such words or examples afterwards. Remember, the more real the Graffiti is in its -roughness grammar quotient-the better the contrast with the intelligent nouns or verbs used in conjunction. Centralise the comment. This also could be used to look at knowledge in a different by using complex grammar with real graffiti spelling or vice versa, or it could be just fun to do! Here are my examples so far, the first is explained:


(conductors used with eddy currents)

Pauli was excluded by the principle.

Recycling is rubbish

Respect your relatives. Einstein was right


Fermi is only half the guy he makes himself out to be

What happens if the singularity gets married?


Everett wanted to rule the world (Untill he realised there was more than one)

Pets Lost and Found. Schrodinger's cat found dead and alive. Call: 12345


Because of the length of the added ones, I have put them on the CARTOON section (see index page). 7th Feb 2007 (I am still working on Circle and Line, see below)

I'll add thoughts about Thinking Training here.

Circle and Line

"Conservation of Energy empirical?"- This sentence taken from a forum, reminds me of a picture of a circle and a line. The circle is as symmetrical as the line in one way though both represent different concepts from the same sentence and they could have a hidden relationship. Often the context of deductive thinking used for empiricism is symmetrical. To prove something it is often a closed ended one asnwer thinking system that has a definite start and a finite ending. In this sentence I use the line to respresent -empirical- which could be symmetrical. Later you will see that it works like this but one way only. With the circle I represent the thinking for -energy- and possibly the -conservation of energy-. Even though energy doesn't have any -shape- it's important that I mention shape and form and how we currently think in forms. The terms in the sentence I refer to are used in physics. Now try this. Draw both a circle and line on one page were the line is horizontal next to the circle. If you rotate this picture at about a half a right angle and look again, you will see that the line is now obviously not symmetrical but the circle still is. A circle rotated on this plane can never be asymmetrical. Rrefer to the change and the sentence again. I think this is an interesting problem for our thinking and could influence the physical causality of the -energy conservation problem- or the term energy used in th e sentence itself. This is not just about making energy conservation empirical, or relating both, but how we understand what energy is by deduction. Also I am to change our perception of thinking about proving waht conservation of energy means. This is just as interesting due to the act of changing our thinking about what energy is. Often in physics, concepts are thought about as "objects" or "packets of quanta" were we give weight to quantity to the expense of quality of what the object is. Although waves and particles are different, because particles are seen as isolated events and waves are still seen as spread out and dispersed, our enquiry into a what a wave is, whcih hasn't changed, still encourages contained system thinking, or we have to quantify in order to have an answer, this is not new. What I am interested in is on another level where waves are not single events because neither is our thinking. People are like particles that are events in space, but people's behaviour is not always captured in a single event. The reaction between each person isn't as easily quantified as the person creating a reaction. Another example would be current thinking about forces that we islolate into systems (in order to understand them), even if they are not isolated. One example is energy (not -work done-) in the -state of change-. To change our perception of something as complicated as the concept of energy for example, asymmetrical patterns in our thinking about it are important but can be limited. It is at this point that there could be a direct relationship between the deductive reasoning system we use and the objects that are being deduced. In this way the circle has direct relationship to the line and is also like deduction when the paper is rotated and we see that the circle cannot become asymmetrical. The line represents an end product, which often results in no effect toward another system (like thinking) but so does the circle and more so because it is self containing. Because we think we have an adequate asnwer to what energy is already, we think there can be no other way around extending our view of its conservastion, but conservation and energy could be subtly related an an unexpected way much like thinking and energy. In order to encourage change and unexpected outcome, the use of receptivity to other systems around objects could change our defintion of energy dramatically. In the quantum world, we already have what is called a -wave collapse fuunction-. The wave collapse function which is not new, relies on our observation for it to turn to a collapased state. Our thinking for the behaviour of the wave effects the outcome of the function like vector reduction. Simliary I think the study of energy should be ruled out as an entirely different subject or subset to quantum and classical physics and some words or terms used in physics should not be repeated to represent more than one idea. An example, dynamic. Sometimes it can become more interesting to see -why- it is harder to prove in a linear fashion something like energy, that we think we could conserve, which also effects -how- we think we can conserve energy. The greater the change in state of thinking about what we think we can't change (even though energy is a state of change!) the more non linear we can grasp what it is and the more there is know about the -why - which results in a better understanding of energy and how we could conserve it. The piece of paper can be folded as apposed to rotated a number of times to change the symmetry of the circle. One day our thinking will be more like that. This will be edited again. (Edited Sep 4th 2006, August 23rd 2006)

Everything that has relation has its difference in its relation to it and the biggest similarity to any differences, is that they are all different when compared to the same relations. (14th Nov 05)

Is a non local event, like a thinking event, an imporant redundant roundabout?

Why have roundabouts?! It's interesting to think ->about whether a non -physical- event outside of say for example, current physics and biology, such as a thought used in psychology, is very much like a redundant roundabout that is misssed only by its context. If you converge three evenly spaced points or dots on a piece of p[aper the -thinking- area, I refer to here, is in the center of the triangle. The thinking becomes concentrated when a word describes it and it is the word -thought-, so it becomes localised but a temporary logic. The thought is then localised like a roundabout. Now suppose, in logic and thinking terms, looking at the triangle we wanted to go from one point to another as efficiently as possible. It's interesting to undersatnd, that in certain areas of mathematics, physical events themselves that are portrayed by that very mathematics that are under those constrictions for the physical world, are more likely to appear to make common sense or logical sense, when we use -the straight line of logic- method, or to go from point a to b in a straight line, and that having done so, the piont of having a roundabout here logically becomes useless. Its interesting to note that it could be that everything in geometry itself is and has to be an important event otherwise it doesn't work as a system (this leads to another idea of mine later). In this context, the use of the -roundabout- in a physical way, could create a diversion we could do without, so what's the ponit in having such an event in this context? The use of the diversion from formal logic, if deduction is Euclid, is similar to the use of conversion of perception, also this reminds me of hyperbolic and elliptic geometry, if of course, perception is not. The curvature towards perception is made redundant on one plane when used in deduction whic is formal logic, but in the other plane when used for induction which is informal logic, it is essential. Perception and induction are related. Notice that the triangle of points for this at the start of my idea, resemble Euclid space and that the redundant roundabout is hypothetically a ~real virtual in the 4th plane~. I suppose you could say that the interface between us the observer, and the observed, is a redundant roundabout for a new type of information, if that information is a localised point on a triangle and the thinking is -about- the information where perception is the pull towards the middle of the triangle, changing the thinking about the information ffom the curvature of space. The Non-Euclidought or Non-Euclidinking could have a will of its own, or not. It's importance is, it has to choose a path in which to go down as a localised point event or it is an important redundant round-about like thinking, but does it always have to prove its own weight before it can be thought about? (Oct 20th 2005)

Adding comment on "What We Still Don't Know" a recent TV programme on UK Channel 4.

Questions are system breakers

Will we ever get to the download the mind?

If we have a concept of a part, then at what piont does it not become the concept of another part, when the concept itself, is part of both parts?

What does AI look like?

Kinetic energy must be sustained if the wall of a fusion reactor is cooler than a deuteron atom. If only large gravitational fields hold complex reactions together, like the sun as an example, then what is the next step in order to make large reactions using hydrogen physics, after electric and magnetic fields for containment?

Why is PI -only- rational at base 16?

What does the term constant -really- mean?

If we had a shortcut for the Correspondence Principle that bases quantum number on n approaching infinity, could we turn that rule around by stretching and turning that infinity to cut into itself?

Why are only -some- forms of life dependant on electric activity? (March 12th 2005)

Sid In The Way-Space.

There once was a man called Sid, no matter wich way you looked for him, he hid.

Yoy can, when looking at something space, look for the way you look at, at the way you look at something space, the way-space.

more on this later. (Feb 19th 2005)

I changed a piece of text I typed in a forum. The text is copied below and called (Blind search). It was Fri Oct 22, 2004 and at first my blind thinking in the last sentence of this text wasn't entirely correct which happens alot because I don't deduct often (which was more correct). At first the last sentence was worded: Unique outcomes are > rare untill we assume meaning in another pre-set space for those many > unique outcomes that then become more rare but less rare untill > proven otherwise, to :(see last sentence in yellow text below) (2004 November 6th Claire )

Blind search

Blind search - Non computability? Sample Space - meaning and intention -never happen again, rare event theory untill assumed meaning by mind code. Another perameter fo r sample space- mind type and its intervention of collapse on reality. Distribution function- perameter defined on the outsite wall of cognition. Infinite decimal places used for extention of probable events, what's the probability of creating another sample space? Unique outcomes are rare untill we assume meaning in another pre-set space for those many unique outcomes that then become less rare but more rare untill proven otherwise. (Claire. October 23rd 2004)

I then later decided that the whole lot should have really meant: Or to put it all simply, we never > say a thought is an event but we do -think- there are events, unique > or > not. (This was Fri Oct 29, 2004 )

Later I said I allways deleted half my onw words (which I do) to then say: I am probably refering to far more thinking to each word being read, than I am to far more wording to each thought being thunk. Short-form chunk (I use short form wording (here)for my thoughts that are not short. My thoughts are in chunks, they are "Thunks" (2004 November 6th Claire )

Site re-format ahead (Sep 12th 2004)

I have recently been sent an -mail by the very kind and thoughtfull Yacov Levi (the gentleman who wrote the recent paper with a link to it on this page here:

Mind Hand

(see that below to)) Yacov's recent e-mail to me (yesterday) was about much encouragement with regards to changing this site layout (which I agree with and is in dire need of) so that there are more links to eveyr section and -within every section- to every other section (even the FTL Magazine subsection) and that I take away the black background in replace of white with larger text. Although time and curcumstances of real life have stunted my content input (whcih I do like doing very much) and layout input (which I don't like doing very much) into the site these last few months (since May 2004), I will try to -re-inspire myself- into a greater era, from what this site was all about when it started as a -light hearted hobby- of about 4 years ago, to what it is all about now and to change its layout (in time) so that it hopefully will reflect its newer content. I will start with making the text (which I find hard to re -read because I cringe a lot over it) on this page slightly larger. (September 12th 2004).

Why do we say we think "about" such and such? Because to think, is to be about or outside what is being thought of. Not to be noetically stuck in one place. Why? Because perception is there to create manoeuvre when thinking about absolutes. (May 2004)

How do you get an open-ended question from a closed answer in science? In the case of whether asking the question, -is science to have all the answers?- I would say, yes science has all the answers, but does it have all the questions? (May 2004)

The type of mind to say that evidence is always constant in science, art, maths or any understanding, is to say that the same type of mind that thinks that, that same evidence as a constant is the only important concept, will not question, in anyway, the creative nor divergent route as to resolve the dilemma of difference in interpretation of the same evidence by any other alternative thinking.(2004 May)

Mind Hand

Image manipulating capabilities by students of secondary schools By Yacov Levi -qualified instructor for woodworking e-mail- yacle@netvision.net.il March 2004

A while ago I asked the question here on my site and in a forum "What proportion of the mind is contained within the hand?" Much later I received an e-mail that contained a mans own writings who, having read his paper could well understand this question. The man is called Yacov Levi who has some very interesting thoughts that could be new theories for what it means to have the mind contained within the hand, literally. The title above is a link to one way around an answer to my question. It's quite a good one too. (May 1st 2004)

If the mind is, what is if, if the matter is it, if it is? (Feb 10th 2003)

All properties of the value of a physical system may not be completely known because all numbers representing them are just that, a representation, of a part of a value, were the vaule in question is fundamentally called physics. Why say a physical system? Because when physics is a value that is partially represented by number, that number that is doing so might appear to assure us we know the system in full because the number is in full, regardless of whether or not what is being represented by it is full or not. More possible information could be known about a system when we know what and how we can represent all the newer possible physical values about it by new representation. When we use a self adjoint operator we are doing so because we observe the space that is co incorp into the operator. Properties of numbers may not be completely known because there is more stress or importance between known observable technique we are allready familiar with and its expected results, not what new observables could be about and their unexpected outcomes in comparison to allready used ones. Logic on analytical grounds too early could restrict how we create new representations about a physical sytem. Logic later on could round up what new results we create. But we need not stop there. Logic is product and round up and number at this stage. Creativity is process and new observables. There could be more to know (re-hash add on 21st April 2004)

In one linear way, no matter how much I talk about non logic, the causal logic of the acausal will catch out the acausal, if the logical causality of the past isn't good enough and the future too, in another way if I look sideways with lateral acausality it will runs circles around logic, it has to, otherwise it wouldn't be lateral. Is the future not forward enough for some? If it isn't we must see our current future as sideways. Creative thinking will always be lateral to logic. I think that the current neurological logic about current neurology and current causal logic, backwards and forwards, (rational logical thinking) is not good enough on its own for the future thinking of the logic of neurology that could be worked on in AI and other fields. The future of neurology for AI displays only complacent current logic and static neurological thinking systems. Current science concentrates on what something is, not its meaning this includes what is mind. From one angle for what is mind, a new thought pattern for the building of AI should be considered, along side the current type, even if the AI agent isn't entirely about great memory capacity and speed, stability, retains lots of knowledge or even has absence of understanding, but later could produce an emergent ability to enable connections between the subjects that are thought about. Because the human mind currently can't distinguish a subject without a type of context, it creates its own association system for meaning, but in AI we impose a logical system to do this. However our thinking also includes emotion, sensory meaning. lateral meaning and so on. For the context of subject matter, there are many so this could be used to reproduce what is currently thought as mind within one context that can later be transposed to another. I'll define mind here as one "paratom" that could do this. The paratoms in question are like elements in chemistry, and used in a specific way create compounds or third paratoms. Here is a piece of text I typed in a forum about 2 years ago that closely relates to what the text here above and below it, is about (notice I use the word persuade a lot!):

"I think that people persuade themselves into understanding. The understanding part is the real issue by the act of usage of concepts by words as subtle as they are. The best example is matter. When we study matter on a more superficial level, we are conned into thinking that it is solid. What we are talking about is a formation of manifolds and dimensions that seem to appear to make matter but only what we appear to think it is, it is only an angle (the word perception could be used). We persuade ourselves into saying that, because we can prove that something can fly due to mathematics and science (as bridge or element), that the very same acts (can use the word tools) can also prove that matter must be real, but matter may soon become less than solid than the plane when we seek deeper understanding and although we choose to use the same tools, i, e mathematics or science. What we are actually doing is making a construct by our experience of wording, that might only exist because a word that explains a concept that seems to have more solidity makes us immediately choose the words that describe this solidity and in turn end up with a type of "compound" wording system that might be more to do with our perceptions of what the words we chose to use in order to get to the stage of the level of "compound". The bridging of the type of thinking that forms the working towards concepts and the resulting compound of the word of "matter" produces the third element that persuade us into thinking that matter has relations to position or velocity, i.e. the particle is here at this point in time. We are affecting the matter by constructing the bridges that make the compound of "here at this point" by a) that we exist with it (collapse effect) and that by b) we have chosen to use specific types of compounds to make a reasonable judgement about what we "think" is matter, having typed this I actually now think that induction is incredibly close to this idea of choosing a new bridge or manifold. The collapse wave becomes obvious because we have not reasoned out (as in defeated abduction in a sense) the "compound" from the bridge or the elements that are the bridge, this is how we could take a very different turn from persuading ourselves out of understanding the previous to the new by that I mean to re-creating the bridge and not the compound, and that the compound, because now slightly different, is the opposite of the finality of the collapse (like infinite and inductive) and as a result of the same bridges and hence the end product of the minds easy ability to form manifolds (and that being the collapse and finality), that in turn end up as a compound that we can persuade ourselves with! We can overcome the similar bridge problems. All we need its to get out of the rut and physicists should start to use exotic matter as an example of using a unfamiliar bridging element because it might be a good idea to produce a different compound. The exotic element and oddness is a teething problem and can be overcome by seeing this as a challenge to science not a hindrance. I haven't done much reading and can't cite references. It's a thought to consider. "

Another angle would be for science to look at the world of matter, mind, AI and the study of complexity and consciousness via the world of the meaning of an "hideteron". As an example what about if it was used in the context of art, or psychology, for mind in the context of complexity has a different meaning although it assumes the same effect form that hideteron. As well as what the hideteron is, could it be any different if it didn't have logical meaning but still had a new type of meaning were we could still "measure" it? This context thinking for meaning of "hideteron" that is also data on the current level, could be transposed from one topic to another to create a newer enfolded coding system for a slightly different meaning of the same hideteron. Even if we don't use this for AI it could make us think about the fundamental components used in physics as an example, not just as what I'll call "hideterons" in only one context with one meaning , but hideterons with greater meaning if they are set within different contexts an usual example of an hideteron would be, gravity has a specific meaning within one context as a definite effect from hideteron one, mass and hideterons two, distance, so these two hideterons create context for gravity so the context of the third hideteron would be "gravity" and we still have only one hideteron for gravity to account for in this case. The super imposed layers of hideteron meaning could be hidden, so why do we have only one meaning so far? Because if my view here that hideterons can now have various dependence on many contextual components as apposed to limited ones, the hideteron we logically assume will always be based on linear encoding for one dimensional output by the interfaces we used that is flat. A massive linear interface does not allow us any more meaning about a hideteron system, in fact it lets out a lot less meaning for us. It is this idea to create a new contextual component and not only assume one linear interfacing layer, but go beyond this to a lateral interface component if it can be done. The idea is not to be confused with the current systems of information encoding that we use in computers or even statistical encoding used in classical information and quantum information systems. If we cannot use our current systems of context well enough and we have gaps in our understanding, we could create new contexts that change our view of "hideterons" (the what part) for encoding to (the mean part). We only sp far have limited views on many hideterons in question and end up to zooming in on one of those areas more, a particle as an event that can only be defined as a velocity or a position is another example of one hideteron as the velocity and the other hideteron as the position, that is dependant one interface, the clue being mainly us as the observer imposing one view that creates the one context of the third hideteron that is the particle. The change of context laterally is related to information to be transposed by curvature from a new contextual medium that it wouldn't otherwise be transposed in, because then we can at least start to create a new hideteron meaning. That we think we need more data then from one angle only to assume greater meaning is logically appealing but is still linear that can be likened to quibit parts and their behaviour. Hideteron meaning is lateral meaning and it goes against classical information encoding and quantum encoding and the way we use our current language and syntax. At 1st it appears to also go against irreducible complexity but it is similar if it can be hideteron defined beforehand. Hideteron could sound similar to design but it is not design in the same context "before hand" because "hideteron" context is acausal. The simplest way is to say "hideteron" data is lateral meaning. To tie up hideteron data for now, it is important to know that it also closely relates to how the brain encodes data subconsciously, something we have yet to understand a lot more than we do and ultimately the type of thinking that we incorporate when we understand the meaning part of what is to be done with those hideterons. I'll be back with more.(Feb 26th 2004) (Re-hashed a third time round Feb 29th 2004) (re-hashed March 18th 2004) This piece of text is not finished.

If We Know Too Much Information Will There Be Any Room Left To Think? (part 1)


My thought. I said this here last year

"There is so much that we don't know, not because it isn't knowable, but because we haven't thought about, how to think about, how to know about it yet"


... other thought------

"There might allways be unknowns. It's a good job because where else would we want to know more, apart from us only knowing that it is the known part that would give it us? Or we could ask a toad."


In reply to one of my posts (the title for this section) this was by Nigel J.T. Thomas Ph.D.------

"The more you know, the more you realize how much you you don't know. (Not an original quote, but I don't know who first said it) ;)"


My thought again in reply to Nigel's (see above) that was it, I got this quote from an old recorded TV programme of mine I kept, about a Philosopher (can't remember his name, but you might know) or another might know… ------

"The man who thinks he knows does not yet know what knowing is"


Donald Rumsfeld. :-H. But does -Rumsfeld know how to knowingly confuse his knowledgeable Audience at a Pentagon briefing?- I should know.------

"REPORTS THAT say something hasn't happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known unknowns; there are things we know we know, we also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns " the ones we don't know we don't know."




Here are a few thoughts, in relation to the above quotes, that were spread over the few months just gone.

This is a very quick condensed version about mind and knowledge (from a forum on the 1st December 2003) .

I am suggesting a new unknown route, pushing forward, so it this is really not an argument because I don't really like to argue. I think philosophy has its important say, because it does, epistemology is also good to look at, and I'll come back to that here. The reason I say this is because like "thinking is tinkering" thinking is greater in its power for change of assumptions and scientific hypothesis for many reasons. The subject of thinking in cognitive science models of perception and information (Classical) are important because of the joining and combining that create context for thinking. Thinking plays a part in designing new values for design science too. Thinking (not thought) is also a subject matter all of its own (See De Bono) that can make us change our perception about our current understanding (patterns of perception about information). Most mistakes are about perception not thinking (David Perkins), we can change the way we think however. I have followed D Bono's ideas about "thinking" for many years. Thought is a different concept depending on what subject it is put into for context. So it is useful to know what changes our perception and that is the act of thinking differently. We have decided that these faculties are for a reason, like the universe has space-time for a reason, we have perception thinking for a reason. But we can make physical changes of these current patterns of perception of "assumptions" within the brain/mind, by changing our thinking. The big next thing would be, if we discussed design, or complexity, would we have to:

Re-think "what" it means to mean;

Re-think what it means to "mean"?

about this type of science. The "what does it mean" science comes under a context. The variables for context of meaning are wide and undecided and to a certain degree subjective. Un deciding does not mean we have no meaning, it means, we have no syntactical consensus because semantics changes meaning by how we can think "outwards"(divergent) from previous experiences of order (logic, second law of thermodynamics, see brain science and various cognitive models). Thinking changes forward causal memory and physical brain dynamics!ß--- This is why it is important that it should be included in mathematical complexity (Dembski, I think I spelt that right, sorry William/Bill have a drink on me). So even if we decide that there is one type of design now, we must be able to cope with a change in what it could be later. Back the start, epistemology, and knowledge, it changes.

(This next slightly earlier text was taken form a post of mine on the same forum around 30th October 2003 )

Classical information we cannot get away from especially of the syntax perception semantics within the human brain variety, and if we decide that that is what we are going to use, as a contributing theory, later we may alter or make a hypothesis about what a new kind of reality is, by taking the consequences of the fact that quite a lot of what does come in a later theory is, like one of reality, the 2nd is inferred and has a large connective faculty directly from this 1st. Of course this makes science all the more subjective no matter what it says about the reality outside itself, or what it's own reality could be within it (if we can ever decide and agree that is, which is not very likely because semantics kicks in, and so do other types of knowledge informants that are left out but are just as important, like non logical methods of inference). Collapse of topological vectors or all vectors will happen because until we think of a new way about perception and syntax and related subject matter, it doesn't matter what it is we think about, whether it is a reality of cosmology or topology, if we understand it with the same perceptive model, we effect its outcome, we still collapse it. On the contrary we could to change our model of perception and mind etc. Energy like information, like expansion is a dynamic but with language we have not yet arrived at it with a dynamical twin understanding as dynamic structures are often thinking structures. Thought, unlike energy, or information could be the only pure dynamic so far, but we could try to completely change this, like light, and make thought a non dynamic by using logic and rationality and maths by using quanta packets, because that is what logic does a lot of, then we could change it back to a continuous dynamic like a wave and decide that it is us that changes a part of what it is we understand although it could very well be completely the same any way when we are not looking. We could break thought down into parts and points, like numbers do quite often. This way it might appear more important in that it can be included within the standard model of reality and thus, a bit like energy; a bit like information, it then appears more fundamental, even if it really is just as important as the other fundamentals. So thought, as a fundamental, at this stage, which makes up about 80 percent of the about what constitutes any particular fundamental reality, is about what ever it infers anyway, like conspansion theories, or semantic theories or qualia etc, Within a current model of perception that someone has made, thought cannot be the same as its dual partner, information, so it can only be joined with it, and in the most fundamental sense of course, otherwise we say it is information, but we know it isn't information because of a current model of classical information that says that thought is not information nor is it matter nor is it energy nor is complexity nor is qualia nor is order, nor is chaos, nor is it syntax and nor is Nora but it could be related to semantics. An effort should be made then, if we cannot change what it is a current model of reality that is being inferred by another incomplete model of reality, that models the 1st reality, to perhaps include thinking as a fundamental force of nature within its incomplete reality, like gravity because gravity is also included in reality, because thinking is also tied up with space, with time and ultimately with reality. We often realise thought, as in "real"-ise, making real, more than we realise gravity and we might even have some inkling of what thought could be. In fact thought itself has a special substance all of its own, which we haven't grasped in the same as say, with gravity, or information, because thought is the only fundamental that can lock itself away from perception and remember information and be in combination of a larger picture, with these and more, at the very same time, or when it pleases us, unlike gravity which in an indirect way has nothing to do with thought but has a lot in a direct way, because thought about via the external reality that includes information, can then be completely separate from that reality and be objectively outside, or in this case, inside the case of, a case, like the brain, if we choose to change the current models we do and see it like this. If we do change the current models though and include thought as a fundamental, the parameters then change the context of thought within the external reality, then all of all the other fundamentals, like syntax, form a new conspansive or conspansion theory (Langan) depending on how you look at it, but because we have not yet included this, along with many other variables along the way that have been left aside, the context of one particular model of reality stays the same, so unitll then we will not see thought or mind in any other light. Hyper C is a thinking fundamental that doesn't rest on physicalist veiws only. Conspansion is not as expansive as Hyperpsansion because Hyperspansion includes thought, and as a fundamental reality becomes Hyperspansive so the rules change again. Hyperspansion "includes" conspansion not the other way round by the way (see the very interesting Langan theory). Hyperspansion could coninually exist outside the current knowable universe then, as it doesn't just mean much bigger, or much smaller, it means a different configuration. It is a coninual one and if conspansion can be extended with it at the same time, Hyper C or hyperspansion could then change many existing axiomatic parameters and we know what happens when the parameters change.

Is logic a form of persuasion? I think that logic is a vector reducing element. It is also very persuasive and leading on a descriptive level and closely related to a type of hypnotic state that half the brain naturally creates. I think that even cognitive scientific understanding, in one sense, deflates a component of reality, it is an attractive force/system. I think irreducible complexity is one example of a deflation principle, also I relate this t o a type of reduced and concentrated attention by the principle used for quantifying the quantum world by reduction to a packet of quanta or packet of energy, or a real number and an imaginary number to complex ones, unlike real numbers used in classical thinking as an example. I think the objective world is closer to us than we think, but something is not enabling us to create a completely new portal to it, it could be a type of clever lecherous mechanism inside the brain or noise reduction part. Maybe we shouldn't know too much! Logic is a form of hypnotic influence on the right irrational side of the mind. This thought came about by thinking about the left and right brain systems. The left-brain rationalises mostly, we might even rationalise what needn't be rational as common sense would tell, you know what they say about common sense*.

I haven’t yet watched my recorded TV programme on Chaitin and Penrose but I think a new element in logic could be conceived by an increase in too much rationality/logic, not a balance that introduces a stopping point or stops at a threshold. The mind tricks us accordingly by the lead of the rational. It cannot be turned off very easily when we are awake (allowing for only illogical right brained thoughts when dreaming) unless we are very tired. The hypnotism comes to mind during the awake phases mainly. The mind makes sense, order and logic of non-sense, disorder. Does that mean all objective reality is logical?

The type of logic used is based on common thinking and works well but that might not signify that the entire universe that is thought about also works to that extent. We make sense of it until we hit a wall. When riding up to that wall, our own rational mind takes us for the ride! *

"It should make more sense than common sense". Deutsch

However on the other hand it could be noted that in order to make less sense than common sense, the lesser the sense it makes (compared to the more common sense that it doesn't) the more it does make more sense and the more common sense makes much less sense.

I was right (for a change). "Post-formal operational" thinking as a cognitive technique used for understanding in science, that gets us away (at intervals) from the persuasion of preliminary logic thinking. This requires a different kind of mind. I used my own post-formal operational thinking for this problem for instance to find this out. This closely relates to IC and SC. Its implications for information theory and mathematics are enormous in this sense.

(The next bit of text I put here, that was posted earlier at about Sep 25th 2003, is similar to the last one but I changed the wording later for the second one (above) so you have just read as it was later posted again in another forum to see if I achieved a different reaction. You might notice the difference though when reading this next first one):

Is logic a form of hypnotism? I think what I should have said is that logic is a vector reducing element. It is also very persuasive on a descriptive level. I think that even cognitive scientific understanding, in one sense, deflates a component of reality, it is an attractive force/system. I think irreducable complexity is one example of a deflation principle, also I relate this t o a type of reduced and concetrated attention by the principle used for qunatifying the quantumn world by reduction to a packet of quanta or packet of energy, or a real number and an imaginary number, unlike real numbers used in classical thinking as an example. I think the objective world is closer to us than we think, but something is not enabling us to create a completely new portal to it, it could be a type of clever decoherence mechanism inside the brain or noise reduction part. Maybe we shouldn't know too much!

The logic could be hypnotic udea came about by thinking about the left and right brain systems. The left brain rationalises mostly, we might even rationalise what needn't be rational as common sesne would tell, you know what they say about common sense*. I havent yet watched my TV programme on Chaitin and Penrose but I think there could be somthing in having to much rationality/logic and not a balance or a stopping piont. The mind tricks us accordingly by the lead of the rational because it almost cannot be turned off when awake (allowing for only illogical right brained thoughts when dreaming). The hypnotism comes to mind during the awake phases, the mind makes sense or order and logic of the non sense. Does that mean all objective reality is logical?

The type of logic used is based on common and works well but that might not signify that all the universe also works that well and we make sense untill of it we hit a wall. When riding up to that wall, the rational mind takes us for the ride.

*"It should make more sense than common sense" Deutsch. However on the other hand it could be noted that in order to make less sense than common sense, the lesser the sense it makes (compared to the more common sense that it doesn't) the more it does make more sense and the more common sense makes much less sense.

Post-formal operational" logic as a cognitive thinking technique used for understanding in science that gets us away (at intervals) from the persuasion of preliminary logic. This requires a different kind of mind. I used my own post-formal operational thinking for this problem for instance to find this out. This closely relates to IC and SC. The implications for information theory and mathematics are enormous in this sense and even better imagination and mental imagery. (Oct 17 2003 )

This thought came about by thinking about the left and right brain systems. The left-brain rationalises mostly, we might even rationalise what needn't be rational as common sense would tell, you know what they say about common sense*. I haven't yet watched my recorded TV programme on Chaitin and Penrose but I think a new element in logic could be conceived by an increase in too much rationality/logic, not a balance that introduces a stopping point or stops at a threshold. The mind tricks us accordingly by the lead of the rational. It cannot be turned off very easily when we are awake (allowing for only illogical right brained thoughts when dreaming) unless we are very tired. The hypnotism comes to mind during the awake phases mainly. The mind makes sense, order and logic of non-sense, disorder. Does that mean all objective reality is logical? (Oct 4th 2003)

(This was Stephens's response to the above first version, as he didn't see the second version):

"Logic pertains to a formal manipulation of knowledge, a manipulation that seeks consistency and completeness. On the other hand, hypnotism pertains to the subject. But it is true, the two are connected.

On page page 5 of "The Critique of Reasonableness: A Method to End Partiality", Stephen Garvey writes on the intrinsic separation of knowledge and being:

".... I cannot know something (i.e., knowledge) solely through itself, because I need separation from what I know in order to know, and since knowledge from in my mind is all I can know, I cannot know knowledge itself."

That separation is necessary for knowing is something that Jesper Hoffmeyer writes on in "Signs of Meaning in the Universe". On page 9 Hoffmeyer writes:

"... So the not rule is the very first requirement for making any sense of this world. And if we then look more closely at what lies behind this not rule, we will see that we are dealing with something quite fundamental."

That separation is needed for knowing implies that we cannot know knowledge itself, then it must be that "knowledge" represents an incomplete representation of reality. There must be a shadow side that supports what it is that is knowable.

Proposition. Relativity pertains to what is knowable. That is, what it is that is knowable is relative to what is not knowable in a self-referral loop.

By a prior definition and axiom that are necessary for any logical construct, to know anything there must be a subject that can understand what it is that is knowable. This defines a self-referral loop that cannot be disentangled from the subject. Such a meta-logic system can be engaged to extend logical consistency from other axioms that may be nominated. But it is well known these other axioms cannot be eliminated from the extended system, in that the axioms must be nominated as truthful statements (see Chapter 2 of Nagel and Newman, "Gödel's Proof"). The above Proposition is perhaps a restatement of the incompleteness theorem, in that what is knowable is conditional on assumptions (or axioms) and a subject that understands enough to recognize other propositions that are formally undecidable. The truthfulness of these conditionals are inexpressible, and not knowable.

Moreover, to say something is knowable from a forward chain of causation implies that the ready-state is knowable. But as Albert notes in Chapter 6 of "Time and Chance", this leads us of on a meaningless hunt for the first ready-state that takes us all the way back to the beginning of time. There must be some backward causal link that completes the triadic relation of the Piercerean sign. That is, the nature of this backward link must be such that it avoids causal paradoxes. That is, it must not be possible to know something in advance to such an extent to permit that something to become unknown to us thereby creating a logical contradiction. To avoid these bilking arguments the backward links must be sublime.

The above proposition finds much support, and the hypnotic connects to what we know and permits us to introduct the hypnotic into a logic system. For example, what "made" you ask this question?"

(My first response this):

Stephen, "For example, what "made" you ask this question?" Good piont. I'll be back with something.

(Stephen continues with another response on Oct 4 2003...)

"That agents compete for their survival in a cloud of chaos is said to be natural selection. This view has extended itself from its anthropocentric origin thereby giving us the idiom that is called "survival of the fittest". This extension has offended evolutionists with claims of over simplification, but nevertheless the idiom is very telling of our egocentric qualities as we unwittingly push the remaining question off into the sublime.

That question is: how is it that such agents have this need to compete in the first place? Those that find themselves abducted with the prior assumptions will respond: because this quality is necessary for survival, and without this quality there we be no evolution and we will not be here to ask such a question because we ourselves would not have survived. I have no doubt that it is necessary for agents to compete if such agents are to survive and pass qualities on to the next generation. But my observation is that such a necessity does NOT answer the question. It is only that the necessity hides the question in the logical half of our mind in much the same way that anthropic coincidences are talked away using a heavy reliance on the weak anthropic principle.

Claire, that agents have this need to compete remains as a mystery. And it is a mystery that remains in a big way as "survival of the fittest" has been suggested as the underlying mechanism that "explains" chemical evolution and the wiring of neurons in our brains (see De Duve's "Vital Dust"). In "Life of the Cosmos", Smolin offers survival-of-the-fittest as an explanation of cosmic evolution. These natural processes have been explained to such an extent that Bloom (in "Global Brain") sees our unfolding world as the function as its own brain. And where there is an "explanation" that paints a brain the mind can not be far behind. There is no way to explain away the mind as a mere brain function, as the key questions keeps being pushed off into the sublime. How is it that such agents have this need to compete in the first place? Why don't the agents just go on strike?

There is no objective basis for claiming that the agents are isolated agents that find themselves in a heated competition for their survival. It is only that they look that way from the point of view of logic. What remains is the shadow side. It is just as plausible that the plurality agents are only the forgetful universe reflecting hopelessly into the many egocentric bodies and the many are learning to celebrate as one.

Logic implies that such a sublime shadow side comes with a backward causation that connects the whole to its parts; the reverse of forward causation and reductionism. Such a logic find support from Price's "Time's Arrow and the Archimede's Point"."

(Stephen's second response to this on Oct 18 2003):

"One notes a "competition" between the egocentric (the logical half) and outer-centric (the intuitive half) views. When one is observed as the complement of the other, we then transcend to the third level having found ourselves in the mirror. More to the point, we discover that the perceived competition was an illusion and is incompatible with the intuitive half that features harmony and empathy. It is only that the intuitive half comes with a sublime causation and it is frequently misunderstood as we repel our self from the ugly image we may project in the mirror of self-referral.

The nature of these imperatives go unexplained as they are brute forces realization of nature. We need only see the unusual variances of masses that come with communicating virtual particles that spring from the quantum void. This collection of masses gives the appearance of being fine tuned and are deemed necessary for life. As much can be said of the symmetry that led to symmetry breaking which is found necessary for life. The logical half of mind floats an "explanation", but it forgets the ready-state which is such a brute force realization. The sublime causation works backward from the present to fix these realizations by breaking the symmetry. It is necessary for this causation to flow from whole to parts to answer the first ready-state as a boundary condition and to complement logical reductionism; thereby breaking the symmetries and generating a universal dualism that is consistent with panpsychism.

That which breaks the symmetries is inexpressible and beyond empirical knowing. But there is some justification for judging an imperative. Is the imperative the helpful hand from the sublime? Or does it have an origin from the forward mode which springs from bipolar competition and paranoid delusion? It does help to slow down to makes these judgments. Choose wisely!

In the October 11-17 issue of the New Scientist (2003), the cover story is showcased with the blurb: "broken symmetry, Darwin's toughest problem cracked". In writing on speciation Ian Stewart writes: "it appears to be a result of exactly the same process that filled the universe with matter, creating subatomic particles, planets, sand dunes and -ultimately - humans....That principle is known to physicists and mathematicians as symmetry-breaking."

Ironically, an "explanation" that points to symmetry-breaking is also indistinguishable from panpsychism and a universal dualism. Such an explanation is hardly a refutiation of the sublime shadow. The imparitive can only be the sublime shadow pointing to a better world of enlightenment."

(My response to Stephen on Oct 19 2003):

Excellent this. Thanks loads!

P.S. I still haven't watched my tape from Channel 4 s programme that stars Chaitin and Penrose yet but I will do over Xmas.

(All put here on the 15th December 2003)

I will put something here soon about Channnel 4's Programme about the Soul that talked about creatvity and logic that also featured Penrose and Chaitin.(2003 Sep)

What proportion of the mind is contained in the hand?(August 2003)

The Unity Theory of Evolution

Stephen P. Smith*, Claire C. Smith ** Copyright 2002 (added late to the site on June 22nd 2003)

The Unity Theory of Evolution Stephen P. Smith*, Claire C. Smith ** Copyright 2002 Abstract. The unity theory of evolution is presented as a paradigm of global and cosmic learning, and it is contrasted with Darwin’s view based on reproductive competition and natural selection. Key assumptions are identified in each view, with the unity theory pointing to a deeper connection among all living things, and with survival-of-the-fittest pointing to a view based on random chance and innate separation. These assumptions are looked at deeply from a metaphysical perspective, and some surprising conclusions are discovered. Our acceptance of survival-of-the-fittest, perhaps even with complementary arguments from complexity theory, was premature as deeper issues have been left unresolved that question both the nature of time and random chance. A connection is made between the dynamics of information theory and metaphysical creativity, suggesting that subjective choice cannot logically be disentangled from the splitting of time symmetry, thus further suggesting that consciousness cannot be logically separated from the greater universe or from evolution itself. It is argued that the unity theory provides a more reasonable explanation of our shared observations. Therefore, the assumptions that underlie survival-of-the-fittest are relational and are reflective of a deeper mystery.

Key words: Abduction, Active perception, Anthropic coincidence, Chaos theory, Choice, Consciousness, Creativity, Entropy, Information theory, Lamarckism, Maxwell’s demon, Self- referral, Subjectivity, Surprise, Synchronicity, Time.

1. Introduction Evolutionary theory explained very narrowly as survival-of-the-fittest is dependent on prior assumptions. It is dependent upon the assumption that agents act within an environment to serve their self-interests in a contest to leave the most offspring by a process called natural selection. It is dependent upon beliefs that anomalies can be explained by random chance, perhaps bringing in principles from complexity theory. These assumptions are referred to as the standard assumptions. They are not fundamentally different from assumptions that underlie the scientific method, where an observer is assumed to be independently separate from a subject of investigation.

There is, however, a different way to view evolution, where our joint learning and cooperation are primary, and Darwinian competition is a reflection we find when we see ourselves separate from our greater world. Let us name this new view the unity theory. In this new theory evolutionary change is brought on by creative tensions that may be unknowable to us, but are tensions that spring from conflicts we all experience. The underlying assumptions of the unity theory is that there is a deeper level of unity among all living things, and that there is a deeper unity with the universe at large. The key assumption of the unity theory comes in the form of a tautology, that our sense of being is real because we experience things.

Lamarckism is the belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which is similar to the unity theory. Both Lamarckism and the unity theory bring with them a life force, such as “freewill”. Nevertheless, the unity theory needs its own birth as Lamarckism has too narrow a focus.

Given an exhaustive collection of mutually non-falsifiable beliefs, there is a natural tendency for us to split the symmetry along some line, subjectively choosing one side as real and the other side as relational. We don’t question the realness of these choices, but we do investigate reasonableness in terms of completeness, contradiction and ambiguity (Garvey 2003). A consequence is that the exercise points the way to creativity in mind and universe, thereby validating the unity theory from a shared perspective in that the theory is complete enough and is clearly defined. This paper demonstrates that the unity theory is unconflicted with known observations, pointing to a minimal break in the symmetry in our interpretations of causality. This implies that the standard assumptions are relational, in as much as they are not wrong.

In Section 2 the topic of abduction is discussed, demonstrating the limits of both observation and the logical mind. Section 3 treats the topic of surprise, and it shows how surprise relates to both the complexities that are observed in our greater world and how it influences our logical mind at the limit of the knowable. What is behind surprise are coincidences that show themselves as conflicts discovered in our world-views that don’t fit to observation, and it is suggested that this surprise erupts from a life force in a way that contradicts the standard assumptions. Section 4 treats coincidences that are found in the evolution of life. The unity theory provides one way to reconcile our world-views with the observed coincidences, and details of this evolution are presented in Section 5. The presumed life force suggests some degree of backward causality, an issue that is treated in Section 6. The concluding Section 7 points to creativity in mind and universe.

The scope of this paper is necessarily broadly shaped, but it is nevertheless a scientific view that has been severely suppressed by what resembles a blindness of the logical mind; a blindness that seeks only causes while forgetting purposes that have no cause. Therefore, the views in this paper are in urgent need of being heard by open ears, and in need of being subjected to the hardest test of time. Given the broad scope of this paper, it was necessarily to find much supporting evidence in the popular press. No apology is needed for these citations, however, as each reference carries with it its own history, and each carries its own litany of scientific references. It brings sadness that it was not possible to site everyone’s work, and there are countless scholars of philosophy and science that came before, including Albert Einstein, Teilhard de Chardin, Stephen J. Gould, Rodger Penrose, Ken Wilber and many others. It would be better to submit the present paper anonymously rather than hide the badly needed views from science, but first-person authors are needed given the necessary requirements of publication. Perhaps it is no accident that the same story seems to be told by many others, while strict forward-thinking turns a deaf ear.

2. Abduction

In describing abduction as a concept it is helpful to turn to the scientific method, as there we will find many examples. The scientific method is not a monolithic structure of singular design. In fact the scientific method contains a plurality of views, and many different approaches, some good and some of questionable merit. The following are three commonly held approaches.

I. The hypothesis testing view: To confirm theories or predictions by making observations. This confirmation connects to surprise, or statistical significance. II. The objective reality view: One presumes an observer or record keeper that is separate and acts independently to the subject of investigation. III. The random chance view: That an investigator attempts to explain presumed random anomalies by "reason" and statistical tools.

Our prior assumptions that relate to the scientific method - in particular, that the observer is separate from an objective reality (View II), or that random chance explains everything (View III) - would seem to be non-falsifiable because in each case a frame of reference is missing that would permit objective testing. On closer inspection we see that View II is inconsistent with our scientific understanding of relativity in the greater universe (e.g., consider the issues Smolin 2001 wrestles with in Ch. 2), and so it is most probably false at a deeper level. View III may remain non-falsifiable because random chance could mean anything beyond the observation that non-caused events emerge with time passage. However, if by “reason” we are led to an adherence to forward causality that contradicts relativity by implying that cause explains purpose, then View III may also be false. But if “reason” is only a tool used to discover consistencies or inconsistencies, then View III returns to a possible non-falsifiable position.

Views II and III may lead to a description of reality, and confusing such a description with actual reality is called abduction. Any description of reality is dependent upon an observer, lest relativity be ignored. Therefore, the subject cannot be removed from abduction if it is our intention to maintain a level of reasonableness. Alternatively, subjects could end up in an imaginary world that violates perceived relativity if abductions are chosen poorly.

By Gödel’s incompleteness theorem we note that every mathematical system of sufficient complexity will carry some non-falsifiable axioms; this is unavoidable. True abductions are non-falsifiable if they carry these deeper axioms (assumptions) and are consistent with all known observations. Some abductions are plainly inconsistent with known observations, and others are conflicted or unconflicted depending on how they reflect on reality. This meaning of abduction relates to usage (1) in Display 1, but note the other uses too. We will return to these other uses in due course.

Attempts to use Gödel’s theorem to prove that humans are not machines were defeated by computational reductionism due to the property of self-referral (Demski 1999, pages 216 -219). However, closed-minded humans can only be machines for abductions where relativity is violated such that cause explains purpose, and therefore, human-like machines cannot prove that all humans are such machines either. The fact that humans are subjects that hold purpose points again to abduction - as a subtle compromise between the infinite and the finite. The incompleteness theorem remains intact in as much as there are non-falsifiable tautologies that form systems of self-referral, systems that are open to subjective interpretation and differ only by perspective.

Abductive systems are necessarily self-referencing, as is the case when we look at ourselves in a mirror, and are problematic beyond the issue of axiom choice. It is true that self-referencing might lead to a consistently closed logic system which is agreeable with computational reductionism, and this hypothetical logic systems need only mimic a perceived world build upon an adherence to relativism. Relativity is scientifically validated, but there remains an issue that is entirely subjective. Is this image of self-referral the real thing, or is it a mere reflection? We have argued that the relativistic image can only be a reflection, and therefore the subject is objectively real, lest we contradict the incompleteness theorem and relativity. Otherwise, we cannot disprove those that believe themselves to be mere machines or animals that were caused by randomness. And we note that in self-referral we may lose our ability to disprove our mistakes (see Thuan 2001, page 327); for example, claiming that our sense of selfness is an illusion when it is the only thing we can be certain of, or claiming we are beyond reproach when we lost sight of our purpose due to the blinding glare on the mirror.

Statistical uncertainty makes logical decisions inseparable from subjectivity as described in Section 3, and this supports the view that non-falsifiable axioms relate to indeterminacy. Bayesian decision theory points to subjective utility functions and subjective prior probabilities that cannot be avoided when making decisions in the face of uncertainty. And Bayesian decision rules are consistent with rational behavior, and all such rational rules must be consistent with Bayesian rules (Berger 1985, Ch. 2). Uncertainty cannot be avoided, it is there at the quantum level with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it is there at the macro level as chaos makes predictions with nonlinear systems unreliable. Therefore, subjectivity is objectively real as well.

If we are looking at our plural selves in a mirror, there may only be but one of us. Therefore, we are likely abductions of ourselves, but perhaps only from the view of one. Abductions are good things, as all human thought is abductive and based on abstraction and surprise, i.e., usage (3) of Display 1, and abduction also provides usage (2) as a logic system which is consistent with View I of the scientific method. The question returns to intellectual honesty. And with this newly found honestly we might ask which usage (1) abductions find supporting evidence, and which abductions are most conflicted. This provides the needed adjustments to the scientific method to avoid abductive traps, confirming the clarity of View I over Views II or III. But we will also show that a presumed life force is surprisingly unconflicted, whereas views limited only to innate separation, forward logic and random chance have unresolved issues almost to the point of crisis - and this leads to usage (4).

3. Surprise

Surprise has a clear statistical definition that relates to the degree of disorder. Highly ordered systems are considered surprising within a background of disorder, and hence surprise relates to entropy and the evolution of order from disorder. Surprise also relates to probability distribution functions and is measured as the negative log-probability, and defuse distributions show more average disorder and less average surprise.

It is likely that surprise is needed for learning (Berns, McClure, Pagnoni and Montague 2001), and relational information then provides the interface between mind and physical reality. Sigfriend (2000) sees reality as information based too, but turns to the computer rather than the mind to complete his metaphor; note that his metaphor is strongly influenced by abduction, as is a view based on mind.

When we intuitively see a coincidence we meet it with surprise, and this motivates us to explain the event by logic. And hence with learning we may explain a surprising event in terms of random chance. In this way, the surprise we discover when we interact with the world is an integral part of consciousness; we feel the creative tensions when we are surprised, and this motivates us to discover logical explanations.

Therefore, surprise has connected to both logic and intuition. It has connected to information theory on one side, and it has connected to something invisible like Sigfriend’s computer. This implies that random chance is merely that part of manifestation that we cannot become aware of, creating a tautology between chance and awareness (Edis 2002). Note also that mathematically defined surprise does not imply that order will be surprising on the background of abundant order, or that disorder will be surprising on the background of abundant disorder. What is surprising depends on the associated probability distribution function and this is entirely influenced by both historical perspectives and perspectives that are emergent.

If mathematically defined surprise connects to consciousness, it is likely the logical mind cannot see this consciousness beyond the surprise because we are looking at ourselves in self-referral thereby confusing random chance with uncaused purpose. Such a possibility is demonstrated if, for example, we speculate that Maxwellian demons exist. Apparently, science cannot disprove the existence of these demons, see for example Albert (Time and Chance 2000, Ch. 5). On page 109, Albert summarizes the properties of such demons. It is that they must be a collective part of the dynamic system, and sensitive to surprise in their conditions. This view of surprise is necessarily one of self-referral. These demons also have the property that they can split the time symmetry by their choices and change their condition in an unpredictable way (perhaps bringing much unanticipated confusion to the logical mind). And these choices may be irreversible as long as surprise continues to manifest in the future, so as not to violate the perceived second law of thermodynamics.

We might be able to explain all of life and existence by complexity theory, without ever pointing to a demon. Everything would be due to random chance, as prescribed by View III of the scientific method. We would turn to the second law of thermodynamic and conclude that evolving systems tend to use up all available energy, hastening our fall into energetic disorder. There is much evidence to suggest this view (see Minkel 2002). And we might also point to reproductive fitness to explain the anomaly of how we end up with such energy efficient plants and a/nimals because the second law of thermodynamics says little about how quickly this fall into disorder should occur beyond probabilistic predictions that relate to free bodies. The problem remains that we also see this tendency to efficiency in the biosphere as a whole, where Darwinian explanations are made difficult. Moreover, our greater universe is far from thermodynamic equilibrium and it appears held in a low entropy state by self organizing structures, as much as we can tell (see Smolin 1997, Ch. 11).

Landauer‘s principle of information theory that tells us that it is easy to create information, but waste energy is always generated when information is erased (cfs. Sigfriend 2000). The information dynamics are not only driven by the second law, but also by a tendency not to waste surprising order if it can be avoided because waste-heat dispersion has limited value. Therefore, it is likely that living systems are responding to Landauer’s principle too, and this accounts for energy efficiencies we see in highly evolved ecosystems. But it is unclear how such a process can be explained by the random chance governing the second law, unless of course random chance has the aforementioned metaphysical quality. Landauer’s principle had been thought to disprove Maxwell’s demons, but what seems to be the case is that the principle only hid them from the logical mind.

Demons may have the ability to send creative tensions backward in time to "correct" mistakes in the present that we never see except surprise in lieu of waste heat, just as "accidents" in the written past are discovered as answers provided that such an action meets enough surprise in the present. An investigation of this possible process in humans is provided by Radin (2000). A description of this possible process in the universe is presented in Section 6.

Alternatively, if everything can be explained by random chance events that propagate non-relatively from that past, we might conclude that consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon and has no-choice making power of its own beyond the illusion of choice. This is where we find the first contradiction, and the first splitting of the time symmetry for ourselves involving a subjective choice. And if we agree that we fit the definition of a demon, we would conclude that they exist even in the smallest detail, having found our self to be one.

4. Coincidences Logical processes that describe evolution can be programmed unto a computer, and the running of such software may show all the things we expect, including adaptation and other dynamics of chaos. However, these logical processes provide an incomplete description of evolution in the absence of the background upon which they operate. In case of a computer simulation the background has been the computer, the programmer, and the note taker that reports the results. For evolution at large, the background is our greater world, our universe and the fabric of reality.

In looking at the fabric of reality, Chapters 4 and 5 of Smolin (1997) are particularly interesting. In Chapter 4, Smolin writes of the gauge principle in physics that relates to fields that are defined by relationships among particles (such as electrons) while following the principle of sufficient reason.

On page 52 we find it written, that “... this requires that in the description of the world we not be forced to make any choice unless there is a rational reason for making it one way or the other.” And if speaking of electrons we are unclear which is positive or which is negative (because the issue is only semantics), we note that a “... field whose existence is necessary to preserve our freedom to call charges positive or negative as we like is real: it is called the electromagnetic field.” And so the gauge principle sets up these equivalence classes (or fields) while maintaining the level of indeterminacy.

Chapter 5 brings up the topic of string theory, which is the closest we have to a theory of everything. In the 1980’s string theorist had found a very beautiful way to extend the gauge principle to include relativity theory. This unification was called super-symmetry. But these great insights said little about how we ended up with a world like we have, a universe with stars with odds of only one in 10**229 (See pages 324-326 in Smolin). The parting of our ways with spontaneous symmetry slitting was left to random chance, or something that looks like random chance to us that are sufficiently unaware.

On pages 71 and 72 Smolin writes: “... The problem seems to lie in the intrinsic conflict between the quest for unification and the imperative to understand why the different elementary particles and forces have such diverse and varied properties. The gauge theories manage to resolve that conflict. But they do it by introducing, for the first time, an effect by which some feature of the universe determines some of the properties of the elementary particles. By doing so, the theory takes a step away from the tenets of radical atomism, which holds that the properties of the elementary particles are completely independent of the history and the configuration of the universe.”

Smolin concluded that even with our most complete theory that presumes natural law, we still find indeterminacy, and we still are left with coincidences we cannot easily explain away. There is something else going on in the background that makes up our greater universe, something that perceives plurality and yet has a deep quality of unity, something like the mythical demon. The conflict that results between relativistic perceptions and the overall communion with the whole extends to the greater cosmos, and it even extends to our thinking on the most significant questions left unresolved (Smolin 1997, Ch. 16).

The mystery deepens when we consider that we are made of essential start dust, and we require sunlight to warm ourselves. Life as we know it depends on stars and our own sun, and a universe composed of such stars has such ridiculously low odds given what we currently know.

Anomalies that contradict or give question to the standard assumptions can be described as a collection of coincidences (or surprises) that are difficult to explain by random chance alone, or difficult to explain when we insist on an innate separation of ourselves form the greater universe. So it is appropriate to look at these coincidences as supporting evidence for the unity theory, and we may also look beyond the evolutionary record to our greater universe as the hunt for the life force should be comprehensive; connecting to Smolin’s stars. The list of the coincidences that relate to life and biological complexity is staggering; a partial inventory is presented in Display 2.

These anthropic coincidences might be ignored when Views II and III of the scientific method are adopted and unknowingly turned into abductions. To ignore these coincidences is to ignore our evolution, and this fails to meet the test of reasonableness. Furthermore, turning random chance into a religious faith, we might see life as incidental to the evolving universe, and we might see consciousness as incidental to life. We might also claim that Jung's synchronicity is undeserving of a closer look despite the accounts of Peat (1987) and of Combs and Holland (2001). But these presumptions merely show that we have abducted ourselves with views that we are separate from the world and that perceived random chance explains everything; we would have confused a description of reality (the program) with reality (program plus computer plus the people).

Under the pretense of the weak anthropic principle, some say they have good reasons for ignoring these coincidences, claiming that we can assume as a given that we are already here looking back. In this way the conditional surprise becomes negligible. This is the logical fallacy called begging the question as it follows from self-abduction, leaving the criticisms of previous paragraph unaltered. The evidence is overwhelming, and it would appear that the standard assumptions find themselves most conflicted compared to the unity theory that is more whimsical in its description (see Section 5).

Various theories have been floated to fill in the gaps in the theory of biological evolution. Kauffman’s (1995) principles of self-organization and McFadden’s (2001) quantum evolution are two. But from the point of view of abductive logic and epistemology, these views are indistinguishable from the unity theory even if they point to a radically different ontology such as the parallel worlds that McFadden gave hints to. Chaos theorists, such as Kauffman, attempt to find a logical basis for self-organization on the mirror of random chance. However, at this point the standard assumptions have gone the way of one thousand qualifications and have found themselves cut on Occam’s razor. But if logic has fallen to emotion, a close read of Section 6 reveals the expectation that logic reemerges as conflicts reconcile themselves in the event that the unity theory is correct. This is a sign that logic (that pertains to the standard assumptions, including strict causality) and intuition (pertains to assumptions that underlie the unity theory, including backward causality) are non-falsifiable, or perhaps falsifiable only when viewed in isolation.

In the following section a closer look at evolution is made under the assumption that the unity theory is correct and explains the coincidences found in nature. One does need to consider alternative explanations including intelligent design (Dembski 1999), or other logical views of grand-scale evolution (e.g., Smolin 1997). But note that proving any of these views comes up against the deeper issues of self-referral and non-falsifiability, even if such views are found to be otherwise consistent with all known observations. Alternatively, the unity theory depends on a weak backward causality which seems to be a minimal quality that is open to subjective interpretations (i.e., causality is relative in that either strict forward causality is real, or it is seen as a reflection in a logical mind that perceives new order on a background of disorder). Resolution of this remaining quality can explain the coincidences and other irreducible complexities found in nature, and this aligns the unity theory with a weak teleology. This teleology demonstrates that creativity gives reason to purpose and questions that ask why, and it leaves the questions that ask how and what to those with allegiances to forward causality. The unity theory also depends on our spatial interconnectedness (see Capra 2002), but here our logical minds can see these connections as a snapshot in time.

5. Evolution Regarding creative tensions, it is known that placebo effects are real. It is also true that muscles will enlarge with use, but for a characteristic to be passed on to the next generation a memory of some kind must be left behind. The unity theory would be a process that builds on prior memories to bring new qualities into existence, and this process needs an existing framework that is logically perceived. The memories left behind to be passed onto the next generation have been the DNA, and as noted by McFadden (on page 264 and 265, among other places) there is published evidence of adaptive m/utations that may have deeper connection with quantum measurements and perhaps even conscious choice. Steele, Lindley and Blanden (1998) have provided an up to date account of the theory of Lamarckism, including evidence of acquired immunological characteristics and the action of retrogenes.

The possibility that memories require mass for storage is not unfamiliar with information theory as we seen with the Landauer principle a connection between energy and information. In this view memory requires a representation in matter, and perhaps the brain is another appendage needed for memory as is DNA. The mind therefore recalls prior events by connecting to information stored in the brain, as it connects to information stored in the DNA, and to our muscles that store yesterday’s fittest. Activity in the mind (qualia) leaves physical signatures in the brain that may relate to these memories. We have a brain and a physical body because we require actualization/localization to experience life, but this is not saying that the mind is contained in the brain.

The unity theory can be described as the result of various forms of interactive learning vindicating Lamarck’s views about acquired characteristics but only in the most fundamental way. Kauffman’s autocatalytic cycles can be viewed as steps in learning, and McFadden’s quantum evolution of self directed life can be viewed in the same light; perhaps the immune system, developmental ontogeny, and memetics (Dawkins 1976) may also depict paradigms of learning. The evolution of the universe (Chaisson 2001), the evolution of cultures (Bloom 2000, Wright 2000 ) and human creativity also become expressions of a life force that facilitates learning. Such evolution may necessarily converge to produce intelligent life (Morris 2002). And this learning requires some form of interaction or communication, something that is observed even in the elementary particles. Neighboring electrons are known to repel each other by sending out a communicating photon, a photon that pops in and out of existence and requires no energy on balance. Science has hypothesized that all energy fields have these communicating links, even gravity. Smolin (2001, Ch. 4) describes the universe as a collection of processes and their relationships. This provides support for the view of Schwartz and Russek (1999) regarding communicating energy fields and life.

Theories of the mind relate to these abstract communications as active perception (Thomas 1999): that we float metaphors and engage the world, and with enough confirmation and feedback we learn to communicate. These feedback loops eventually return complete, and if the unity theory is correct we understand these communications because deep down we share a oneness where the circuit is made complete. We communicate with things in the outside world because at a deeper level we are those things, though we are blinded in logical terms by self referral and sometimes think of ourselves as located in the brain. Otherwise, explaining language based communication is very hard in reductive terms, as Nadeau and Kafatos (1999, pages 163 -171) have noted.

If the unity theory is correct then evolution can be described abstractly as a result of the conflict between the internal (first person) and the shared (third person), and consciousness permeates the universe as it is the life force. For example, if Maxwellian demons exist in the greater universe then it is likely that there may only be one true demon that traces its origin to the big bang. We possible cannot know of this singular demon directly because of the barrier of self-referral, noting that the past is only a mere reflection of this deeper mystery.

If the unity theory is correct then survival-of-the-fittest is not wrong but incomplete. Regarding artificial selection, for example, the logical principles of plant and animal breeding remain intact, more or less. The issue returns to our place in the universe and how we see conflict. The unity theory does not defeat a logical description of evolution, it does however point to an invisible boundary among creative processes. The unity theory points to intuition as well as logic: intuition relates to unprovable axioms and emotions where logic relates to consistency and what is knowable.

What drives the unity theory is a life force that relates to time, and a deeper consideration of time is something that logical descriptions of evolution sometimes lack.

6. Time With time passage we witness manifestation as one moment leads to the next. The logical passage of time is seen as an increase in entropy (or a decrease in surprise). Some have connected this passage to spontaneous symmetry splitting (e.g., Stenger 2000), but time remains as big a mystery as any anthropic coincidence.

Garvey (1997) noted a dichotomy with knowing and being (existence), suggesting that we may only be able to know part of our greater self. This polarizes the universe into a knowable past and a flux of being (time). It is hypothesized that the being part of our self contains newly forming synergies, and apart from the surprises left in the written past the synergies are otherwise unknowable due to time reversal. So if this one life force (or one Maxwellian demon) exists at the deepest level, we can’t know of it beyond the clouds of chaos that form in the written past. And as cycles returns complete connecting the present to the past, strict causality meets new tensions that eventually erupt into new surprises pushing time again into perpetual flux.

Among the coincidences of Display 2, the connection to time is implied by the way non-commutative coincidences seem to contradict logical cause-and-effect flow as if the event was already written in the book of truth. Critics of creationism ironically point to supporting evidence for the unity theory when they discover gate-keeper genes that regulate body form, suggesting that the genes for body form have “already” been written into the genetic code of our distant ancestors (Ronshaugen, McGinnis and McGinnis 2002). M/utations are thought to be preserved by the action of a protein labeled hsp90, and this permits the m/utations to accumulate with time so that a characteristic can be found to be “already” written in the genetic code when the variation is needed in the future (Holmes 2002). Humans and Chimpanzees share a “coincidentally” large number of genes, as we do with other life forms, and our amazing differences may be due to the presumed “creative” use these genes (Enard et al. 2002). And the human genome may only have 50,000 genes, a surprisingly small number “already” written, but a number indicative of a high enough level of epistasis to allow all the complexities we see in ourselves to emerge.

The second law of thermodynamics is not being violated necessarily by reverse-time causality when the present contains more surprise than the past (locally if not globally, and perhaps only at the realm of the quantum as Stenger argues on page 207). In the event when our greater self is more surprising in the present then tensions are sent backward across time (to reestablish perceived links with causality). And regarding this second law we can’t say that the universe is necessarily closed. It may only be that reality looks closed to us as we reflect on the written past (our knowable self is necessarily recorded in the past, see Albert 2000, Ch. 6), and while possibly fooling ourselves that everything has a logical cause and only such a cause from the past. An open universe may look like the one we have, loaded with unexplained coincidences and an endless supply of surprises.

Quantum mechanics can be described in various ways that shows a dependence of the present on the past, and the past on the present, as Stenger did. Cramer (1986) describes transactional quantum mechanics which permits a backward and forward handshake in time, and Wolf (2001, Ch. 7) describes this time loop as it relates to consciousness. John Wheeler has demonstrated a delayed choice experiment where photos can retroactively acquire attributes in the distant past once a fresh observation is made in the present. Albert (2000, Ch. 7) speculates about a connection between the direction of time and quantum mechanical measurements (quantum shuffling to reconcile the present with the past, a past that finds its self open to augmentation), and Albert points to a reality where “random chance” enters only once and where Maxwellian demons cannot be absolutely excluded. Non-locality has also been demonstrated experimentally, suggesting that synchronistic attributes can be shared instantaneously across space (perhaps as a result of Cramer’s spatial and temporal handshake). This non-locality does not represent faster than light communication, but it does permit superluminal synchronization and it does, coincidentally, permit active perception. An interesting treatment of non-locality is presented in Nadeau and Kafatos (1999).

A very important point is now recalled. One does not prove abductions, what we do is show them to be consistent (or unconflicted) with known observations. The unity theory is consistent with known observations, even with backward causality up to the point of symmetry splitting, a view that gives way to forward causality in the wake of a broken symmetry. The transactional mechanism that permits this remains just beyond our abilities of comprehension, but the fingerprints are found on what is perceived as forward causality.

Whatever we make of backward time travel of surprising information, it is clear we experience something like “freewill”, whatever this quality might be. As a result, we predetermine part of our own future when we plan to go away on a trip, so we already are time travelers even if freewill is left undefined. And it is precisely this quality that relates to the presumed life force (see Davies 1992), and the qualities of self-directed life that McFadden has outlined. Gaia theory also points to a biosphere that has amazing abilities of self regulation (Margulis 1998), and there are countless other examples of self-directing biological organization leading to collectivism, e.q., migrating birds that fly south to over-winter.

John Wheeler’s participatory anthropic principle, that the present selects the past in a weakly causal way, supports the unity theory.

7. Conclusions Both relativity theory and quantum physics provide the first hints that the observer is not safely separated from a presumed objective reality, e.g., note how observational perspective influences the result of the two slit experiment; see Section 3.2 of Bohm and Hiley (1993). Views of the quantum have been extended to consciousness, thus making consciousness the possible life force as hinted in a number of popular science books (e.q., Wolf 2001, Walker 2000, Goswami 1995, de Quincey 2002). The weight of the evidence is significant, and each of these books carries a comprehensive bibliography.

A life force is consistent with a Divine directive force that takes us to an omega point, but there is an important distinction that pertains to choice. A life force merely implies that creativity exists in mind and universe (e.g., Peat 2000). Such creativity shows qualities that are much less suggestive of a rational God, even if they point to an obvious artistic temperament. The answers we find stop just short of proving the existence of such a Divine and leaves the question open to us, and we choose our own future by selecting memories from the past. If indeed there is a God, then an artistic God would likely be wise enough to let us learn on our own time, as if there was nothing at all. A deeper purpose to life becomes a question of awareness and creative tensions become very subtle, but at the most holistic level of consciousness there may only be one life force that can be synchronized (see Wolf 1999, Ch. 12). This is called the one-mind model.

If the unity theory is correct then we are not separate from reality, and we are part of the bigger whole while observing ourselves in self-referral. In this case Darwin’s interpretation of evolution is incomplete, and inside out. Evolution is not merely about competition as implied by a logical perspective, evolution is about our cooperation and higher consciousness and perceived competition follows from that.

In the event that we face first-person comparisons involving several abductions, there is this last point that cannot be stressed enough, that there is no fool proof recommendation on which abduction to adopt because a singular view is unable to second guess the creative tensions we all feel. Aside from what is already indicated, how we abduct ourselves is entirely a subjective choice. But presumably we place ourselves into our own abduction that finds the least conflicts, thus maintaining our plurality of views in such a way that is agreeable with Smolin (2001, Ch. 3). Maxwell’s demon may be able to focus on order when there are some bipolar perceptions that see disorder. But this attention to order implies a balanced first-person and third-person perspective, and it was the purpose of this paper to present only a third-person discussion of the unity theory.

Acknowledgments This paper is dedicated to the human race, and our possible harmony. The writing of this paper involved the sharing of ideas with numerous friends, including D’Arcy Henderson, Damir Ibrisimovic, Paul M. Helfrich, Janice B. Paulsen, Greg Stone, Donivan Bessinger, Brian Rothery, Beatrix Murrell and Mary Marguerite. Their inputs were most appreciated. * President of Rodgers Land and Development Company Napa, CA web-site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/serenityandtolerance/ e-mail: hucklebird@aol.com **Claire C. Smith UK web site: http://www.cthisspace.com/ e-mail:claire@cthisspace.com

References J.D. Barrow and F.J. Tipler, 1986, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press. / O.J. Berger, 1985, Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York./ G.S. Berns, S.M. McClure, G. Pagnoni and P.R. Montague, 2001, Predictability Modulates Human Brain Response to Reward, The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(8), 2793-2798./ D. Bohm and B.J. Hiley, 1993, The Undivided Universe, Routledge./ H. Bloom, 2000, Global Brain, John Wiley & Sons, Inc./ E.J. Chaisson, 2001, Cosmic Evolution: the Rise of Complexity in Nature, Harvard University Press. /A. Combs, and M. Holland, 2001, Through the Eyes of Science, Myth and the Trickster: Synchronicity, Marlowe & Company./ J.G. Cramer, 1986, The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647-688./ P. Davies, 1992, The Mind of God, Touchstone./ R. Dawkins, 1976, The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. /W.A. Dembski, 1999, Intelligent Design, InterVarsity Press. /W.A. Dembski (edited by), M. Behe, D. Berlinski, P. Johnson, H. Ross and others, 1998, Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, InterVarsity Press. M.J. Denton , 1998, Nature’s Destiny, The Free Press. /C. de Duve, 1995, Vital Dust, Basic Books. /C. de Quincey, 2002, Radical Nature, Invisible Cities Press./ T. Edis, 2002, An Accidental World, Free Inquiry Magazine, 22 (4), 57-58. /W. Enard, P. Khaitovich, J. Klose, S. Zöllner, F. Heissig, P. Giavalisco, K. Nieselt-Struwe, E. Muchmore, A. Varki, R. Ravid, G.M. Doxiadis, R.E. Bontrop, and S. Pääbo, 2002, Intra- and Interspecific Variation in Primate Gene Expression Patterns, Science, Apr 12, 340-343./ S. Garvey, 1997, I Am Existence, Inexpressible Publications./ S. Garvey, 2003, The Critique of Reasonableness, A Method to End Partiality, Inexpressible Publications./ A, Goswami, 1995, The Self-Aware Universe, Jeremy P. Tarcher./ B. Holmes, 2002, Ready, steady, evolve, The New Scientists, September 28, 28-31./ S. Kauffman, 1995, At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press./ L. Margulis, 1998, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, Basic Books./ S.C. Morris, 2002, We Were Meant to Be …, The New Scientists, November 16, 26-29./ J. McFadden, 2001, Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life, W.W. Norton & Company./ J.R. Minkel, 2002, The Purpose of Life, New Scientists, October 5, 30-33./ R. Nadeau, and M. Kafatos, 2000, The Non-Local Universe: the New Physics and Matters of the Mind, Oxford University Press./ F.D. Peat, 1987, Synchronicity, Bantam Books./ F.D. Peat, 2000, The Blackwinged Night, Perseus Publishing./ D.I. Radin, 2000, Time-reversed Human Experience: Experimental Evidence and Implications, Boundary Institute Technical Report, Los Altos, CA. See their web site: http://www.boundary.org// M. Ronshaugen, N. McGinnis, and W. McGinnis, 2002, Hox protein m/utation and macroevolution of the insect body plan, Nature, 415, 914-917./ G. E.R. Schwartz, and L.G.S. Russek, 1999, The Living Energy Universe, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc./ T. Siegfried, 2000, The Bit and The Pendulum: From Quantum Computing to M Theory - The New Physics of Information, John Wiley & Son, Inc./ L. Smolin, 1997, The Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press./ L. Smolin, 2001, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Perseus Book Group./ E.J. Steele, R.A. Lindley and R.V. Blanden,1998, Lamarck’s Signature, Perseus Books./ V.J. Stenher, 2000, Timeless Reality, Prometheus Books./ N.J.T. Thomas, 1999, Are Theories of Imagery Theories of Imagination? An Active Perception Approach to Conscious Metal Content, Cognitive Science, 23, 207-245./ T.X. Thuan, 2001, Chaos and Harmony: Perspective on Scientific Revolutions of the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press./ C.H. Yu, 1994, Abduction? Deduction? Induction? Is there a logic of exploratory data analysis? Presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April./ E.H. Walker, 2000, The Physics of Consciousness: Quantum Minds and the Meaning of Life, Perseus Publishing./ R. Wesson, 1991, Beyond Natural Selection, The MIT Press./ F.A. Wolf, 1999, The Spiritual Universe, Moment Point Press./ F.A. Wolf, 2001, Mind into Matter, Moment Point Press./ R. Wright, 2000, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Vintage Books.

Display 1. Various meaning of the word abduction as found in philosophy. (1) Abduction can represent a cage we put ourselves in, and sometimes we get stuck in our own non-falsifiable world not knowing of the conflicts that are generated in the shared world. True abductions are said to be non-falsifiable, but there are other examples such as a belief in alien abductions that may serve as a cage. To break out of these cage-like abductions takes new tensions that may need to come from the perceived outside. These come in the form of new observations that other people might provide as the singular view of the duly abducted may be too narrow to see outside of the cage. Tensions can also come in the form of art and songs, as we are told about things that only our subconscious is willing to tolerate.

(2) Abduction as a logic system: We use our creativity to invent new theories, then we test these theories by comparing predictions to actual observations (induction), lastly we use deduction to represent the theory with causal links that flow form past to future (Yu 1994). This forms a cycle that flows both forward and backward through time, as the answer always comes to us first as an insight that is loaded with the surprise that can be traced to realizations in the unfolding future. This cycle is important in active perception, where we form expectations based on prior beliefs and then we receive confirmation about those beliefs. And with this abductive logic we go through life adjusting our belief set. Given that Gödel taught us that we cannot prove all of our beliefs, then abductive logic works up to the point of non-falsification which will lead possibly to another splitting of the symmetry (a non-falsifiable belief has a converse which is necessarily non-falsifiable as well, and this pair forms a symmetry prior to splitting). Perfect symmetries are unstable, so as creative tensions build, new surprises tend to be discovered that turn a non-falsifiable belief into something that is falsifiable and open to scientific investigation.

(3) The spark of creativity in mind, as for example when an artist paints: The artist will take metaphors of shapes and colors that have some form in the written past, and he or she will bring these into a new form in the present. The artistic presentation brings out the synergies of the written past, and projects an image that surprises an onlooker by reflecting artistic beauty. Therefore, abduction is a driving instinct that moves against a fall into disorder, and it leads to the discovery of new order from holistic unions. This is called creativity, and other examples of creative expressions are choice and the exercise of our will. Surprise seems to coax these expressions into manifestation, as hypothesized by C.S. Pierce.

(4) The spark of creativity in universe, as for example the spontaneous splitting of time symmetry: With the perceived passage of time the past is abducted into the present, or the past is rewritten into the present, as speculated in John Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle. The motion of free bodies are said to evolve to a higher state of entropy (i.e., ever decreasing levels of surprise), but this is likely a perspective that can be reflected and flipped as the view is relational. It may only be that bodies that show no collective properties are increasingly unsurprising in the macro condition, and in the absence of new synergies the written past will fade like old memories as time's perceived arrow takes all of us to new perspectives that show more surprise. And so surprise can still coax out “art” in the greater universe (i.e., splitting of time symmetry), leading to the suggestion that consciousness permeates the universe (de Quincey 2002), and also explaining all the anomalies that have been identified in the evolutionary record of life, as well as explaining Jung's synchronicity.

Display 2. A partial list of anthropic coincidences, and other coincidences of evolution and life. The view that the parameters of the standard model of particle physics have been fined tuned, leading to a universe of stars among many other things, was postulated by Barrow and Tipler (1986). Advocates of Intelligent Design have now made an industry out of collecting anthropic coincidences as can be found in the contributed papers in Dembski et al. (1998). For example, on pages 372 to 375 Ross collected 29 of them, and then produces a second list of 45.

Bond angles permit ice to float on water, meaning that ice does not sink and this is a property unlike any other solid. If ice would sink to the bottom of oceans the earth would rarely warm up, making earth a cold planet not hospitable to life as we know it (McFadden 2000, page 99).

The carbon cycle and the ocean currents are though to have help stabilized the world’s climates, and in particularly stabilized temperatures significantly over the last 10,000 years during a time when human cultures emerged.

Take away our moon, and earth’s axis of rotation becomes unstable, leading to unpredictable and extreme exposures to sunlight and darkness on the earth’s surface (Thaun 2001, pages 37-38). Life would be miserable.

S.F. Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe described spontaneous generation as the random gathering of proteins to bring forward the first example of life on earth, such as a bacterium (See Kauffman 1995, page 44). The odds of such an event were found to be ridiculously low, leading biologists to come up with alternative theories. Other alternative views might improve the odds of generating life, including such things as the interaction with chemical memories and liquid-filled membranes (Margulis 1998, Ch. 5).

The evolutionary record is loaded with anomalies showing the dynamics of chaos and the emergence of extreme complexity (Wesson 1991, de Duve 1995). Chemical structures such as DNA, proteins, biochemical processes, physiological processes and structures, our conscious ability to reflect on our greater world, all point to an “unlikely” dependence on our universe and a dependence on the sunlight and the elements so generated (Denton 1998).

The Unity Debate (from above) and other fuzzy things...

Before I start Osher read my "Fuzz" posr below. I don't talk religion or politics (maybe some of the latter if it gets good). Politics and logic think it is a powerfull thing to convince with former rules. It is untill creativity arrives. Creative thinking allready creates the rule for logic and doesn't need to convince. Logical thinking is related to convincing by deduction (it is more convincing to go by what we allready know, because we allready know it, therefore it has to be more convincing). Creative thinking doesn't rely on what we allready know but what we could possibly know (it could be infinite and uncontrolled). What we could know, do, say and live is uncontrolled, it could be a threat to logic, it could be a threat to politics. Threats are usually about what is unkown, the uncontrollable or the chaotic. The taming of chaos is equal to having power, which is equal to politics (the world is chaotic, the governement are powerfull). With the rules of logic, applied to what power is (see last sentence) creativity as you see, are in one way, more powerfull than politics and logic put together. Claire (May 30th 2003)

Wondered. Was post "Logic = Power" angering? (thought on Osher response) rebuttle=Unity inquisition (tension in left to right) intersection? Vector posts as synchronisity (unknown science?)Osher/myself (subtonation via noise) on posts about synch via vectors. A Rare event? Fairly. Pionts through the origin and creative source (right) intersection of non graviton thinking with (left)tension--> emergence. Emerge to extra longitudal (sub)universe and particle as stretched under tension (left/right) out wit p-brane theory. New energy density gradient (phase space) and graviton excepted. Back to asymmetry of universe but now with of maths (Pi). Irrational number. Pauli's neither or nor symmetry. Penrose twister space. Penrose symmetry oriented but is "all" universe mathematicallly symmetrical? See (Wu) for that one. Tension (anger) over Bohm (implicate order) not order, re-percpetion of order by event. Tension to creativity. Osher via fairly frequent events and rare. Are events dynamical? Is a point a line ? (John). Maths dynamics and asymmetrical events and dynamics. Does is exist?

Claire, I have been reading the first 3 pages of your "The unity theory of evolution," which has a total of 14 pages including approximately 2 pages of references. I think that, as one says with the Law, "you have the right Spirit of the Law and we differ on the Letter of the Law." I agree with the attempt to revise the basis and understanding of evolution and science, but the following details are ones that we seem to have opposite or very different views on. A. Entropy and Information Theory. B. Bayesian decision theory and Bayesian rules. C. (Sir Karl Popper's) Falsifiability and Non-Falsifiability D. Statistical uncertainty. E. Causality including its relationship to General Relativity. F. The individual versus humanity/groups. My views on many of these issues have been expressed over the years here on Superstringtheory, on geometry-research, on math-history-list (both of the latter two are connected among other places with the Mathforum and/or epigone), real-analysis@ams.org, etc. I will comment here just that Sir Karl Popper's philosophy is in my opinion rather implausible and is no longer generally accepted by the best (most Creative Genius-like) mathematicians and physicists, which seems to suggest that you make major revisions in your paper unless you can provide some incredible new insights into Popper or are satisfied to only convince (some) philosophers. Osher Doctorow . (May 31, 2003 at 05:06:56)

Claire, We seem to be converging or agreeing in some of our other views like those on Sir Karl Popper and Smolin and maybe even Wheeler's geons which seem to have led nowhere (thanks partly to the Wheeler-Einstein "mutual admiration society"?). Bayesian Decision Rules are in my subfield of Statistics, and Bayesian Methods use conditional probability with the assumption that "parameters" actually have probability distributions more or less. Conditional probability, however, is unquestionably of form y/x for x not 0 and therefore is a Fairly Frequent Event concept, and it has led to things like Markov chains which are way over-simplistic and resemble independent processes even in form except that they are "one step from independence". Markov processes are the integral version of Markov chains and are also rather simplistic and essentially Fairly Frequent Event although at a few places they come closer to Rare Even ideas. As for Bayesian Decision Rules, they ONLY have nice-looking theoretical properties and rather simple theoretical properties. They are almost entirely Fairly Frequent Event, although Thomas S. Ferguson's (of UCLA, Emeritus) research for example brings out some of their best algebraic properties and set/class properties. There is an intersection between Rare and Fairly Frequent Event realms, and I think that a few of these latter theoretical properties are at least close to that intersection although I haven't found many that are in the intersection. I know that MANY, MANY applied statistical fields even in social and behavioral sciences have gone head-over-heels in love with Bayesian concepts BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING ELSE TO CHOOSE FROM when they asked mathematicians (well, other than minimax methods of (von Neumann and) Morgenstern's game theory and a few other methods). Generally, those applied fields are even less open-minded among their practitioners than physics and mathematics in my opinion insofar as evaluating what they take from mathematics. And physics "blew it" as far as probability-statistics is concerned as far back as the Statistics-Probility disputes of the quantum vs relativity schools in the 1930s-1940s-1950s where nobody really was an expert in probability and even Max Born did do much questioning about his quantum probability being embedded in a "deterministic Schrodinger complex equation"! Ah, for the simpler times of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton! But Knowledge was less then, and cruelty seems to have been roughly proportionately as high as now. Osher (June 01, 2003 )

I pointed out in the "bureaucracy" thead that I agree with the spirit of "The Unity Theory of Evolution" of Claire but had technical differences on Falsifiability vs Non-Falsifiability, Bayesian Decision Theory and Rules, Uncertainty, Causality related to Einstein's General Relativity, the Individual vs Humanity/Group, etc. I think that the concepts listed above (except for "etc.") can be entirely dispensed with in Modifying-Generalizing "The Unity Theory of Evolution," and I would like to try to do that. Those who wish can think of this as "Naive Unity Theory," while I prefer to think of it as "Creative Unity Theory." My Generalization-Modification only covers the first 3 pages of the Smiths' paper at present. I agree that evolutionary theory (interpreted as survival-of-the-fittest in a narrow sense and its dependence on natural selection which in turn maintainthat anomalies can be explained by random chance possibly with complexity theory principles, the Smiths' "standard asumptions,") has a number of disadvantages, and that there is a deeper unity level among all living things and between these and the universe at large. Unlike the Smiths, I don't think that we need to throw in the tautology that the fact that we experience things makes our sense of being real. According to the Smiths, the objective reality view and the random chance view (the latter attempting to explain random anomalies by "reason" and statistics) comprise and description of reality and confusing this description with acual reality is called "abduction". Abduction leads to self-referencing. I would isolate the unification but also the discrimination or distinction between things as being the essence of the Generalized-Modified Unity Theory of Evolution (GMUTE for short), and I prefer abduction in the sense of Sami Paavola (U. Helsinki) "Abduction as a logic and method of discovery: the importance of strategies," approx. 2001, which was the due to appear in Foundations of Science, and which is accessible at http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/papers/sfabductionstrategies.html. Paavola builds on Charles S. peirce and Hanson 1972, who describe abduction as a mode of inference in which explanations are searced for anomalous or surprising phenomena as follows: A surprising fact C is observed, and the explanatory hypothesis H is proposed, and the "abduction" is a form of semi- or generalized reasoning in which we argue that is H is true then C would occur or follow, which makes us suspect or lends credence to our belief that H is true. In other words, in Rare Event Theory (RET) language, something that explains a Rare Event is a key type of genealized reasoning called Abduction. Paavola goes beyond Peirce and Hanson and indicates that Abduction in his definition or viewpoint involves an orientation toward the POSITIVE or EXCELLENCE in reasoning rather than just the NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL or "definatory rules" tht tell us what to do or what not to do relative to definitions. The EXCELLENCE viewpoint empasizes STRATEGIES and strategies in particular of not onl what to do but HOW TO DO IT WELL. In the language of Rare Event Theory, this would translate as SEMANTIC KNOWLEDGE rather than just SYNTACTIC FORM more or less if we regard syntax as generalized to even the "form of the definition" of words and their interrelationships. The Smiths' view of abduction enables them to prefer the Hypothesis Testing view of confirming theories/predictions by observation which relates directly to surprise or statistical significace. But surprise in this sense is "Rare Events" - in fact, we reject the null hypothesis typically if the Rare Event has probability less than .05. So the new generalized-modified theory is not inconsistent with the Smiths' theory, although the Smiths reject the objective reality view and the random chance view by arguments about falsifiability and non-falsifiability which cannot be introduced into the generalized-modified theory by agreement (see above). This is fine with me. I believe in objective reality and also in random chnce. I do not regard quanum entanglement or the double slit experiment as denying objective reality or random chance. The Wheeler-Feynman absorber, for example, is at least a minimal explanation of one or more of these anomalous results and does not deny either objective reality or random chance. Moreover, quantum entanglement and consciousness simply say that under certain conditions waves or fields can spread, even from lower to higher dimensional things, without necessarily having particle-string spread beyond the most elementary level. If the Unitary Theory of Evolution is generalized-modified to NOT intermingle the observed and the observed (unlike the Copenhagen Interpretation), then what is it used for? It is simply a reflection of the properties of Knowledge, which is evolutionary in that it increases in time and is semantic and concerned with Rare or Surprising and Anomalous Events. It explains cosmology and biological life and human consciousness-perception-memory and viscoelasticity and radiation's expansive-contractive properties. This is also what Rare Event Theory does. Osher Doctorow (May 31, 2003 )

Ok Osher, Ok, the Falsifiability vs Non-Falsifiability, Bayesian Decision Theory and Rules, Uncertainty, Causality related to Einstein's General Relativity, the Individual vs Humanity/Groupuncertaincy is somewhat a "defined" undefinable, whcih is a tautology of course, but under ht newer assumption that I now would call this theory "Towards A Theory Of Creative Unity" the potential of an asumption that is an undefined definable is an either way information thoery. One thing that had occured to me was also that after such thought s about this paper, we have complexity that includes, noise and an irreducable component of information, this ties in with abduction and subjective choice because Osher we havent yet undertstood the brains own internal mechanisms that are independant of objective choice making. Think about this claerly, it helps this dierction get ahead better. I would like you to mody fy what ever you think needs modyfying! If you have the time anything will be appreciated. Towards A Theory Of Creative Unity is what i would of perhaps now called it looking back. Like potential energy, it has potential concepts ahead of it, this says to me that it is open rather than closed so i wouldnt call it a Unity endof (Stephen named it's title, I didnt). Ok the 1srt three pages are good today (it takes too long for me to reply in one night anyway). yeah, "the deeper unity amongst all levels" is about more to do with synchronicity, it is not that well understood but it bloody interesting to do so from this angle. The feelings aspect was not my aspect. This was Stephens idaa Osher. I did say that the wording is flowery in the post before this and also reflects the NON- scientifically "inclined" view of this paper. The abduction is not needlesly self referencing, it is but by how we relate what we allready know with what is actaully possible to know by this. This is ver fuzzy and Ill be honest about the fact that there is more than one definition of "abduction" and its relstionship to creativity in terms on cognition, and epistemology one way and psychology another. This could be defined better it also could be defined wiht an obsolute if it where not so "descriptive" in its nature as it is now, but so is biology. You put "Sami Paavola (U. Helsinki) "Abduction as a logic and method of discovery: the importance of strategies," . This is a preference and is relational to your understanding. there are a few definitions of this. This can be confusing. Don't confuse the word "logic" with the word "thinking" because many do. They are not the same in context nor in application with "The Unity Theory". But if this is to be a greater paper than it allready is (which could be better) than it deserves alook at the different aspects of "abduction" that can later contribute to a better understanding of what now seem sublime in our understanding (and believe me there's plenty of that around). you say "Paavola builds on Charles S. peirce and Hanson 1972, who describe abduction as a mode of inference in which explanations are searced for anomalous or surprising phenomena as follows: A surprising fact C is observed, and the explanatory hypothesis H is proposed, and the "abduction" is a form of semi- or generalized reasoning in which we argue that is H is true then C would occur or follow, which makes us suspect or lends credence to our belief that H is true. In other words, in Rare Event Theory (RET) language, something that explains a Rare Event is a key type of genealized reasoning called Abduction." It can be and cannot be. What level on epistemological inference you make changes the outcome. This get VERY deep! the language and syntax.....ok here it can go towards metaphysics if you will so you might not like this. It had to stop somwere so the level of explanation was stpooed here. I would NOT say that rare event Thoery was a generalised level of abduction from the general gernre of abduction, there are better ways to sort this one out and iam working on them. you put" Paavola goes beyond Peirce and Hanson and indicates that Abduction in his definition or viewpoint involves an orientation toward the POSITIVE or EXCELLENCE in reasoning rather than just the NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL or "definatory rules" tht tell us what to do or what not to do relative to definitions. The EXCELLENCE viewpoint empasizes STRATEGIES and strategies in particular of not onl what to do but HOW TO DO IT WELL. In the language of Rare Event Theory, this would translate as SEMANTIC KNOWLEDGE rather than just SYNTACTIC FORM more or less if we regard syntax as generalized to even the "form of the definition" of words and their interrelationships." Ok, yes and no. I cant get any deeper (here) than what ytou say is correct in that sematic knowlegde is how can I say, likened to an element in chemistry. It is objectively semantic knowleged when we have decided that it is knowlegde in one particular form only because also have left out "thinking" as a part of the semtaic of knowleged. As you know or your wife knows, pyschology is seen as a type of descriptive avenue for what and how we might understand, this includes language and syntax but it leaves out many areas that are related to how the mind makes sense of "noise information content" and other ways of syntatically or objectively reasoning out how we deal with information via percpetion (its descriptive) but iam inclined to (I here will go off on a tangent and type what has been on my mind ever since the paper and that is that a) "Niose" and its ability to change our view of stytax and sematics and it hidden reasoning power through this justification of information complexity lead leads me to b) that there are inferences that support a dualistics or even mulitple theory of "abduction" (aimnot about to let on here just yet) bu that this idea ia called "Dimentional Abduction" copyrighted by myself! (it has nothing to do with Dimenational Analysis by the way). Ill go ino this another time after I have placed more about this idea on my site. It will benefit the paper 1000 fold I can assure you that. I will make it relevant to alot of work because it is. "The Smiths' view of abduction enables them to prefer the Hypothesis Testing view of confirming theories/predictions by observation which relates directly to surprise or statistical significace. But surprise in this sense is "Rare Events" - in fact, we reject the null hypothesis typically if the Rare Event has probability less than .05." Ok, is this is the suprise you r after? I think that there is more than a Rare an event in suprise if we retain the idea that Shannons thoery of infromation and order is the start and DA (Dimentional Abduction) could yet make headway for a better "suprise" theory and an end or pening. What are the events you aks? the evnt are related to suprise and information. It is the clue to the order of the part of non semantic and syntax reasoning of a different order of magintude, this reltes to DA. Dont' close this attitute just yet! You put" So the new generalized-modified theory is not inconsistent with the Smiths' theory, although the Smiths" Some of the Smiths! "reject the objective reality view and the random chance view by arguments about falsifiability and non-falsifiability which cannot be introduced into the generalized-modified theory by agreement (see above). This is fine with me. I believe in objective reality and also in random chnce." Random chance boils down to what we think is chance and its landscape. What defines chance is variablilty by reference and inference this couold be argued the other way. "I do not regard quanum entanglement or the double slit experiment as denying objective reality or random chance. The Wheeler-Feynman absorber, for example, is at least a minimal explanation of one or more of these anomalous results and does not deny either objective reality or random chance. Moreover, quantum entanglement and consciousness simply say that under certain conditions waves or fields can spread, even from lower to higher dimensional things, without necessarily having particle-string spread beyond the most elementary level." You put "undercertina conditions" this is a type of variable. its relative (isnt everything!) "If the Unitary Theory of Evolution is generalized-modified to NOT intermingle the observed and the observed (unlike the Copenhagen Interpretation), then what is it used for? It is simply a reflection of the properties of Knowledge, which is evolutionary in that it increases in time and is semantic and concerned with Rare or Surprising and Anomalous Events. It explains cosmology and biological life and human consciousness-perception-memory and viscoelasticity and radiation's expansive-contractive properties. This is also what Rare Event Theory does." It does and doesn't suggest what you say. the level (qualative and quantative) explanation that is not on the papaer would change your view entirely to inconsistent even before you allready started to read! whay do i say that?! Because I know the depth of this could create differences in view (again, Semnatics has changablitiy as does thought it self). The commets are very welcoming by the way Osher. We all learn from everything. Isn't knowlegdable truth as unstable as the questions it asks about itself? Claire (May 31, 2003 )

Claire, Bravo again for a fascinating posting! I have now been reading and rereading your posting above, and it is very deep. I long suspected that those people of U.K. who did not succumb to the Brain Drain toward the USA-Canada were very deep. I wonder whether it is an implicit Non-Materialism. Oh-oh, a Demographic Theory! Wrong forum! (I jest mostly.) :>) Osher Doctorow (May 31, 2003)((copied and pasted on June 22nd 2003)

Osher, You posted "If the Unitary Theory of Evolution is generalized-modified to NOT intermingle the observed and the observed (unlike the Copenhagen Interpretation), then what is it used for? It is simply a reflection of the properties of Knowledge, which is evolutionary in that it increases in time and is semantic and concerned with Rare or Surprising and Anomalous Events. It explains cosmology and biological life and human consciousness-perception-memory and viscoelasticity and radiation's expansive-contractive properties. This is also what Rare Event Theory does. Osher Doctorow " Yes i agree now because I can see the likeness. Thats agood thing isnt it. You put" The Smiths' view of abduction enables them to prefer the Hypothesis Testing view of confirming theories/predictions by observation which relates directly to surprise or statistical significace. But surprise in this sense is "Rare Events" - in fact, we reject the null hypothesis typically if the Rare Event has probability less than .05." The suprise is concerned with perceptive modes that can be structured (physically) within the brain by a change of thinking patterns too. The prbabltity could increase if this were induced externally (i.e change the way you think about this problem, or else!) type of change. The maths prbabability would have to include this extra component in cognition towrds the prblem of rare and frequent events i suppose but i could be wrong. Thnking is not a subject that is taken with any conserdation towards information or understanding of knowledge in science. Are cognitiive brain permateres to be undertsood as a variable for mathematical understanding of the world of quantum physics external to itself? Could you do that? You could if you say that not all descriptive cognitive operations are down to simple physicalist views of neuroscience or there abouts. What do you think about this? I'll reply to your other posts tommorow but before that too! You posted " Claire, Bravo again for a fascinating posting! I have now been reading and rereading your posting above, and it is very deep. I long suspected that those people of U.K. who did not succumb to the Brain Drain toward the USA-Canada were very deep. I wonder whether it is an implicit Non-Materialism. Oh-oh, a Demographic Theory! Wrong forum! (I jest mostly.) :>) Osher Doctorow " I think I read trhis as a complimment. Thankyou for it if it is! Claire (June 03, 2003)

Claire, It is certainly a compliment! The Brain Drain seems to have mostly been a drain of great talent away from the U.K. into the USA due to Materialist motives which in earlier years were perhaps more clear because the USA used to be economically superior to most of Europe during the WWII period for example. I imagine that there were other motives. For example, I wonder why Paul Dirac moved to the University of Florida Tallahassee? Maybe he hoped that a change of climate would be good for his health? Sir Roger I understand spends as much of his time at Penn State as at Oxford more or less. Perhaps friendship networks? I made a typo in the fist paragraph that you cited when I referred to "NOT intermingle the observed and the observed," where I meant to say "the observed and the unobserved." I like your idea that "not all descriptive cognitive operations are down to simple physicalist views of neuroscience or there abouts," and it is closely related I think to the question of "what is Experiment?" To Flatlanders who regard Experiment as decisive, should we not caution them to think beyond the box? Would not monkeys retype Shakespeare "randomly" before Flatlanders explained "random" 3-dimensional intrusions into their world by Experiment? On the other hand, extreme caution must be exercised in this topic because we want to make sure not to give up the good in the past when we correct errors of the past. Experiment and quasi-experiment have given us very much Knowledge of the external world and even internal world. If we generalize away from pure physicalist views of neuroscience (which much of Experimental Psychology for example still retains either explicitly or implicitly), I would suggest generalizing in a language that is not as arbitrary for example as Mysticism, and I think that Classical-Logic-Related Fuzzy Multivalued Logics provide a very good language for this supplemented by what your ideas may lead to and what Cognitive and Cognitive-Behaviorist Psychology may lead to - acceptance of Cognitions as REAL (and perhaps even "physical" in a new generalized sense) in as strong a sense as PHYSICS' prior topics. We must, I think, never dispense with clarity and explanation even in our axioms and definitions. I'll try to continue this later. Osher (June 03, 2003 )

Maybe Thought

Creativity I can relate to rare event and logic to a fairly frequently event. It boils down to a teologically recursive aquisition of knoweldge and its definition by the use of physics. I'll define using scalar and vector quantities. We know that two vector quanitities are equal only if they have the same magnitude and direction. The thinking froces behind logic and creativity are dfferent. I liken the deduction of logic to distnace, speed, mass, eenergy, volume and charge, I liken the the induction of creativity to displacement, velocity, force, acceleration momentum and torque. Alternatevly I also liken the displacement theory of a vector to logical and creative thinking (explanation via one route thinking or another) and the magnitude of the displacement being the length of the path of the logical thought in relation to just the magnitute of the creative thought is not allways equal to the distance that the logical thought has moved towards explanation and understanding. (May 31, 2003 )


I like univeristies. They are inspiring, I know because I used to like the atmosphere when I studied there for a while a few years ago. Is anyone from a univeristy (from anywhere in th world) willing to share with me what they think about any art and related ideas? (23rd May)

The String of What

Language collapses reality, thinking expands it. Both are needed to stretch and compact the fabric into these states simulteanously. The thinking strategies for this are not explored enough in string thinking alone. Maths and intuitve undefined spatial abuguity is just one component to the building blocks of understanding. Biomathematics with string theory and biology and complexity should be thought about within the same view frame with regards to cosmology. String theorist should now consider synergy and coherent wholes in biological sciences not just phsyics. Black hole strings are the starting piont to linkage and synergetics. Reductionism in string holds it back from expansion biology like the heart and its coersion of electrical activity and co-herent parts. Ex entropic laws in complexity theory via thermodynamics are a must in conjuction with new science. In strings we need to think BIG, small. (May 14th 2003)

Not so Complexity

De Bono says, if you can't remove the problem, you can create the solution. I say if you can't remove the problem, remove the people (on a temporary basis) who think about the problem and create a new set of people to solve the solution. Complexity could be when someone (mainly loads of complex someones) makes something simple more complex. Complexity might be really simple (minus the persons). To answer our most recent fundamental question I'll let you know the results of this experiment. (May 14th 2003)

Could be The Stuff of Science

longitudal: general stuff. Newton special stuff. Michelson-Morley, mass and energy super stuff. Superposition, superstring meta stuff. Meta physics, meta states hyper stuff. Hyper-stuff and stuff or C. were's C, and more to the piont what the hell is it? it's sidways in A and B and C were C is the definition of what consitutes matter and energy in "the hyperfysics of stuff" and has similar properties of abduction. How can we guess that by the statistics of both Maxstuff and Bose-stuff, if Maxstuff and Bose stuff is B that there is a definate abduction and what has abduction got to do with all this anyway? How does C know about A? C knows about A through B.(longitudal) and cuts across the sidways line of Bosestuff the stuff states of understanding that has equal probability in occurance, that being gi (i dont know how the hell to get the small i on this forum) as you all know this represents tha same energy as Ei. Thje state corresponds to a cell in phase-stuff- space "As You All Know" or 4 short (AYAK). To get to the end part we have a series AYAK that is of ni + gi - 1 objects placed on a line (sideways) . That gi - 1 of the objects and are regarded as partitions separating a total of gi intervals (with an series AYAK) representing ni particlestuff arranged in gi cells (sideways). Lets say gi = 12 and ni = 20 and 11 partitions separate 20 p articlestuff into 12 cells. 1 st cell contains 2 partticlestuff (AYAK)and second one and 3rd one particle, 4th three particlestuff etc... There are (AYAK)( ni + gi - 1)! possible permutations among ni + gi -1 objects but the ni! permutations of ni particlestuff among themselves and the (gi - 1)! permutation of gi-1 particians among themselves do not affect the distribution and are not important here and neither really is this physics equation for Bose-stuff in its sidewys form (in itself) but what is important here is that the final sidways equation for this-bose-stuff (not in itself) is that it is also in a longitudal equation of aductive logic of its own, and one mega C or to put it bluntly HYPER C with partitiones of A to B to C that transverse the action of the final bose-stuff equation. Remember A to B to C longways were C only knows A through B. AYAK C is where C only knows A through B, when B is Boltstuff and Bose-Conden-stuff- and when C is what we use to define this stuff anyway or maths. C is an abduction and contains thought components, probably(Heisenberg). It could be regarded a hyperstuff or hyper mass (restmass) of stuff science when it is perpendicular to the direction of velocity of undertstanding what stuff is (non-rest mass) through science when that science is using maths to understand it, or light ; C is an abduction and contains thought components, probably(Heisenberg). It could be regarded a hyperstuff or hyper mass (restmass) of stuff science when it is perpendicular to the direction of velocity of undertstanding of what stuff is (longitudal mass) through Bose-stuff science when that Bose-stuff science is using maths to understand it. (May 14th 2003)

In relation to the text below this (v) theoretically I could have answered my own question...

Over lap model (Dainton) of the consciousness phenomenological experience and time flow interface vectors now do not overlapped but are punctuated by permeability-porosity-percolation (K. Falconer's Fractal Geometry, Broadbent and Hammersley)-fractal-chaos-condensate like noise escape or time vector (temporal time escape) of noise (neurobiological) configuration entropy that is increased towards neighbouring vector interfaces (time configuration folds), example when the brain is tired or epilepsy. Noise increase and breakdown or black hole and maximisation of dimensional interfaces from (Jones) physical polynomial structured brain folds with entropic time congfigurations. Relational vectors punctuated (think Boson and Condensate extrinsic events) in brain coherence structures with the "warmness" enigma (intrinsic events) to direct awareness. Interesting.(26th April 2003)

Superelative objectivity part 1

The minds states of events in awareness (Piaget), of what we call external information(external stimuli), happen much later than its non-awareness state (the subconscious) or to put it another way, the subconscious processes information much earlier than awareness does. This plays a very significant part in our appplication and obseravtion of quantum physics and other sciences. The processes of the subconscious are still mysterious by classical quantum understanding because observation and relation by the actual brain state doing the observation by its own awareness configuration are not considered or they don’t tell us about breaking time barriers (time and symmetry and discreet events and rare events), about changing the state of physics that could be influenced by that very brain doing the changing. The variables can be likened to relational (new brain dynamics and time vectors). The brain/mind cannot be aware of its own substates and sub reasoning within the same time vectors used for the same reasoning when it carrys out interpretation of external quantum stimuli (unless it is very tired by noise increase, i don't mean noisy noise! but intererence of a specific vector) <--here are tow leads form this sentence , this is the 1st one. When we understand the configurations of time that are used in understanding the quantum physics of say a boson particle or of Einstein’s Condensate for example, we are always accepting one time vector (by awareness states). The thinking internally is not the same type of thinking when we understand time in say GR or SR because if the brain/mind were to reason to its own absolute complete relative value it would most probably create a new configuration while trying to understanding itself, Super Relation. The complete relative value is about the mind on mind but more about what the brain means as a physical entity, not the mind on matter or the mind on mind only with its experience of the matter. This is a complete super relative value of time being much closer to mind because it is in the mind but also decoheres (that's for another time). This 1st instance does not consider cosmology and universe, yet. What I am suggesting is use what we allready know via this route to change our expectations about quantum coherence for example, non locality that is seen to be faster than light speed or the super position that we think. The points considered in super position are external viewpoints, they are about external information. This is a trick. As we know, we are effecting the outcome (wave probability field distribution functions and stats and events theory and discreet and continuous mathematical operations) I am sure the special physics configuration within the medium of the brain creates allowances for our total lack of understanding and frustration of what it means to know consciousness too. Not only is this because of our lack of experience of complete internal observation that is still based on an external observer but by even basing all internal observation and values on external experience and time vector events of the same external observer even if we think they are internal obervations. The physics of the brain is far more complex than we think and to that, what the brain understands as the physics of that very same brain (i call the understanding of the physics of the brain that is understanding itself a complete relational variable or there abouts)is to give this a twist of new logic. How does the brain doing the understanding, understand its own mechanism by its own relational value whith regard to time vectors? Could it be done. Does this get us closer to our understanding when we consider configurations within the brain? How does the importance of information and biology that relates to this system change our views to a completely new physics of the brain, how does this subjectivity help turn in our mind towards a new objectivity and can we see more of a difference? Objectivity and subjectivity in science could be isomorphic by our third person stance but we could change the third person view by internalising it. We need to do that by understanding the time symmetries we have now. The other way to look at this using what appears to be the same frame of reference, although that could be debated, is the Pauli Exclusion Principle stating that no two electrons in an atom have an identical quantum number. This could be an indication of antisymmetric qualities of our external experiential knowledge but to the configurations that lie within the brain that is doing the excluding and observing of it, are also deserving of another element. Lets say this element then, was going to make a shift towards symmetry and that it could that we should grasp an understanding of how specialised internal brain events and particles could make up for the symmetrical qualities that we cannot quantify otherwise. This in the end could change our focus on external time altogether and not just by the same mind/brain structure that gave us the idea to do so. The complexity not only arises when we are describing the arrow of time when using the mechanics and experience only available by our very own brain and its way of thinking about that quantum world we already know, but when we describe the brain doing the describing! And how this affects our inability to create the same principle. Even though the idea appears un objective for scientific study the very reason it does this could at the same time open our eyes towards what it means to include temporal subjective qualities within the descriptions of events within the quantum world that lie outside the mind and but importantly the standing wave resonance of reality that is also within it. (April 23rd 2003 and the few weeks before that to)

The other way. Everything that is simple as a whole, is simple because something as a part of it, is not. In the context of parts, the complexity is everything that is simple thus expotential by causality, where the whole is an expotentially contracted effect; The other way. Somthing that is hard as a part, is hard because everything as a whole of it, is not. In the contex of wholes, the simplicity is something that is hard thus expotentially contracted by effect, where the parts are expotentially causal.(31st March 2003)

Two Brains Togther May Improve Our Understanding of Consciousness (only if its implemented correctly and ethically)and quantum SUB-consciousness is the most objective reality we can ever understand whether local or not.

The brain plays around with time. In the 1st intro a while ago I had put that In relation to quantum states (non locality as an example) the subconscious part of the mind/brain works very much before (time) to our conscious state. What you are about to read here is more about copying configurations spaces externally with less state vector reduction. I think the conscious state of awareness is later, even though there is a time gap or delay between brain and information by external sources for awareness, there is a also time change towards the consciousness mind and its own awareness from the subconsciouss. I think consciousness awarness is primarily a one vector state and the sub awareness is yet another. This sub vector (Subtillionation effect) makes up part of the temporal repeller property I put here on the 1st intro page a while ago (it was VERY brief and related to this). The information repeller state by the subton effect is the intrinsic causal relational variable change that suggests unkown and differening time vectors within the brain (differential biological configuration spaces and how they affect the attractors), it must have them to sustain oscillations ans quantum tunelling and most importantly coherence that results in our current understanding of the physics of the brain. If the brain were to understand it owns time vectors (which Iam not sure about yet) this would result in the removal of subtonation or the repeller property and the state vector would "seem" to collapse or reduce, or in this case the subconscious awarness we could see that is currently indirect to direct awareness. This happens naturally when we sleep and dream but in my sense the states are not collapsed within the same time configuration so we cannot infer causality in the same way etxernally (that's why our dreams don't make sense because the mind has similar configurations) because we are using the same brain to dream. There needs to be a jump. If the awareness was detected by physical means in the brain it could mean that it could reduce its own intrinsic causal relational variables to extrinsics ones that result in what I term awareness states with the same configurations but with the "jump" part being the leap between the same reduced vectors, which sounds odd so it suits quantum thought. Current quantum physics cannot get around the subton effect because our conscious effort to understand our own mindd is extrinsically causal or in my terms etxernally variably relational (a relational variable is not a maths terms as here but an information value that can be determined and sought about from brain coherence whereby the brain emergence being observed is affected by the information content of the instrument that observes it only if its external and isnt made of the same substance as brain matter, which makes sense generally, so is counter intutive to quantum mechanics thus making more sense (like brain scans used currently or particle detectors to observe particles but that is abit different and will go into in another time). So the way we could reverse intrinsic causal relational variables to extrinsic ones (or to replicate the biological configuration space outside the brain) would be to have a way of penetrating and conecting live brain tubule/s by external similar tublules of another live brain at the same time that obviously has the same intrinsic time vectors, or get the same physicist to understand the quantum mechanics of the conscious mind while he is doing this or while asleep! The 1st obvious one sounds unethic, but I think it is an extermley interesting idea the second one is certainly another one to look at if it isn't. (28th March 2003)

An imprecisely defined descriptive theory is a misunderstood concept in AI

An imprecisely defined "descriptive" theory is a misunderstood concept in the science field, "if" a scientist says this about description. If we want to emulate AI or even understand complexity, information and design, (which may sustain true AI) we must see that in order for such mechanisms of complexity to exist and be understood, we must try to see that it has a purpose beyond its current agenda from our current perspective of understanding of it but could produce what we call a non physical oriented effect. This could be called behaviour. As of lately a certain type of science is taking place that might not want to quantify or measure behaviour, like it can quantify the deviation of E=Blv on the basis of changing flux-linkage in the study of the induced EMF in a rectangular coil within electromagnetic induction. Strangely enough when studying the field of alternating currents sometimes we have to have and explanation of the "behaviour" of an inductor in an AC circuit! so the scientist might still pursue "behaviour" but the human equivalent to this, might not be sufficient science to them. We need to understand it for AI if we want to succeed in AI. The study of AI is a good way to understand the human being as whole, before we understand were the human really is. (3rd march 2003)

Information Superfuzzway.

following on from my latest Fred I was talking about AI and its implication with regard to Brian. Whoes Brian? "Brian The Brain" and i suggested that a psychologist got together in a pub with another of those other guys called physicists to discuss a notion i just made up called "Superfuzz". Superfuzz. Superfuzz is a word representing a problem that contains the use of 4 concepts about Brian The Brian. They are as follows: 1) The descriptive means of understanding AI were Brains brain directly relates to his body. 2) The descriptive means of understanding AI were Brians brain in-directly relates to his body 3) The physical means of understanding AI were Brains brain directly relates to his body. 4) The physical means of understanding AI were Brains brain in-directly relates to his body. "Information" is a very plural meaning word but in this case the inforamtion content used in these concepts are mixed. All the obove are understood by more than one type. The information used to define 1 and 2 could be to do with information as “data” subject to interpretation however both 3 and 4 "could" be seen as information being the representation of interpretation of something, we could do this. This could include our information within the subject of perception (Shannons theory information) and our brain doing the "interpretation" of it along with other types of information. It is interesting to see that if we conclude that this type of interpretation of information was the so called Superfuzz Phenomena we might not fathom what type of interpretation we must have to represent it's own infomartion. Meanwhile Brian orders the psychologist and the physicist a beer. I forgot, Fred wants one too. (March 1st 2003)

Think-Talk (The Get Together). 2003

If you live in the UK like me or are prepared to travel to the UK I would like to create a get together called the "Think-Talk" meeting that involves as many people as possible that can be brought together, with no less than 3 people, to talk and think about all subjects that are related to this site (Art Creativity Science etc..), plus many more subjects if need be, we can invite be ANY person who is purely inerested even if they have no knowledge of these subject matters. The agenda (subject matter) then is unpredictable, apart from the fact that something out of this will be predicted by creative thinking. There has to be some room allocated for a portable dry maker white board or white paper pad board, or simliar, that can be part of the thinking process that can be viewed easily by all participants at that time. The participants can chose to use this more visual method of communication if words or wrote methods are problematic and it has the advantage of being "saved" if any member wishes to refer to that work later, so this will be recorded or copied for that purpose. The talk and ideas will recored or copied then be given to any participant who wishes to keep the talk as a reminder of the day. The exposing of ideas proposed to others in the meeting by the participants are their individual choice. The positive side is that if the individual participants are prepared to "cross fertilize" their own subject matter/s with unkown ideas from other subjects, there is a higher tendancy to create the genesis of a completey newer idea, and this serves as the interesting reason to be there. I am prepared to travel to the Midlands (London under special curcumstances) to get this idea off the ground. I would also like to record this meeting in some way for future reference, that would include the talk and the notes or ideas by what ever method of communication is best arranged. All corresponence must go through e-mail and a location and time must be decided accordingly. It could be a day or a few hours on a day depending on the location, it could he held in a university, hotel lounge, a pub or an eating place. If you are interested or have ideas about this please contact me through e-mail. The Think-Talk get together will only hold if there are no less than 3 people willing to attend so comformation of attendance by the individual should be made available to me before hand. (2 nd March 2003)

Quote of the month (see 1st intro page link below, or even above)

The Subton Effect (Subtillionation)

The Subton Effect. IA, if it wants to be like us, must have some sense of understanding, why it is important that it cannot understand what it is that it is trying to understand, when it understands that it must have its own subconscious mind in order to understand it. (24th february 2003)

The Subton effect is a recent idea I thought up (see 1st intro page) that could relate to the hadron, meson, kayton, graviton and gluon particle groups etc, that has implications towards consciousness and information theory and consequently the mind. But in my case the mind is about but not always within everything we observe and attempt to understand. I am interested in the " not always within" part of understanding. Instead of thinking about how consciousness affects our understanding of quantum mechanics, subatomic particles and non-locality and the study of consciousness, I am more currently interested in how our sub conscious relates the quantum world. So therefore the "subconscious” is related to the Subton effect, so is the quantum world. The Subton plays a major part in our understanding. (Feb10th 2003 )

How to tackle A I slightly differently, even if it could be the same

When you talk about one or more topics, like AI or Design and Complexity, or Information or….that are all independent sections with a different view to one problem you tend to forget how to make new connections from that knowledge. When cross fertilisation of such sections in discussion, are to be talked about, the minds f those talking about it changes and their thinking patterns that were similarly used turn towards more creative thought pattern and processes. What happens next is an exchange from different thinking patterns and a shift of systems that enable the person who wants to understand perceive things what were not considered obvious then, to become seen in a newer light later (change in perception as a result). I have mentioned this before on my intro many times but this is slightly different. One of the strange things about study and professorship of domain in one subject area is, although people often keep to one discipline they often have not thought up anything new about their area of study. It is the stagnant thinking of the most fundamental ways humans learn that stunt the growth of creative thought, that weirdly enough is the main hidden problem when engaging in harder problems not so much what it is that is being engaged. How we understand those problems is ruled by the fact that we ought to "progress" in science, because more often than not, it is how it is done not just what is done. Unfortunately people who think they are learning don't often understand how thinking ties in with information (knowledge as information here not the other information). Thinking about a problem within one domain is only one element of that knowledge, not only because there actually are related domains that are relevant to that topic, but because when thinking about the related domains to the topic, the thinking inside the mind is changed by provocation of the change of the domain even if the subject domain seems irrelevant and irrational at first. I asked I while ago how much does the brain needs the body in relation to Artificial Intelligence and cognition. We might know that the brain needs to body, like we know what the colour yellow is through experience and then through scientific understanding, but what we don't know is how can we grasp and combine the connections that are still rational from two completely different perspectives. As another analogy goes, in physics this would be like asking, how can we understand the universe in two very different fundamental but distinctive ways like, S R and G R at the same time? It is obvious to say that: A) Physical processes within the brain are also due to the physical processes in the body, that are still connected to the brain but indirectly and that only the physical brain is understood as a neuroscience/ biology type of domain and B) The descriptive means of understanding how we feel emotion and experience and how we behave are still connected to these physical processes in the body but are also related to the physical processes within in the brain that are direct (psychology/ descriptive). The problematic thinking that causes undeveloped connections is as follows: 1) Most hard neuroscientists don't want to have anything to do with the "descriptive" understanding of the brain (psychology) because it isn't "physical". It isn't science. 2) Most psychologists don't want anything to do with the physical understanding of the body because it isn't "descriptive". It isn't psychology. We need to get both these domains together to see whether they can connect and create a new understanding. They both have to agree to take on a challenge that might produce some insightful outcomes later even if they don't appear to want to at 1st. (10th Feb 2003)

Welcome to My Second Intro page (C-This Add On Bit Part 2 but see 1st intro from link below this text) This page was created on the Feb 15th 2003.

Click here for introduction

...then come back here? That's before you look at the whole site.

(With an archive of an old magazine copy thrown in) all original artwork and ideas written or otherwise on this cthisspace.com site are Copyright Claire C Smith © 1999-2015, except specific content on FTL Magazine archive (sub-section) that is Copyright of its ---> contributors, for example, if you are wanting to use work by the math and geometry Professor Ian Stewart, it is better to let him know first. Before using material from cthisspace.com it would be a preference that you ask for permission via e-mail. It would be good if a credit note was included and my name and this web address, if you do ask for permission, which you probably will get. The same applies for FTL Magazine and its contributors.