Basic Information Structuring by Paul N Butler

Dear Peter,

A basic motion contains three structural information generation/containment structures that generate and contain structural information. The first is its current position information, the second is its motion amplitude information, and the third is its directional information. All of these information structures interact with the external spatial dimensional system structures. All three of these stored information structures feed interaction outputs to the dimensional system structures to determine the motion's current position within the dimensional structure, the amount of change that will occur in that position from its current position, and the direction within the dimensional structure in which the change in position will take place. The motion's current position information is continually updated due to this continual interaction with the dimensional system, by an input from the dimensional system which feeds the updated position information from the interaction to the motion to update its internal stored current position value. The motion's stored motion amplitude information and direction of motion information can only be changed by an interaction. This information could be changed by an interaction with the dimensional system such as if the motion reaches the end of a spatial dimension and bounces off of it, thus changing its stored directional information or it would more likely occur due to an interaction with another motion. The net effect of all of this is that in the absence of an interaction a motion will always continually change position with the same continual amount of change and in the same direction of travel. When a photon interacts with an electron in such a way that it only increases the electron's linear motion amplitude in its direction of travel (increases its velocity) and in the process the photon ceases to exist, all that made up the photon's existence has been changed into that linear motion. This means that either the photon is in some way composed of basic linear motions that are transferred to the electron through the interaction or whatever it is composed of is changed into a linear motion through the interaction. The simplest most straight forward concept is that the photon is actually composed of linear motions. What I am asking is can you explain how this notional frame of mass works in terms of the basic linear motions that compose it. How many basic straight line motions are required to make it work and how do they interact to make it all work? If you believe that the photon is composed of some other basic substance other than motion what do you believe it is and how is it changed into the linear motion through the interaction? I ask these things because notional center of mass sounds like one of those concepts in which one considers that the thing seems to work like it would if it actually had a center of mass that somehow caused it to work that way, but actually it either does not have one or if it does, how it actually works is not known. Since we can observe that photons and matter particles can be changed into each other, they both must contain and be composed of the same more basic substance, so a good model should start with a most basic substance of which everything is composed and from which everything is built up to get all of the complexity that we observe in the universe. This should be accomplished via simple strait forward rules of interaction to build higher hierarchical structure from combinations of lower levels according to what we observe in reality, etc. The one thing that we observe in the universe that fits the requirements of the most basic substance is simple motion.

How many such photons would an electron contain?

My understanding is that in all the interactions that man has observed so far, matter particles of the same type generally demonstrate the same mass effect (mass value) regardless of the direction from which it experiences an interaction, but a simple 2 dimensional rotation like the earth's rotation on its axis generates a directional mass effect such that it is felt in an interaction only if the interaction attempts to change its axis of rotation. A 3 dimensional motion pattern is necessary to provide a non-directional 3 dimensional mass effect. A galactic nucleus has a large gravitational field to provide the angular motion that creates the curved motion that results in the rotation around it. A photon or even a matter particle would not have such a gravitational field anywhere near strong enough to do the same for it.

I would need to know more about the details of how you believe the things that you mentioned above actually work, as I have asked above, before I could answer that question. I have given some of my thoughts above. We are saying some things differently, but sometimes similar things can be said in different ways. You may not be used to thinking about the structure at the most basic level that produces what most consider to be the basic entities of photons and energy particles. If that is the case, you may just need to think more about these things for us to be on the same page, so to speak, in the discussion. I haven't seen enough of your thoughts to reach a solid conclusion yet.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Valdimir,

Thank you for your agreement. I read your paper, so I can talk with you more intelligently. You have a good concept that understanding basic forms and that of which they are composed are very important steps to being able to understand them and the larger scale objects or forms of which they are members. I propose that you consider that the output of the dimensional structure, which is motion, is the true Delta-Logit or the base form from which all other entities are composed. If we start from the structure of a basic motion, the first thing that is obvious is that it is the generator of the basic increment. This can be observed in its continual incremental change in position. This change in position generates the concept of distance as the variation from one position to another position. Since all motions do not contain the same capability to change position, but one motion can change position faster than another motion which can be observed as one motion creating a larger distance while another simultaneous motion creates a smaller distance variation, the concept of variability of size is created. In order to compare motions that produce different simultaneous sizes of distance to each other the concept of time is created as a comparison of a given generated distance size to a standard distance size that is generated in some continuous cyclical fashion, such as the earth rotating on its axis or the vibrational frequency of some atom, etc. Because a motion travels in a straight line it generates the concept of past, present, and future. Where the motion is currently positioned is its present, where it was is its past, and the position to which it is headed is its future. Since all motions do not travel in the same path the concepts of direction and dimension are generated. Since all motions seem to have absolute limits of zero motion amplitude on one end and the speed of light on the other end, the concept of limit is generated. Since matter particles can be changed into energy photons and energy photons can be changed into simple linear motions, it is evident that everything that exists in the universe that is composed of energy or matter or any combinations of them is ultimately composed of motions. This means that motion is the basic form from which all other forms are created. In addition, motion is the mediator of all interaction between entities that exist in the universe. I hope this will be of help to you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Hoang,

Thank you for your comment. If my goal was to just bring man's technological abilities up to some desired level or to make a big name and lots of money for myself, you are right that self expanding would be the best and fastest approach to accomplishing that goal. My goal, however, is to give man the basic conceptual tools to develop the technology himself, so that in the end not only will the technology level be attained, but man will be positioned to work on an equal basis with others to attain further goals. This requires that man use the tools provided to actively work out further advancements for himself. It is for you and others like you to find and develop the certainty that you seek. You can see things that are shown to you and you can hear things that are said to you, but true complete understanding only comes from doing the things yourself. When you learn to think of and understand things for yourself you are not dependent on the knowledge of others. You can then excel beyond the others. That is what I encourage in you and all others. As the famous saying goes, give a man a concept today and tomorrow he will be back for another one, but give a man the ability to develop concepts and some day he may give you one when you need it or at least he won't be continually bothering you for new concepts every day. That last part was meant as a joke in case you didn't figure that out. I read your paper and I do agree with you that the answer or answers that absolute reality provides to any question about it is or are the only correct answer or answers. The problem is that we cannot access absolute reality to get the answers directly from it. We can only see the results of interactions between parts of that absolute reality. Things could exist as parts of absolute reality that either don't interact with other things or only interact in a way that we cannot detect, so we could not learn about such things through our observations. The only way we could learn about such things is if the creator of our absolute reality either encodes information about such things into the parts of absolute reality that we can observe or if the creator appears and directly communicates about such things to us or to others, who can tell us about those things.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Hoang,

You are right, we cannot directly access reality. We can only observe the results of interactions between parts of reality that create effects that we are capable of observing. From our observations we try to extrapolate an understanding of the nature of those parts of reality that create the observed effects. If we come up with a model of how we think the universe works that agrees with all of our observations we still cannot say in the absolute sense that reality actually works that way. We can only say that it could work that way. This is because there could be more than one way that the universe could work and still demonstrate the same observed effects. There could also be parts of reality that either don't interact with each other or interact in some way that we are not capable of detecting. This could mean that even if reality works in the way that we believe it does in the parts of it that yield the observational results that we can detect, those detectable parts may be only a small part of the complete universe. We might not be able to ever observe and come to know of the existence of most of the universe from the observations that we can make. Our ability to make observations and to use those observations to get a better understanding of reality also changes over time. As we learn from our observations, we learn to make devices that allow us to make new observations that we could not make before we discovered new and more in depth understandings that then are put to use to make such devices. Right now you would not know anything about the nice guy that lives on that beautiful planet in that small galaxy in your desk drawer, but if you learn about and learn how to apply fifth vector structuring technology, you might go there and visit him. To look at it the other way, much of what you know now about the structure of the universe would have been considered to be just unsubstantiated conjecture and would certainly not be considered to have any scientific basis a couple of hundred years ago. Reality works in accordance with the absolute accuracy of its structure, but we can only approach a little closer to that accuracy with each new piece of observational information that we discover and will never be able to say that we have the complete understanding of that absolute accuracy. The only way that we could ever get that absolute accuracy would be if it was given to us by the one who made it, either directly or through some way that it was encoded into this world by that one for us to find.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear James,

I read your paper and you give a good introduction into an area of thought that although it is not truly scientifically based, it is often treated and presented by some in the scientific community as though it is based on scientific principles. Basically the problem is trying to take the understanding of the nature of reality beyond what man can scientifically determine and then presenting the conceptual results as though they are scientifically based when they cannot be so because the conceptual structure cannot be observed and measured scientifically. Much of what are today considered to be scientifically established concepts and/or facts fall into this category.

You point out many of the problems with the concept that our consciousness somehow created the universe. I find it interesting that most of those who would like to believe this concept would at the same time vehemently deny any scientific possibility that the universe was created by another much more intelligent consciousness than man (God) who preexisted the universe. After all, if the universe was created by God it would logically explain how the consciousness could create the universe because he would have been there before the universe where on the other hand, as you explain, man was not there until much later and is an output product of the universe. This kind of selection and belief in the obviously logically less plausible concept demonstrates that the intent is not to know the truth, but just to think of oneself as more important than actual evidence implies.

It is true that you cannot scientifically prove that the material world that we experience with our senses actually exists. You could just be a computer sitting on God's desk and all that you sense as reality could just be data that has been inputted to you by God that is interpreted by the programming that he placed into you when he made you in such a way as to convince you that it is real. When you attempt to interact with the world that you perceive to exist, the things that you do could just be outputs from your program that are sent to the device that generates the information that you see as reality and modifies its content so as to change what you sense in such a way that you think that you actually caused the changes that you observe. This concept again requires the existence of a more intelligent being to make you and to program you, etc. Of course, what you see as reality could also exist just as it appears to be from our observations.

The point is that science cannot determine such things. Science is only truly of any use in analyzing repetitive patterns in the things that you see happening in the world or that you sense and perceive to exist in some way. You can just assume that it is all real or you can withhold judgment and decide that whether it is real or not, what you sense to exist is all that you have to go on in an attempt to understand the meaning of your existence and the world around you that you sense and to make your life easier and better. The second choice is the more scientific choice because you decide to look for evidence of these things, but do not jump to a conclusion without evidence to substantiate it. Since it is obviously possible that a more intelligent being created you and the world that you sense, it would be important to look for any information that such a being exists by looking for any information that may have been purposely encoded into the sensual data that you receive by that being for you to find that would give you information about him. You could also try to communicate directly with him and also look for any indication that he has already communicated with others and analyze any information that is found. You should also look at the sensual data to see if the world that it portrays shows signs of being intelligently made. You could look at the things that you and others make and look for similarities in structure that would indicate similar purposeful and logical assembly techniques. You would have to keep in mind that anyone who could make this world would have to be much more intelligent and powerful than man, so the structure of the world would include methods and concepts of structure that would be greater than man's abilities. As a rough example, if you went to another planet and found no living beings present, but you found what looked like large cities, but there were no streets, airports, or train stations, etc., You could attribute the lack of such things as evidence that the builders didn't know how to make such things and were, therefore, lower in intelligence than man, but if you did so, you would be neglecting the possibility that they were much more advanced than man and had found a better way to travel from one place to another. In a similar way when one looks at the structures on this planet many things look very chaotic. On the surface one can get the idea that things are governed mostly by chance, but when one looks closer one sees structures that are made to sustain the life of living beings that exist on the planet by continually cleaning and restoring the oxygen content, etc. of the air and water, maintaining temperature control within necessary limits, recycling waste materials, and providing water via rain to living structures such as plants that cannot readily move to where water is located, etc. It is evident that the structure of these systems goes well beyond man's ability to construct and even fully comprehend, especially on that scale and complexity of interaction between the structural elements to compensate for variations in system loads, etc. Of course, the most complex structures on this planet are the living creatures. The most intelligent of these creatures (man) has not been able to understand much about how his own brain works. As an example, man currently has very little understanding of such concepts as path flow structuring that are used extensively by the brain. These kinds of structural complexities and the use of hierarchical subassembly levels in the construction of this world that are indicative of an intelligent source have been completely ignored. It is apparent from observation of these things that either the universe was designed and built by an intelligent source or intelligence is of little or no value because if the world was constructed by an unintelligent source, it has produced the same results that would have been generated by an intelligent source, so since man has not been able to fully comprehend the complexity of this world produced by an unintelligent source his intelligence cannot even be as effective as the pure chance happening of occurrences that produced the world. Instead of looking at intelligence as an advancement it would rightly be looked at as a backward step or error that could hinder the natural advancement being produced by the chance occurrence system. There would then be no need for man to worry about destroying himself or even all life because the chance system might just create better living creatures based completely on chance that would produce a better world than we could ever make with our inferior intelligence structure.

Some realize that such a chance system could not create our universe even over billions of years. They, therefore, try to push the idea that their (man's) intelligence or some natural intelligence of the universe, etc. created it. The problem with this is that as you have pointed out man or even the universe itself was not present at the beginning of the creation of the universe and, therefore, could not have done so. In order to propagate these beliefs as scientific, concepts such as evolution were developed and elevated to the position of a division of science even though it is mainly just a philosophy that has several major flaws. Data is creatively interpreted in such a way as to promote evolution while ignoring other possible interpretations that could explain the same data in a way that would not indicate that evolution was involved. At the same time the flaws are ignored. A scientific system has thus been developed and propagated that is based more on maintaining belief in a specific philosophy than it is in gaining understanding of the true nature and source of the universe. It is no wonder then that science has drifted more toward imaginations based only on abstract math models that do not conform to observed reality, such as the many flavors of string theory, or models that can explain the various particle physics interaction results and their probabilities, but cannot explain the mechanisms behind it all that produce those results and probabilities, etc., so that man could work toward development of the necessary devices to allow the actual outcome of any interaction to be predicted and controlled. Instead math structures have been developed to promote the belief that it is impossible to do so. All that is really happening is that man is presently working on the smallest level of structure that he is currently aware of and does not have access to anything smaller to use to analyze that level, but there are still other lower levels of structure that man is not currently aware of that can allow such investigation. It is sort of like looking at an add many years ago for a very high quality vacuum tube stereo amplifier and seeing that it showed that its signal to noise ratio was very close to the theoretical limit. Later after transistors came into use, another add showed a signal to noise ratio that was better than the theoretical limit mentioned in the first add. Still later integrated circuit amplifiers did even better. Always be very suspicious about anything that says something is impossible because advancements have a way of making the previously impossible things possible. Once you start on the path of following imaginations that have no basis in observed reality it is not surprising to see that anything goes in the long run no matter how far removed from observed reality it is, as people live more and more only in their imaginary world that they have constructed in their minds.

Dear Antony,

Thank you for your positive comments on my paper. I doubt that many who read my paper will get a true in depth understanding of what is presented because of the limited space available for description. When I talk about internal structural information I am not talking about what we perceive to be particles, but what actually exists that generates our perception of those particles. What we see as a particle is only what that existent structure generates in an interaction with some other existent structure and is limited to the parts of that which is generated by that interaction that we have a way of perceiving by our interaction with what was generated by that existent structure. This means several things.

First, we can never know and completely understand by our observations the true structures that generated the interaction. We can only hope to completely understand the properties of those structures that are expressed through the interaction. The actual existent structures may have parts of their nature that do not interact at all with other structures or if they do interact it may be in a way that does not produce any property effects that we are capable of sensing in any way. In either case we could not know of the existence of such parts or their interactions. People like to think of the actual existent structure as the sum of all of its observed effects. This could be true in some or even all cases, but it could also be false and we do not have any way to determine which is the case in actual reality.

Another problem is that of the lack of understanding of the difference between the actual structure and the observed properties of that structure. To get an idea of what I am talking about let's look at the simplest structure that we can discern, a simple motion. A simple motion expresses itself to us in the form of only a few basic properties in its interactions with the spatial system. First, it continually changes its position in the spatial dimensional structure. Second, these changes always occur in the same directional line within that dimensional structure. Third, each motion contains a certain amount of or amplitude of motion, such that while one motion travels a certain distance in its path another motion may travel twice as far. The actual structure that generates these observed properties could be much different from just the sum of the properties. The motion could be a program on a computer interacting with a dimensional spatial program on the computer in such a way as to produce the observed effects in an output matrix structure. Those programs could also produce outputs that would give other information to some other special observer that has access to that part of the program by interactions with it in some way that we cannot detect. Although we can only know the motion in terms of the effects that we can detect, it is always good to keep in mind that in reality it could be much more or much different than we think it is. It is, therefore, important to not confuse the observed effects as being the structure that generates the effects. As an example, if you could develop a method to observe the conditions within a black hole and you found that the dimensionality changed in accordance to the Fibonacci sequence, it would not mean that the Fibonacci sequence somehow caused the dimensionality change or that it was even an actual part of the black hole's structure. It would only mean that parts of the actual structure interacted with other parts of it in such a way as to generate the effects of appearance of dimensionality change that agree in sequence to the results of the Fibonacci sequence. The actual Fibonacci sequence is just an abstract mathematical concept based on how numbers relate to each other. It is not an actual object, but only a relation between objects (the numbers). Numbers are also abstract concepts and not existent objects in themselves until they are applied to an actual existent object. Then they are properties of that object and may or may not be a part of the objects actual structure. As an example, if we define a specific motion as having a motion amplitude of one unit of motion amplitude, we have applied the number one as a property of that motion. If the actual structure of the motion is that it is a program stored within a computer, it may not actually be moving at all, but only be generating that effect in an output matrix. Moreover, we could have defined a different motion with twice the motion amplitude as having a motion amplitude of one unit. The motion mentioned first would then have a motion amplitude of one half unit of motion amplitude. From this you can see that the number one is not a part of the motion's internal structure, but only a relational property we apply to the motions for comparison purposes. It is the actual differences in the quantities of motion contained in one motion compared to that in another motion that is the true difference in relational effect that tells us that all motions are not exactly the same in all respects. The abstract numbers that we apply to motions only tell us how much different one motion is from some other motion in that effect of position change amount. In short form, it is not the Fibonacci sequence that would cause the black hole to change dimensionality. Instead, it would be the internal structures of the parts of the black hole interacting with one another that would create the observed effect that had a sequence of dimensionality variation that was the same as the Fibonacci sequence. There could be something in the internal structural information in each of the parts that would give that result under the interaction conditions present in the black hole or it could be that the interaction conditions themselves create that sequential result. Of course, one would need to take into consideration not only the structure of the motions that interact with each other, but also the structure of the spatial dimensional system that they also interact with. The reason that I mention this is that I have seen some who seem to believe that math created the universe when in fact it is only an abstract language that shows relationships between (and possibly also within the structure of) the actual entities (structures) that exist in that creation. I am not making a comment here on the existence of black holes or of their true nature of operation if they do exist, but since your paper is predominantly about such things I framed my response to you in those terms. Man has not yet determined such things so it would be useless for me to go into detail about whether your concept agrees with observed reality or not since there are no detailed observational results to base things on that can be given at this time.

Information is also much more than is usually considered when the concept of information conservation it talked about. Because the structure and the information are the same thing, when simple structures like simple motions are combined together into more complex structures (such as matter particles combined together to make atoms, etc.), more hierarchical layers of information are also created. This is because the combination is accomplished by continual cyclical interaction bonds that both contain the information of their structure and can also generate external interactional information when interacting with other structures. So, if your house was to fall into a black hole, in order for there to be true information conservation you would not only need to conserve the structural information that was contained in each matter particle, but all of the other hierarchical information structure that existed at all levels of structure of your house. It should, therefore, be obvious that information is not conserved, since much of the information stored in the structure of your house could be destroyed if it had an explosion and fire due to a gas leak, etc. The same would apply on a smaller scale if you broke an atom down into its constituent matter particles or if you broke a matter particle down into an energy photon and then broke the energy photon down into a simple motion. Where does all of the information stored in a matter particle that tells you what kind of matter particle it is go when you change it into an energy photon?

Thank you again for the positive comments and I hope we agree on the above also.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Antony,

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. Many things came up that I had to attend to that kept me from getting back to check on my page here.

I could not say that the Fibonacci sequence actually describes the interaction between dimensionality within a black hole because as of yet man has not been able to make observations that would support the concept that dimensionality would in fact decrease from three dimensions to zero dimensions within a black hole. I could agree with you, however, that it can be used as part of a possible description of the concept of such a change of dimensionality and if later observations support that such a change actually occurs it could then be used as a way of describing that change. On the other hand if, for example, the dimensionality remains the same, but the size at the center merely decreases to the point that no further interaction can take place with our structural level, (the structural disconnect point) but that size is the threshold point to the next smaller structural level, so that entities that are accelerated through that point have their fifth vector motion increased to a level that causes them to be reduced in size such that they can then interact with entities in that smaller fifth vector level, then the Fibonacci sequence might not apply at all. Such concepts are well beyond man's current ability to discern, however.

You make a very good point that math is a language that emerges from the creation. Of course, the actual mathematical symbols that have been chosen by man to represent various quantities and their relationships to each other are only abstract representations of the actual quantities and their relations to each other and are not always chosen in a way that makes it clear what they represent, but the actual quantities and their actual relations with each other that can be measured, do emerge from the structure that generates them and can tell us things about that structure when properly interpreted. Proper interpretation usually requires that the measurements of many different observations be combined to look for the understandings that they all lead to. The fact that such complex mathematical relationships exist in the structure of the universe indicates that the universe is not a chance mechanism, but that it is based on logical sets of rules of operation and interaction. The math emerges from the creation because it was placed there by its creator, who used it to make the entities in the creation all work together in the way that was chosen for the creation to work to accomplish its intended purposes.

Thank you for your compliment. I always try to present points as clearly as I can, considering all of the applicable constraints that I must follow in their presentation.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear James,

Thank you for the comment that an aspect of my paper is interesting.

You are close, but not quite there. The information stored in the structure of the house exists because it is the structure. This would be the case whether anyone was present to reverse engineer the house or not. Any existent entity not only contains all of the information about it, that information is stored in it in the form of its structure. The information is, what it is and what it is, is the information. If a man could perfectly reverse engineer the house, he would only be observing all of the information of what it is and copying that information either into an exact copy of that house (a literal information copy) or in some abstract form such as a written representation of that information in some language such as English (an abstract copy of that information).

I read your paper and found it interesting. I would have liked to see a more positive summary at the end that strongly confirmed your position and all of your reasons substantiating that position, but even as it is, it is one of the best (if not the best) paper that I have seen with the possible exception of mine in the FQXI contests that points out many of the problems with many current physics theories that are more built around the desire of man to think of himself as god and to deny the possibility of the existence of the true God than any attempt to be consistent with observed reality. The only possible exception is that quantum events do not really occur based on probability alone, but only appear to be so because man has not yet gained an understanding of and the ability to observe and control the lower level of structure that generates those probabilities and determines the actual outcome that will occur from a given interaction. Just because man has not presently observed and understood the underlying mechanisms that cause the various outcomes and their probabilities, it does not follow that such mechanisms do not exist. I have given a basic description of a model that can explain those mechanisms in my other previous contest papers on FQXI, if you are interested. I hope that I have been of some help to you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Stephen,

I am glad you enjoyed my paper. I am also glad that you like the idea of a hierarchical universe, since all observational information indicates that our universe is structured that way. The broad categories of the hierarchy would be as follows. The bottom level of the hierarchy, at least as far as I can go into at this time, would be the empty dimensional system. The second level would be simple motions called sub-energy particles, followed by sub-energy field structures of various complexities. Next would be the level of the energy photon and other such particles with fourth vector motions. After that would come matter particles with fifth vector motions. Above that would be atoms. After that would come molecules, etc., and then would come single element larger scale items, followed by more complex multi-element compound structures. The previous two levels could be expanded into other sub-levels based on size and complexity of structure. All of the structures in all of these levels except the first one are composed of basic motions or combinations thereof.

As dependence on various abstract math and logic models to the exclusion of reality based observational information has resulted in great confusion in the present science community, I am trying to encourage the return to basing concepts on observational information instead of abstract math and/or logic models that are not connected to reality through observational information, I will, therefore, leave it up to you to connect them into your theory as you desire. I feel that I should caution you that all interactions even between two entities of the same level are not equal. As an example, the actual outcome of an interaction between two matter particles, even the same kind of particles, depends on the alignment and phasing of their fourth and fifth vector motions at the point of interaction, etc. You can read my other papers and comments on this site to get more information if you desire.

Because I have seen the devastating results of following abstract models that are not connected to reality even when it is pointed out that they do not agree with observed information from reality, I could not give you a very high rating on your paper. With me you are lucky, however, because I am not competing for the prize as others are. I am just trying to transfer needed information to man in preparation for the next advancement level. I, therefore, am not rating others papers so as to not unduly influence the outcome of the contest. I am glad this is the case because I believe that it would be better to base the choice of winners more on the merit of the information provided in the papers and less on the personality, political skill and conformity to specific preferred concepts of the contestants, but that is not for me to control, so I am glad I can ignore all that and just provide the information as appropriate.

I encourage you to be sure that your model always is tested by and conformed to observed reality information.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Akinbo,

I sent this comment yesterday and it appeared on my page, but when I looked today it was no longer there. I am sending it again today in case there was some software problem that caused it to be deleted, etc.

TO FQXI: If it was deleted purposely for some reason, please let me know why in an email to me or in a comment on this page, so I can understand the reason and modify future comments to conform to requirements. I would not intentionally go against the rules, but I realize that the interpretation of rules can often vary between different individuals.

Thank you for your positive comments about my paper. I have tried to look at things from the philosophical perspective and also from the abstract math model perspective, but I have found both to be lacking in some way at least for my uses. The philosophical approach tends to lack depth when analyzing reality, which is extremely deep and complex in structure. The arguments often only scratch the surface of all of the various possibilities concerning a subject, but act as though that surface analysis is all that can possibly be involved. As an example, in your paper, the concept that things don't actually move, but the monad in front of the object is turned into a dimensionless point while a dimensionless point behind the object is turned into a monad to create the illusion of motion. Nothing is mentioned about the mechanism that causes these things to work this way. Also, what substance is a monad composed of and where does that substance go when it is changed into a dimensionless point and where does it come from when a dimensionless point is changed into a monad? Are monads conserved, so that there is always the same number of them in the universe or are they increasing in number as the universe expands, etc.? If they can just appear anywhere at any time, how come we don't see things just randomly start moving around, etc.? These things are just some of the depth that reality based research would lead one to investigate and determine, but philosophical arguments often don't bring to mind because only a very narrow focus is often involved. The math models can have much greater depth, but it is easy to get into thinking only in terms of the perceived beauty of some number sequence or formula, etc. and becoming so preoccupied with the math that contact with reality is lost in the process. I, therefore, have found that a slightly modified version of the scientific method works best for me. It goes something like this:

1. Look at as much observational information about the concept that you are researching as you can and continually update that information in the light of new observational information.

2. Analyze the information:

a. Look for structural patterns that show the similarities and differences in different structures within a structural level and between different levels of construction.

b. Look for the structure of sequences of action and variation or change in structure.

c. Look for valid and invalid operations and sequences of action, etc.

d. Look for the various structural ties or bonds between entities both at the same and other structural levels.

e. There are many other things to analyze, but the above give a beginning idea.

3. Make an hypothesis based on the above analysis to explain the existence and operation of those things which are indicated to exist by the observational information, but either have not yet been proven to exist by the current information or have been proven to exist, but their structure and/or details of the way that they operate are still unknown due to lack of detailed information.

4. Identify current scale and all other limitations on observation and analysis, etc.

5. In accordance with all of the above, generate experiments to test the hypothesis.

6. Acquire or make the necessary test and other equipment needed to carry out and analyze the above mentioned experiments.

7. Do the experiments

8. Analyze the resulting information produced by the experiments to see if the hypothesis is proven or disproven by them:

a. If it is proven, go back to item 1. above to look for more understanding on the research of the same concept or go on to the next concept to be researched.

b. If it is disproven, or neither proven nor disproven, either go to 3. above to make another hypothesis if one is indicated by results of the experiments or go to 1. above to check on the previous analysis of the information for indications that lead to a new hypothesis or analyze all of the information again in light of the new experimental information from the experiments to see if a new hypothesis is indicated.

9. If none of this works you may have to wait for more information to be discovered.

The above is just a rough outline of the procedure. Note that it is continually tied to reality generated observed information.

Of course, math has its place in the development of the understanding of the various relationships between entities and in their quantities, etc. and philosophy is of use in areas where science cannot be applied.

I have studied the discrete verses continuous debate and found that the linear motion of an energy photon could be considered to be continuous. When looking at matter, although each level of structure discovered so far is generally composed of discrete entities; those entities are then composed of still smaller discrete entities. As to whether the smallest level is discrete or continuous, however, cannot be discerned by man at this time because it is not known how many more smaller levels exist and what their structures are. This is because of man's current size scale limitations. Currently man tends to think that matter particles and energy photons are the smallest entities, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. It may be a few hundred years before that knowledge is opened up fully for man in this world, however. At that time life will change drastically for man in a short time. For now though, the continuous/discrete debate is one of those things that can be philosophically debated by man because science cannot be adequately applied due to the current scale limitations.

Sincerely,

Paul B.