k=tm2
Here's an archival article from they early days of our work on the math side of Mental Relativity psychology theory. We later moved on from the equation at the heart of this article to a more accurate and fruitful form. But, for you fans, here's the original article in all its misguided glory. See it as a step on the path to the refined understandings in which our work eventually culminated.
k=tm2
A simple equation that describes relativity in the inner universe in the same way e=mc2 decribes relativity in the outer universe.
k is Knowledge. t is Thought. m is the size of Mind. The exponent "2" is the function of time. Simply stated, the equation shows the relationship of the amount of knowledge to the magnitude of thought.
Like e=mc2, k=tm2 equation describes these relationships from the perspective of an observer inside the universe. In the physical or outer universe, the speed of light appears to be a constant. If seen from outside the physical universe, it would be completely variable. Similarly, in the mental or inner universe, the size of mind appears to be a constant, although completely variable from an outside perspective.
As example, a person with a larger brain does not feel any more cognizant than one with a smaller brain. The sense of self from within remains constant. The outide perspective allows one to measure the physical nature of the brain, its size and efficiency, but the sense of the size of self can only be determined from the inside perspective and remains constant from that platform.
Mind is different from brain. Mind is the processing of data. Without data there is no mind. Without processing, there is no mind. Because processing can only occur with the alteration of data through time, mind can only exist as it passes through time.
If we were to freeze time, mind would appear to vanish and the matrix of the brain would appear to contain only data. The vectors created by the flow of energy which functions to flip specific binary gates would be invisible.
Therefore, since from one moment to the next the maxium variation in the state of data is the alternate of its initial binary state, In every analytical pattern, whether it be brain, computer, or physical barriers channeling energy, information contained as data or state of being is processed by a flow of energy or processing limited by the size of the matrix in which they both co-exist.
If time were frozen, the Information coming out would exactly match the Information that went in. But since the analytical pattern is rotating through time, error accumulates as a function of the duration of the process. The longer the process, the greater the potential inaccuracy.
Since we, as three dimensional beings, have trouble dealing with the fourth dimension of time, a two dimensional example may be easier to appreciate.
Suppose you have cup of water labelled "A" that you hold three feet above a turntable. On the turntable, directly below the cup is a second cup labelled "A". On the other side of the turntable is a cup labelled "B". You quickly pour the water from cup "A" that you are holding. While the water falls, your assistant quickly rotates the turntable so that by the time the water has fallen, it reaches cup "B" instead of cup "A". We have just observed Reality "A" and determined that it is Perception "B".
Of course it depends upon where the observer stands as to how he will see this event. To an observer at the point of the Real cup "A", he will see that the Perception has shifted. But to an observer on the turntable, he will see that Reality has changed. Since we are talking about our own perspective within our own thought inside our own analyzing patterns (or brains), it seems as if Reality has changed.
One of the first lesson a baby learns is that things continue to exist when he is not looking at them. Similarly, one of the first mental conclusions we come to is that Reality is an absolute and our Perception is flawed. Naturally, none of us can REALLY be sure things exist when we do not see them, nor can we REALLY be sure that Reality is unchanging. But this view is generally adopted among all thinking creatures in dealing with, on one hand, the physical universe and, on the other, the universe of the mind.
In e=mc2 the speed of light is a constant. From any observer INSIDE the universe, this will appear to be true. If you increase or descrease the speed of light, you alter the maximum speed at which events can be observed in direct relationship, and it still APPEARS to be constant to that observer. In p=ri2 the speed of thought is a constant. From any observer INSIDE the mental universe (residing in his own brain), this will appear to be true. If you increase or decrease the speed of thought, you alter the maximum speed at which information can be processed in direct relationship, and it sitll SEEMS to be constant to that observer.
Staying with the two dimensional model for the moment, information will flow in a linear fashion, one bit after another. Therefore, the variety of Perceptions would equal an exponent of the number of bits of information. Reality would be the entire series or progression of those bits of information. Since each bit contains two potential states, one and zero, at every interface in a two dimensional analyzing pattern, p would equal 2 log r.
When you take a THREE dimensional pattern that analyzes, such as a brain, it rotates not through space like the turntable, but through time. And the very passage of time allows for the differential between actual Reality and the Perception of reality.
In this case, each bit of information contains two states as before: one or zero. And each has an order as before in the liner progression. But in three dimensional patterns, each also has a LATERAL placement, giving each bit of information an effective x and y address and creating a plane of information.
At each juncture between levels of processing in a three dimensional analyzing pattern, a two dimensional planar cross-section or interface is created. At this point, a frozen picture of that cross-section as a whole contains a certain quantity of information in a specific patterns. Each bit of information has a location in the x and y axes, but can only have the condition of being 1 or zero. The information is then transferred across the Interface to another frozen pattern. In this case, we are not really talking about one Interface, but as many Interfaces as the total number of bits of information simultaneously held in the planar cross-section.
Each Interface taken independently will function as described in p=2logr, where "r" is the length of the information chain in bits. But taken together, the entire pattern of information held in the planar cross-section, when trasferred across the Interfaces has potential Perceptions described as the square of the number of Interfaces.
In a two dimensional analyzing pattern, the information flows linearly with a single axis, so i=1 and i2=1 and has no impact on the relationship between P and R which remains at p=2log r. But in a three dimensional analyzing patterns the flow of information is in two dimensions resulting in any number of interfaces. Reality, therefore, is a function of Perception, as the number of Interfaces determines the quantity of information which can be parallel processed. Even if some of the Interfaces are unstimulated due to no information, they will be read as a "zero state" and included in the internal perception of reality. Further, the progression of information across the planar cross-section through time will be read as a changing reality, rather than additional information about the same reality.
In reality, information in parallel processing systems such as the brain does not flow straight across allowing for planar cross-sections, but rather ripples out from a central point. These "ripples" are actually spheres of processing where the area described by the expanding surface increases the number of interfaces as well as the quantity of information through the passage of time.
So far we have explained the mathmatical relationship between Reality and Perception. But how do you measure these variables quantitatively?
In e=mc2, Energy (in ergs) equals Mass (in grams) times the speed of light Constant (in centimeters per second) squared. "Mass", "centimeters" and "seconds" were all available prior to the publication of that equation and "ergs" was coined as a measurement of convenience to fill the void.
In p=ri2, there are three variables. Now, of course, when two of those variables in quantified, it quantifies the other by definition, just as in e=mc2 if "m" had been measured in kilograms, "erg" would define as one thousand times the value we have come to accept.
So how can we best measure Reality and Perception? First we must define each term. "Reality" is the actual "condition" of that which is observed. "Perception" is the specific APPARENT condition of that which is observed.
In terms of the equation, we are not so concerned with the state of Reality vs. Perception, as that is a matter of degree, ie: "The data is 76% accurate". Rather, we are desribing the potential for alternatives in an information processing system.
You could apply the equation to a single outburst of a single neuron or transister responding to a stimulus. This one "bit" of information has only two conditions, on or off, and is the basis of all binary patterns of analysis. In this instance, both Reality and Perception would be measured in terms of that single bit of information. "r" could be either 1 or zero, and "i" would equal 1 in any event, "p" could be either 1 or zero regardless of what "r" was. Meaning that two possible conditions of "r" generates four possible conditions of "p". If "r" were to have four conditions, "p" would have sixteen.
So in a system where the integer "i" contains only one value, the vaiable "r" can have any number of values, as long as "p" equals "r" squared. Therefore, regardless of scale, convenient units of measurement would set p=r2 or p=2log r.
The exact size of the measurement is completely arbitrary. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, Reality (being the smaller of the two conditions) should be the smallest possible unit. The smallest possible bit of information contains two states, 1 or zero as either condition postulates the other. Rather that looking at the smallest possible Reality as a single value, the equation quantifies it as two POTENTIAL values, together making a single bit of information. We refer to this unit as a "neal".
The smallest possible Perception, therefore, is the square of one "neal" which is four POTENTIAL states. We refer to this smallest unit of Perception as an "anne", where one "anne" equals one "neal" squared.
Perception (in annes) equals Reality (in neals) times the speed of thought constant, Information, in parallel bits per second, squared, when one "anne" is defined as one neal, squared. An informational interface to which this equation has been applied is said to be "annealed".
There are infinite practical applications of this basic equation of the thought process, but they are beyond the scope of this introductary article, and will be explored specifically in future published works.
As a final thought, since the study of the mind deals with "quality", rather than "quantity" we propose the term "Qualum Mechanics" to describe the study of such relationships.
k=tm2
A simple equation that describes relativity in the inner universe in the same way e=mc2 decribes relativity in the outer universe.
k is Knowledge. t is Thought. m is the size of Mind. The exponent "2" is the function of time. Simply stated, the equation shows the relationship of the amount of knowledge to the magnitude of thought.
Like e=mc2, k=tm2 equation describes these relationships from the perspective of an observer inside the universe. In the physical or outer universe, the speed of light appears to be a constant. If seen from outside the physical universe, it would be completely variable. Similarly, in the mental or inner universe, the size of mind appears to be a constant, although completely variable from an outside perspective.
As example, a person with a larger brain does not feel any more cognizant than one with a smaller brain. The sense of self from within remains constant. The outide perspective allows one to measure the physical nature of the brain, its size and efficiency, but the sense of the size of self can only be determined from the inside perspective and remains constant from that platform.
Mind is different from brain. Mind is the processing of data. Without data there is no mind. Without processing, there is no mind. Because processing can only occur with the alteration of data through time, mind can only exist as it passes through time.
If we were to freeze time, mind would appear to vanish and the matrix of the brain would appear to contain only data. The vectors created by the flow of energy which functions to flip specific binary gates would be invisible.
Therefore, since from one moment to the next the maxium variation in the state of data is the alternate of its initial binary state, In every analytical pattern, whether it be brain, computer, or physical barriers channeling energy, information contained as data or state of being is processed by a flow of energy or processing limited by the size of the matrix in which they both co-exist.
If time were frozen, the Information coming out would exactly match the Information that went in. But since the analytical pattern is rotating through time, error accumulates as a function of the duration of the process. The longer the process, the greater the potential inaccuracy.
Since we, as three dimensional beings, have trouble dealing with the fourth dimension of time, a two dimensional example may be easier to appreciate.
Suppose you have cup of water labelled "A" that you hold three feet above a turntable. On the turntable, directly below the cup is a second cup labelled "A". On the other side of the turntable is a cup labelled "B". You quickly pour the water from cup "A" that you are holding. While the water falls, your assistant quickly rotates the turntable so that by the time the water has fallen, it reaches cup "B" instead of cup "A". We have just observed Reality "A" and determined that it is Perception "B".
Of course it depends upon where the observer stands as to how he will see this event. To an observer at the point of the Real cup "A", he will see that the Perception has shifted. But to an observer on the turntable, he will see that Reality has changed. Since we are talking about our own perspective within our own thought inside our own analyzing patterns (or brains), it seems as if Reality has changed.
One of the first lesson a baby learns is that things continue to exist when he is not looking at them. Similarly, one of the first mental conclusions we come to is that Reality is an absolute and our Perception is flawed. Naturally, none of us can REALLY be sure things exist when we do not see them, nor can we REALLY be sure that Reality is unchanging. But this view is generally adopted among all thinking creatures in dealing with, on one hand, the physical universe and, on the other, the universe of the mind.
In e=mc2 the speed of light is a constant. From any observer INSIDE the universe, this will appear to be true. If you increase or descrease the speed of light, you alter the maximum speed at which events can be observed in direct relationship, and it still APPEARS to be constant to that observer. In p=ri2 the speed of thought is a constant. From any observer INSIDE the mental universe (residing in his own brain), this will appear to be true. If you increase or decrease the speed of thought, you alter the maximum speed at which information can be processed in direct relationship, and it sitll SEEMS to be constant to that observer.
Staying with the two dimensional model for the moment, information will flow in a linear fashion, one bit after another. Therefore, the variety of Perceptions would equal an exponent of the number of bits of information. Reality would be the entire series or progression of those bits of information. Since each bit contains two potential states, one and zero, at every interface in a two dimensional analyzing pattern, p would equal 2 log r.
When you take a THREE dimensional pattern that analyzes, such as a brain, it rotates not through space like the turntable, but through time. And the very passage of time allows for the differential between actual Reality and the Perception of reality.
In this case, each bit of information contains two states as before: one or zero. And each has an order as before in the liner progression. But in three dimensional patterns, each also has a LATERAL placement, giving each bit of information an effective x and y address and creating a plane of information.
At each juncture between levels of processing in a three dimensional analyzing pattern, a two dimensional planar cross-section or interface is created. At this point, a frozen picture of that cross-section as a whole contains a certain quantity of information in a specific patterns. Each bit of information has a location in the x and y axes, but can only have the condition of being 1 or zero. The information is then transferred across the Interface to another frozen pattern. In this case, we are not really talking about one Interface, but as many Interfaces as the total number of bits of information simultaneously held in the planar cross-section.
Each Interface taken independently will function as described in p=2logr, where "r" is the length of the information chain in bits. But taken together, the entire pattern of information held in the planar cross-section, when trasferred across the Interfaces has potential Perceptions described as the square of the number of Interfaces.
In a two dimensional analyzing pattern, the information flows linearly with a single axis, so i=1 and i2=1 and has no impact on the relationship between P and R which remains at p=2log r. But in a three dimensional analyzing patterns the flow of information is in two dimensions resulting in any number of interfaces. Reality, therefore, is a function of Perception, as the number of Interfaces determines the quantity of information which can be parallel processed. Even if some of the Interfaces are unstimulated due to no information, they will be read as a "zero state" and included in the internal perception of reality. Further, the progression of information across the planar cross-section through time will be read as a changing reality, rather than additional information about the same reality.
In reality, information in parallel processing systems such as the brain does not flow straight across allowing for planar cross-sections, but rather ripples out from a central point. These "ripples" are actually spheres of processing where the area described by the expanding surface increases the number of interfaces as well as the quantity of information through the passage of time.
So far we have explained the mathmatical relationship between Reality and Perception. But how do you measure these variables quantitatively?
In e=mc2, Energy (in ergs) equals Mass (in grams) times the speed of light Constant (in centimeters per second) squared. "Mass", "centimeters" and "seconds" were all available prior to the publication of that equation and "ergs" was coined as a measurement of convenience to fill the void.
In p=ri2, there are three variables. Now, of course, when two of those variables in quantified, it quantifies the other by definition, just as in e=mc2 if "m" had been measured in kilograms, "erg" would define as one thousand times the value we have come to accept.
So how can we best measure Reality and Perception? First we must define each term. "Reality" is the actual "condition" of that which is observed. "Perception" is the specific APPARENT condition of that which is observed.
In terms of the equation, we are not so concerned with the state of Reality vs. Perception, as that is a matter of degree, ie: "The data is 76% accurate". Rather, we are desribing the potential for alternatives in an information processing system.
You could apply the equation to a single outburst of a single neuron or transister responding to a stimulus. This one "bit" of information has only two conditions, on or off, and is the basis of all binary patterns of analysis. In this instance, both Reality and Perception would be measured in terms of that single bit of information. "r" could be either 1 or zero, and "i" would equal 1 in any event, "p" could be either 1 or zero regardless of what "r" was. Meaning that two possible conditions of "r" generates four possible conditions of "p". If "r" were to have four conditions, "p" would have sixteen.
So in a system where the integer "i" contains only one value, the vaiable "r" can have any number of values, as long as "p" equals "r" squared. Therefore, regardless of scale, convenient units of measurement would set p=r2 or p=2log r.
The exact size of the measurement is completely arbitrary. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, Reality (being the smaller of the two conditions) should be the smallest possible unit. The smallest possible bit of information contains two states, 1 or zero as either condition postulates the other. Rather that looking at the smallest possible Reality as a single value, the equation quantifies it as two POTENTIAL values, together making a single bit of information. We refer to this unit as a "neal".
The smallest possible Perception, therefore, is the square of one "neal" which is four POTENTIAL states. We refer to this smallest unit of Perception as an "anne", where one "anne" equals one "neal" squared.
Perception (in annes) equals Reality (in neals) times the speed of thought constant, Information, in parallel bits per second, squared, when one "anne" is defined as one neal, squared. An informational interface to which this equation has been applied is said to be "annealed".
There are infinite practical applications of this basic equation of the thought process, but they are beyond the scope of this introductary article, and will be explored specifically in future published works.
As a final thought, since the study of the mind deals with "quality", rather than "quantity" we propose the term "Qualum Mechanics" to describe the study of such relationships.
Comments