Category Physics

You can’t have your cake and eat it too

Geir Isene 13 Comments

You can’t have a fixed procedure produce a fixed result in a world where randomness or free will exists.

The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle shows that you cannot know both a particle’s momentum and position at a given time. You can only measure a high probability for either of these.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems tells us that no system can be both complete and consistent. You must choose; A system that is complete and inconsistent, or a system that is consistent and incomplete.

And a corollary to Gödel’s comes from the field of Systems Theory and points out that a fixed procedure will create variable results and a fixed result requires a variable procedure. You must choose – a fact very few business process managers are conscious of. Trying to implement a fixed procedure to obtain a fixed result is folly. Most often you would want a certain result – and hence you must allow for individual creativity and a loosely defined procedure. This is the basis for Adaptive Case Management.

Thinking that you can program a business like a machine will most probably lead to some interesting situations.

Realizing that you can’t have your cake and eat it too may just free up some mental stress.

Quality versus Quantity

Geir Isene 240 Comments

It dawned on me a while ago that I could not come up with an example of any quality that could not be satisfactorily expressed in some quantities. I was a bit puzzled by this, but other interests grabbed my attention and so I let it go. Today a stray thought led me to this question once more: Is there actually such a thing as a quality that cannot be otherwise expressed as a set of quantities?

And here’s a very cool Hugh:

Hugh MacLeod

The next best thing after sliced bread

Geir Isene 14 Comments

Is it a todo-list manager? Is it an outliner? A project management tool? A shopping list solution on steroids? A way of designing business processes? A way to describe… the human DNA or the solution to mankind’s problems or the whole freakin’ universe?

Yes, yes, yes. It’s all of the above. It’s WOIM! And it is out in version 1.4

With this version, I have added time repetition (thanks to Nilo de Roock) and checkboxes for items – with optional date stamps for items that are Done (thanks to Christopher Truett).

No, this is not a piece of software. It is a description for how you can describe anything. And I do mean anything.

WOIMIf you want a software solution to go with it, learn VIM and add the accompanying VIM plugin. Then you have all you need to comfortably write neat WOIM lists and use it for anything from shopping lists to the description of Quantum Mechanics. It’s yours to take, and you are welcome.

Religion and science

Geir Isene 102 Comments

There has been numerous efforts to bridge the domain of religion with the domain of science. But are they in need of bridging?

I would like to offer a definition of these two domains for your digesting:

The domain of science covers what can be objectively falsified.

The domain of religion covers what can be only subjectively falsified.

Given these two definitions, I am not sure whether they need any bridging except for pure tolerance of each other.

A proof against determinism?

Geir Isene 52 Comments

Could this actually hold?

Please disprove the following:

  1. For a system to be deterministic, its underlying rules must be consistent.
  2. For a system to be deterministic, its underlying rules must be complete.
  3. No system of rules can be both complete and consistent per Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems.
  4. Thus no system can be deterministic.

FYI: This proof dawned on me while researching Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems – but I realize that points 1 & 2 above may perhaps be invalidated by presenting cases for deterministic systems with incomplete or inconsistent rule sets. Can such cases exist?

Update (2011-01-30): After some good comments, I offer this:

  1. Thesis: The universe contains all there is and all there ever will be, it is a complete and closed system and causally deterministic (Laplace’s demon)
  2. According to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, such a system would have to contain paradoxes (inconsistencies), potentially rendering the system indeterministic.
  3. To prove the thesis of a causally deterministic universe, one would have to prove (why) the universe would never encounter any such paradoxes breaking the determinism – and prove why the universe itself would never encounter Turing’s Halting Problem when deciding any effect ever in the universe.

Triangles in Scientology

Geir Isene 86 Comments

Many years ago a friend and I started mapping out all the triangles in Scientology and started adding many more.

You may know the ARCU triangle where “Affinity”, “Reality” and “Communication” equates to “Understanding”. There is also the other triangle making up the Scientology symbol (the “S” with two triangles) – the KRC-triangle: “Knowledge”, Responsibility” and “Control”. Even though we didn’t find any references from L. Ron Hubbard as to what those three interconnected elements would equate to, we figured out it should be “Ability”.

Then there is the “BE”-“DO”-“HAVE” witch should equate to perhaps “Existence”. Then there are the three properties of a thetan described by LRH in the book “Science of Survival”: “Power”, “Intelligence” and “Tone” (equating to Beingess?). Thetan-Mind-Body equals a person. Past-Present-Future is time. And there are many more.

Let’s see if we can map more of existence in this fashion. LRH was onto something with this concepts of triangles – there are obvious parallels in the physical sciences such as three spacial dimensions and three quark colors.

Want to pitch in with a new triangle?

My current research

Geir Isene 38 Comments

In between daily life I am currently engaged in extending the work published in my article “On Will“. I plan to expand the theory therein to a more comprehensive “Subjective Reality theory“.

To let you in on my current research:

  1. If our physical reality is a co-created consensus reality, and its persistence is dependent on it not being seen for what it is (a Matrix type illusion), then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may be the preservation mechanism as it disallows exact certainty. At the same time, there exists evidence that exact perception of one’s own created reality is possible (not what is accepted by others or entered into the broad consensus – the physical universe). The exact relation between the Uncertainty Principle and Consensus should be further researched.
  2. The Wave Function may be seen as an individual’s creative freedom within the consensus reality. Further research should reveal the accumulated freedom in the consensus reality given by the Wave Function.
  3. The Collapse of the Wave Function may be the mechanism of a created reality being accepted by another. The relationship between communication and Wave Function Collapse should be determined.
  4. The basic actions seem to be Consideration (creation of realities) and Communication (co-creation of consensus realities). The exact relation between Consideration and Communication and the mechanism from there to the co-creation of consensus reality needs to be mapped.

This and other related points will be published sometime in the future.

Formalizing a description of existence

Geir Isene 41 Comments

Continuing my quest for a description of existence, I have taken a look at the very basics and attempted to formalize some conclusions – as usual in the form of a WOIM list:

Potential
Realization
[1,x] Existence
   Cause
   Consideration
   Effect
   Influence
      #Existence
Common reality = Intersection of existences
Consensus reality = Co-considered effect
   [2,n] Cause
   Consideration
   Co-considered effect
   Influence
      #'Consensus reality'

In even plainer English, this means: There is a potential which realized becomes existence. Existence is comprised of Cause which through consideration creates an effect which in turn influences the Existence. From this we get the fractal nature of the universe.

Common reality is simply two existences overlapping (intersecting), while a Consensus reality is an agreed-upon existence, or more precisely “co-considered” effect, again with the fractal nature of the effect influencing back at the Consensus reality.

This WOIM list condenses the essence of my article “On Will“. It is very far from a formalized description of the basics of existence, but it may serve as a starting point.

I would appreciate feedback (but please read the above referenced article first); Is the list correct, and what are the next steps in making it more complete?

New design on isene.com

Geir Isene 7 Comments

I finally got around to redesigning my website.

It’s been like this for a few years now:

Now it looks like this:

I know, it’s a crazy idea… no structure, not at all professional, only a drawing… OMG WTF? BBQ!

But it’s all there. Even a new revolutionary take on organization (I’ll make that a separate blog post later).

Hop on over and check it out.

On Will

Geir Isene 6 Comments

The sun, the sailing and the beauty of Greece warmed my heart and gave inspiration to finalize an article “On Will”. I collected my previous articles on free will, the origins of Cause and on Quantum Mechanics, added concepts and forged a more complete article outlining a theory that hopefully will spark some interest in others.

The article is published on my www.isene.com

Let me know what you think.
Or better, apply your sharp critical skills and try hacking it to pieces.