Tuesday, 25 October 2016

The Laws of Life



Everything you see, smell, touch, hear or taste in the physical world including you the observer, are part of the output of a computation executing on some computer. Our universe is the 3d output from some computational process executing at other levels of abstraction.
I call this computer, the universal operating system because unlike out typical computers with separately existing hardware and software abstraction, I think that the Universal Operating System is a software only system that gives rise to the hardware of our universe.

Let me reiterate. You assemble atoms into sensible patterns of transistors, etc. to build computer hardware, then you use the consistencies in the electrical patterns generated when this hardware is connected to a power source to develop layers of abstraction, until you reach the level of the monitor, where the computations in the computer, existing purely as electrical patterns that transform in consistent ways is now translated via another set of electrical patterns in the display system, your monitor, that is more suitable for human interaction and understanding.

So generally, we assemble hardware that makes software possible. The process is inverted when we talk about the universe as a whole. Several layers of software hidden from human eyes make possible a physical universe that can contain human beings. So, some abstract state, which I refer to as software here, results in some concrete thing, our physical universe.

So, what is the general purpose of the physical universe, why was it created in the first place? I may not be able to provide a complete answer to these questions but I can show certain things that point in the way. Just like the physical sciences has yet to discover a lot of things about this very physical universe, we do not need to go full scale in trying to explain everything about the entire substructure that makes our physical universe possible, we only need to understand those aspects that are useful to us, these are what I call the Laws of Life.

Science has found out a lot of regularities in nature and will continue to do so increasing their understanding of raw nature. If you were given a full computer and you did not have access to the operating system source code, you will learn to interact with the operating system via a shell, the shell has its commands or one can call them it’s laws and when one understands her shell, one can confidently make the kernel of the operating system do what they want it to do, within certain software defined boundaries. When one wants to modify the kernel in a way that violates these boundaries, one’s action are either deemed totally illegal, or one is asked to provide some password, like the ROOT password that allows one extend her freedom beyond the currently available set of permission.

The physical world is designed like this, science is not studying the operating system code of the universe, science is studying the rules of kernel operation.

Science is studying the kernel interface and since nobody kept us some book on universe kernel commands, we are experimenting bit by bit to find out one new command or the other that is gradually leading to a more comprehensive understanding of our physical universe.

With our knowledge of some kernel commands of our universal operating system we have been able to take advantage of the physical regularities in our universe. This is what science and technology is all about. But the question still lingers, why the universe in the first place. We know what happened in the beginning of our universe, we can trace it down to some nanoseconds. But what happens before our universe of why did it happen in the first place is what has bogged many great thinkers for a while. I am not going to provide general solutions that have to do with the entire universe, I am focusing more on the human part of it, that is the part concerning my home planet.

Just like there are physical laws governing the universe, there are Life laws governing the human species. What I call life laws are laws of interaction between entities, humans in this case. I do not talk about legal or judiciary issues.

I talk about meaning and pattern. What gives meaning to our daily existence, why are we existing, what should we do?

I don’t think that human beings came out of biological evolution on this planet, the linear, consistently upward trend that I see when I read explanations of how humans arose from Darwinian evolution does not fit well with me. I am not the only person with a fair amount of education both formal and informal who disagrees with the popular understanding of the origin of species on this planet, including the human species. Neither do I take the position offered in the world’s religions from the world being created in seven days to whatever. I do not think that the world was created in seven days.

Rather I think that a race of beings a little more advanced than our race at the current time, equipped with many of the tools we now possess and more, and whose science had taken a totally different direction than ours, must have engineered humanity from their own species and placed the creations on this planet so that their existence could be studied in isolation separate from theirs so they could observe for novelty. Or maybe as a backup for theirs. There are many other theories I have on this subject, but for now these are the most tantalizing.

Now I do not completely abandon Darwinian Ideas, natural selection, or the desire of some species to gain superiority over others of their kind and other kinds can be clearly observed in the fierce competition of the natural world, and even in the human world, but even after reading several books on how cells came together to become multicellular and how mitochondria once lived outside the cells but came to live in a cooperative existence with the cells, I cannot accept that explanation to things. With what science, can do now, and with the future of artificial biology, I don’t understand why humanity can’t see that all we are trying to do now must have been done by some beings in some other parts of the universe who started out earlier than us. Now when one comes to ask then if those beings came earlier than us, then who came before them. There could be endless sequence of beings before them, but one must think that at a particular point there had to be a beginning. Well that is the limitation of human thinking to believe that there must be a beginning at a certain point in the history of universe. Time must have started at one point and we have a clearly defined history. If one takes the view that our physical universe is the output from some computational system, then time as we think of it in the physical universe might not be some fixed law that has to function in a certain way. Time can function anyway.

We always have a past and we will always have a future, time does not flow in any direction. Events pass on to other events and that is how the universe works. The universe system is more complicated than this physical universe we see and no matter how hard I try to explain much of what I have intuitively being inspired of there will still be vast swathes of unexplained stuff that will remain hidden.

Einstein’s relativity has brought to the human consciousness the concept of Time fluctuations, meaning time or the sequence of event happenings moving quicker in some regions of space than at others, but his is not all. This is just a simple understanding of a more complicated issue. For example, the question of who were the first people cannot be answered because the universe is not some simple linear system that is created uniformly at one point in time and exists to a certain point in the future where it must be destroyed or end. The universe is being continuously built and destroyed and one cannot point to a fixed point in the past to say that this is when the universe started. We can say that part of our universe just started and the other disappeared and nothing. More. When some computational process within your computer produces a pixel on the screen, it just appears and after that process is altered, the pixel disappears, that is how certain areas of the universe appear and certain areas disappear. We have to start learning to accept the universe as some eternally regenerative process that is constantly rebuilding itself every time. The universal operating system could just manifest human entities out of itself. It is just computation, the human entity we observe is just some data visualization and although the human entity could reproduce itself, the first occurrence might just come out of nowhere we can point our finger at. We have to learn to deal with a patchy image of the past the present and the future, gases do not obey ‘ideal’ gas laws so why even talk about ‘ideal’ past of try to fill in every possible blank of a past whose data no one possesses. Although we can extrapolate a great deal from what we currently know, it is very dangerous and even treacherous to extrapolate too far.

So rather than tracing the long complicated history of the group of beings that seeded humanity on this planet, we could focus more on understanding why we are here and why they are in the universe too.

Anytime I see a perfectly linear story like, humanity was seeded on earth by some beings, at a particular point in time, I like destroying the linearity of the thought by adding some complication like real things happen in the world. So, a better statement will be: Humanity has been seeded on earth at various times in the long history of the earth.

So not only have we been seeded here at several points in the history of the earth, we have been seeded by different races of engineers. An ape did not become a human in a simple linear clear fashion, some humans degenerated into apes through indiscriminate inbreeding.

There is never a simple linear explanation for anything, if you cannot find the complication find it.

At different times, human entities were introduced to the earth by other human entities who possessed technologies that we could see some similarities with ours some millions of years ago.

There is no simple clean hierarchical story of evolution, where everything you see was created out of simpler organisms. The mitochondria can be engineered, and so can a cell with a mitochondrion. You can engineer nucleotides and if your technology is neat enough you can eventually create a cell that will divide under the rules you coded in those nucleotides, that eventually becomes a human being a rat or an ant.

Things don’t have to be derived directly from other things, they could be designed side by side.

One may ask that if humanity was seeded here at some time and other animals in nature are also a process of engineering, then how could we explain speciation. I do not try to break things up into too many categories. And all the complicated taxonomy of living things might not be necessary to gain some understanding of the nature of things.

So, variation via adaptation is a word I prefer to use when I think about how some primary species could become others, like the relationship between a dog, bear and a wolf, we could see that these are closely related, and the typical way many people of science would explain this would be to create a common ancestor and describe how it branched out to become a dog in one instance, and a bear in another. Mutations are also another way several different species could diverge from some others.

Well that’s enough digression into regular science. I could be totally wrong or I might have inspired another line of thought, but that’s not my purpose in this writeup. What I want to bring into the understanding of humanity at this time is that we are the output of some computational process and we have to learn our system requirements or else we will be wiped out like all the civilizations before us.

I think the kernel level of interaction with the universal operating system is sufficient for humanity at this time, the Application programmers interface is so rich that our scientist will not run short of discoveries anytime soon, and technology will continue to develop as more of these interfaces are known. Even if we hit a wall in our discoveries, it will not be because a wall exists but maybe we may have missed something in the past and we will eventually backtrack, pick up some ignored paper from the past and take a new path forward, reexplaining everything along the way until we meet our previous wall and move pass it.

The laws of life dictate the patterns of existence. While gravity determines if your plane will stay on the air till it reaches its destination, the laws of life dictate ‘IF’ it should reach. What people you see/meet on that trip, what you hear, what you see and indeed what you sense at your destination or before it. This whole thing is quite complicated but I will use several examples to constantly re-explain myself till it becomes lucid.

The physical laws of the universe deals with the nature and structure of the universe, the laws of life determine the meanings of the configurations of structures within the physical universe.

Rather than going too wide and broad on this new line of thought I will describe one rather short system, which is the system of human civilizations.

Human civilizations have risen and fallen through history, but why? One could point out to certain definite things that caused the eventual demise of the society, like famine and war. But what is at the core of all these? There is a simple requirement of the universal operating system. The only society that can ever endure on this planet will be one based on the law of sharing, a society where the wellbeing of every human entity will be guaranteed, except by choice the entity refuses this beneficence. Any other society based on any other founding philosophy will fall under the weight of itself. This is a law of life.

It is fixed and inevitable. It is just one of the numerous laws by which conscious entities existing on a particular planet must abide to. It is not enforced directly by anyone but by everything that is part of existence.

The law of life is leading the entire universe into some state that I will inadequately call happiness and it is the job of each entity occupying any locality with the system to abide by that driving force towards harmony or their process will be terminated and restarted endlessly until the desired result is achieved.

As I keep on exploring this topic in this writing, I come across ideas that I did not have before embarking on the work. This writing is a summary of all the thoughts that have persistently embattled my mind ever since I was a child. I delved into science to gain and understanding of the apparently random things that happen in our lives but found no explanation. I tried religion for a while but found that totally unsatisfying. I delved into different philosophies from both the east and west and found different understanding and different explanations. I found many of these explanations useful and have applied it to my life and I found the majority devoid of that essence that I sought.

So, it came to me that rather than seek some already made answer presented neatly in some book or closed philosophical system, why don’t I do my own explorations, why don’t I trust my own mind and understanding, filtering from the mass of what I have studied to formulate my own understanding. This work is the result of that pondering, the conclusions I have come up with hear have stuck to my consciousness for a very long time, and is the summary of my entire world view.

I believe that there are gems of truth in many systems, for those parts that I do not accept, I formulate my own understandings.

Since our universe is the visual display of some computational process, the true computations are not taking place in the physically observable universe, but at other levels of abstraction, that are not observable. Therefore, we are seeing only the consequence of underlying computations and not the purpose of the computation. So therefore, our world is doing certain things, people move about, eat, work, reproduce etc. This is the level of our world, but all these actions that we observe going on are the result of some underlying computation at another level of abstraction and the fact that we can see patterns happening doesn’t mean that they were directly intended by the underlying computation, they could be, but it could be totally arbitrary and the patterns and understandings we observe, like other people and our jobs and the burning need I feel to share this writings with the rest of the world, could only just apply to our own level of seeing things. In my small booklet, The Universal Operating System I dealt with this in an analogy between the relations between electrons on the circuit board of your computer and you the user. In summary of that booklet, if you are using your computer to type just like I am doing here, your purpose is to produce some written work, but the electrons zapping around the circuit board, if they could be imbued with consciousness would actually think that the processor was built for them to zap around, not knowing that their zapping is the result of some higher order goal being achieved by us some higher other being.

It is in this very line of reasoning that I say that our entire universe and all the stars, our earth, its people, other entities in the universe and everything, is merely the result of come underlying computation, probably being run by some higher order being or beings beyond the universe, these are not the beings that may have seeded humanity on earth, our seeders are also part of the computational output of this universe.

But there is some difference between our own computational systems and this universal system in which we exist, but the principle, that of computation is similar.

If we take the point of view that we are electrons on a circuit board of a typical computer, we could arrive at an understanding of what a higher order being could be doing, like the point of view of us using the computer.

In our universe, I think that the structure of this arrangement is quite different even though it retains the idea of there being a separate region where the computations could be going on.

If one had some complicated computation going on and it was spewing lots of data, one needs to find a way of getting meaning out of this endless flood of data, the way we do it now is with visualizations like graphs and charts. If the data is very complicated, one might want to visualize the data like a landscape, and maybe there could be trees, depicting certain computational structures, and humans and other entities existing side by side. All these objects and their interactions will now provide a live display of the internal computational processes going on in the system. This is currently my ultimate explanation of why the universe exists.

Computation is going on and results in the varied biological and even geographical structures on a planet. The stars and other structures in the universe are also visualizations of exotic kinds of computations, the interaction between light from star to star and from star to planets could be a method by which data is moved up and down the memory regions of computer. Space with little matter like the endless dark voids between galaxies could be free memory for future computation.

Now that is some high-level view of the use of our universe, what I am majorly interested in here, apart from occasionally clarifying my understanding of the physical universe is to focus on humanity and today on one piece of information before I conclude.

A law of life I am particular clear about is the purpose of society. Every society has the opportunity to expand beyond the confines of its native Planet and spread out to the endless reaches of the universe. Societies that have not yet mastered certain aspects of themselves will not be given an opportunity to expand beyond the confines of their solar system, because the ever-present speed of light barrier will always act like a wall preventing them from spreading their corrupted data to other parts of the operating system.

We have discovered science and have made great strides, but the reason why the operating system made us discover this science through insight and inspiration is because we were meant to use science to benefit every single member of our spaceship-planet. As far as we continue to use the intellect for the purpose of gaining power over others, we will remain within the confines of earth and maybe mars for some time to come.

Just like a virus cannot be allowed to spread around an OS by a powerful antivirus software, humanity in its present state will not be allowed to spread beyond this solar system until will do one simple thing, that we have never tried before, take care of every single human being on this planet. It is through the collective effort of all of humanity that we will discover the secret to travelling superluminally. If Food, shelter and education is provided for as many people as need it, then we can be sure that we are maximizing the full brain potential of humanity, who knows all the Newtons, Einsteins, Feynmans, Schrodingers, Gauss, Godels etc. that are roaming the earth, some in the so called third world countries who could contribute to our ongoing scientific developments, speeding our way towards achieving interstellar travel.

If we allow petty politics and bad economic policies based on scarcity prevent us from engaging as many people as possible, then we will stay here as long as is required before our current civilization fall, and another takes its place and if it does not meet the system requirements, it will fall again repeatedly. This falls are like repeated instantiations of a malfunctioning program and this will happen until a race appears on earth that realizes that conscious life is precious, it is a computational node, and assuring its harmonious existence is important to the total scheme of things universally, which is required by the Law of Life.

We might, through harsh effort make it to Mars and even set up a civilization there but if our consciousness is not changed towards sharing, we will duplicate the structure we already have on earth and it will not do us any good. We could create far greater horror on mars were the scarcity will be real than on earth where we get plenty of things like air for free.

Mankind must stop its childish arms play and get to the serious business of fixing the earth, stopping pollution and assuring the existence of every human being. Rather than fearing population explosion, think of how you can utilize a larger population. Even if we are 10 billion or even 20 billion on this planet if we keep them to the best of our abilities just like we will do for those that we care about, the mass of educated people will literally research its way out of any conundrum. We could build artificial planets, move to Mars, make greater efforts towards moving to other parts of the solar system like the moons of Jupiter etc. That is if we do not achieve superluminal travel, but I strongly believe that if we take care of humanity, some random human somewhere will make a discovery that will enable us go to other earth like planets to continue humanity. This is my belief that as more brains are healthy enough to participate in the work of science, technology the arts and other human disciplines, our chances of making fundamental break throughs increase. We are struggling so hard to create AI, which is a good thing, because it will accelerate discovery, but what about a global brain project, where we commit a large amount of our global resources to raising a billion highly trained scientists from various geographical regions of the earth? One might argue that it is not the number of people doing research that matters but the quality of the people and I will counter that line of thinking with the fact that we don’t know all the possible brains out there. There could be a brain existing on some rice farm in Asia or some brain existing somewhere in war torn central Africa, which has some qualities that if educated properly will produce the result that we seek.

If I had the means this is exactly the line I will take. Train as many people in factual science and technology as possible to increase the chances of my success. I will invest in AI but not at neck on the line kind of manner. I could train this billion people to build AI and my chances are higher than if I was working with a lesser number.

Let’s clean our environment, stop using primitive fossil fuels and start taking care of humanity as a whole, shifting everyone to a higher standard of living. If our economies have to change to make this possible, let it change. We created economics it did not create us. Change democracy from a single president system to a group leadership process where a group of people with very diverse understandings but with one goal for the betterment of society will be elected to foresee the running of society. This single president thing is just a replacement for the older monarchies, it is a stage forward in governance not the end. Politics will have to be re-structured completely or abandoned.

What I mean by Factual Science is one based on direct observation without so much reliance on the explanation of what went on in the past. If we get into the lab, we should study cells and their internal or external interactions. I don’t want to hear about how the mitochondria came to be, I want to know its structure and function. That is the understanding I want. If you build a particle accelerator, lets interpret the data correctly and find out ways to utilize it for human betterment. I don’t want to know what happened at the beginning of our universe whether it’s a big bang or a big whiff. The question should be what’s the data, how can we use it.

Scientist don’t have to push their speculations about the far past and the far future on society. If a woman of science wants to know about dinosaurs she should go ahead and entertain herself, all I am interested in and would encourage as part of an education is the state of the world.

If the grand canyons exist, they exist, how they were formed is important if you need an explanation, but those things should not be over emphasized like, what happened 65 million years ago, a topic worthy of curiosity but should not be enforced as a requirement for understanding raw data that can be obtained now and analyzed independent of making any wild extrapolations to some unobserved weird past.

Data is data, if an experiment is run it produces data, you cannot debate data, you can’t have an opinion on data, explanations can be good or bad, but you can’t change data. Data is fact. A tomato is a tomato, it contains certain things which you can get data about, you need not know which plant group it branched out of some millions of years ago to know about the tomato. You could go to a shop and buy a tomato and run some experiments on it. This is all that should be interesting. As far as a fact is debatable or subject to opinion, it is no longer a fact and should occupy a different book. You do not need evolution to understand the biochemistry of a kidney cell. You could run experiments and produce data about the kidney and its cells. Anything you have to believe, and cannot confirm by yourself through real experiments now or later in the future is not science and is just a sophisticated form of religion.

There should be no central dogmas, if certain explanations are mere explanations they should be indicated as such in science books, fact should be given as raw data, not even a visualization of the data should be seen as conclusive.

When the Large Hadron Collider produces data, you cannot contest the data, if one person sees the Higgs Boson in the data and another person rejects that position, that should not be important, just the LHC data should be important. Anybody should be free to peer into this data and if that person is well trained she should understand the data in any way she sees fit and those who subscribe to her view should follow it if they wish and other views should be left open. Any attempt to produce a single explanation for data at the exclusion of all other is an attempt to return back into the days of religious authority.

I personally choose to ignore Darwinian evolution. I will not teach it to my kids, and neither will I teach them creationism of traditional religions or force them to accept the hypothesis formulated in this writing, they should be free to choose to reason in any form that is suitable for their consciousness.

Society should guide people actions but not their thoughts, people should be prevented from ‘physically’ hurting other people but people shouldn’t be restricted to any system of thought, scientific or otherwise. Any attempt to do so is in violation of a Law of Life. We do not know the nature of the computation that we are immersed in, but one thing I have been inspired to understand at our own level is that we must not infringe on the mental freedom and expression of any individual, except that expression directly causes ‘physical’ harm to other individuals.

Since we do not know what we are computing, we should not infringe on the computation, we should try to see what the computation prefers and encourage that, and I think we have the capacity through observation to note certain patterns that the computation prefers in order to achieve its final goals that we might not be aware of. And even though we might know certain things that the system prefers, we should be open to changes and never stop inquiring and experimenting.

The world looks random but it’s not. If someone should show you some machine code from the program that is your word processor, you would think it as a random hodge-podge of 1s and Os but if you understood the underlying architecture, you could start getting at the meaning of things. If you don’t know the architecture or worse off if you don’t even have knowledge of computing, you would just be able to see the bits that compose the program.

If you were scientifically inclined, you will start looking for regularities, things that appear together and repeat together. Although with some hard study you could decode the instruction part of the code as a set of patterns that repeat consistently throughout the program, the data part would baffle you for a long time to come.

This is how our physical universe is, the physical laws governing it has been researched and consistencies noted, so we can say that the physical laws are the instruction part of the system (I personally think that the physical laws are the kernel commands of a well-designed API, I don’t think we are close to the instruction level at all due to the way I think of the general design of the system but for explanation purposes you can think at any level of abstraction you wish to think at) The data part is the part that baffles us. Why are you in this geographical location? why do you see certain people if you go to the street right now? Although I don’t know why I see certain people when I go out to the street, I know that I should treat them with respect, not because the human legal system might harm me if I go out and start harming people but because I know that we are all part of the same computation, and If I am given the opportunity to interact with certain nodes of that system I will do that with the utmost respect for the underlying computation that led me to meet such people.

When we work, or interact with certain people on a daily basis we should keep it at the back of our minds that we are doing way beyond the immediate tasks we are doing, we are participating in a computation and although there are definite results of our interaction based on the purpose that brought us together, we are doing something higher via our harmonious interaction that is not only benefiting us but benefiting the underlying computation.

While our task might be to build a bridge, this is our human level goal, the computation might actually be all the molecules of air, water, soil, including the molecules of our own bodies that participated in the building of the bridge.

If we could visualize the atomic disturbance that went on while we built that bridge, although totally irrelevant to us, it might be exactly what that computational interaction between humans and the environment was for at that moment. There could be other purposes as wild as the imagination would go but the basic point is that, more is actually going on that what our human level goals might be about.

Globally we have to end the primitive system of economics we have grown to accept. We should stop trying to make people earn a living, it has served us and now it has to go. We either let it go harmoniously, or it will go disastrously as intelligent machines take more and more jobs, and a hungry desperate population goes crazy and start eating every other person. Even the deepest bunkers might not be deep enough and running to mars might not be far enough. We have to adjust the realities of modern production. People should work only if they need to, but it should not be the basis for society getting its needs. Clearly it has not worked so far, because there has never been a time when everyone had jobs, and we did not even reach a situation where everyone had jobs and now we are going into a situation were increasingly intelligent machines are taking over the few jobs.

Just like Buckminster Fuller said, people should be paid to study, research should be a major employment system. Any manual jobs done by a human would soon be automated, even if AI comes the practical kind, it will not be a self-determining system, it will be a system capable of helping researches seek solutions that our current brain does not allow us to get at. AI will be a tool and there will be no AI-taking-over-the-world-movie-kind-of-scenario.

AI will be a tool, that enables us solves problems faster and more efficiently than our human minds can normally achieve, just like faithful calculator, but a kind of calculator of ideas. We will interact with AI in a kind of formalized symbolic discourse language, not natural language or even programming code. While programming code enables us to describe things computationally, a future kind of symbolic discourse language will enable us interact with AI systems in what would sound like natural language but will be a very restricted one with many of the ambiguities of natural language and those parts that deal with our internal strictly human states eliminated. Although you can make a computer do anything by defining functions, loops etc. The symbolic discourse version of English will look like English language with a very limited and highly defined vocabulary. It will be an outgrowth of the kind of things we use as keywords in search engines.

Humans will learn this language and a properly structured discussion with a computer verbally or by other means will produce output that involves discovery of new stuff computed on the fly wolfram alpha style out of the mass of information on the web or other sources. Most information on the web will be automatically converted to and from this highly optimized version of English or other language like german, etc. and a user will discuss her needs in non-programmatic terms with a computer and it will perform computations and return results which might include text, videos, images and even CAD diagrams.

So, a simple scenario in the future will be this:

You type in design me a house that cost $300,000 and the computer will use all the information from every part of the world about houses including images from magazines, architectural books, even video presentations and satellite imagery to produce the design in full 3d of a house worth the amount, and my choosing from alternatives and sending further commands in symbolic discourse language, the house will be modified to my exact tastes, without you using any other manipulative tool like a mouse of some specific CAD program, now that’s intelligence.

So AI is coming and we have an obligation to change many systems of the world, including economics from what it is now, to one where your existence, including adequate and nutritional food, clothing, housing, and education is guaranteed for free by whatever system of governance is available, and if you want to earn money to acquire luxuries you would have to engage is some craft or research, where you are paid to produce some result that will be utilized by the society, you will mostly do this research with AI, tackling problems with larger and larger conceptual scope.

After factual science, has generated its data, the only way to prove its viability is in some technological demonstration. Technological demonstrations using data garnered from research should be the only explanation needed to explain some data. We should not use more words to explain what data has already spitted out, conclusions from experiments should be given with exceptions. Nothing except data garnered from accurate experimentation should be emphasized beyond being just one possible explanation. Data should be taken as the highest truth even if we don’t understand it, although it shouldn’t be taken as final truth because no experiment is perfectly accurate, as time passes and more accurate experiments arise, their data should replace the existing data. Explanations must not be given dogmatically, accepted views should be what they are, ‘accepted’ views and not final views. Interpretations should be what they are, ‘interpretations’ and should never be seen as final. Newton’s explanation of gravity was wrong but his observation, data and formulas were accurate to certain degrees, but Einstein came to improve on Newton. Although Newton’s interpretation of the data was wrong, the data was not wrong, Einstein came in, equipped with better data and improved Newton’s. Newton’s formulas are all that is needed to go to the moon, but it is extended in the realms of the very large or very small. If one proceeded from Newtons interpretation of the laws he observed, the picture of the universe would look different, and if exposed to Einstein’s laws he would have a different view of the same universe. Both formulas apply at their appropriate level, neither is wrong, the only thing that is wrong is the interpretation of the universe based on Newton’s laws.

So, should we not make interpretations of the data we obtain from our experiments? I think we should, but we should not be aggressive in promoting our point of view no matter how convinced and how backed on facts we see them to be, we might be missing a point or two. We should respect other opinions even if they do not subscribe to our basic view of life, this is a Law of Life.

As I delved into modern physics and saw the variety of interpretations that were available for simple observations, from Everett Storey’s many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to the Copenhagen interpretation to the multiple string theories, and to many other hypothesis and theories and interpretations out there I just got frustrated in finding my way, without having some opinions or assumptions. So, I just said let’s stick to data, and maybe some formulaic interpretations of the data. We can then try to build technologies out of this observation, if we can’t build technologies at the moment, we should either just keep the data or allow people to interpret the data in any way they deem fit we should either respect their views or ignore them.

Following the laws of life that I have chipped in from place to place across this writing will enable us to reach a higher level of harmony on this planet. We could move together happily to other planets and solar systems, and we will become part of that galactic family of races that have succeeded, and we will lend our assistance to primitive societies throughout the universe that have just started their own journeys. We could seed other planets with people from our own humanity, to store and back up our genetic data. And there are numerous possibilities but let’s leave that to another write up.

No comments:

Post a Comment