11 Mar Joe’s Theory of Everything
While my teachers explained that language is about nouns and verbs, I think language is about symbolically representing everything and communicating about anything to anyone. There are many ways to look at the milieu in which we live from the tiniest sub-atomic particle on up. One way is to look at the larger context of the universe. The hierarchy of context may begin at the top with the universe, then gradually shrink to galaxies, star systems, planet systems, planets, things that are permanent parts of planets, things that reside on planets, parts of things, the fabric that makes the parts, the molecules that make the fabric, the atoms that make the molecules, and the particles that make the atoms. In biology, we use hierarchies to identify living things by kingdom, phylum, genus, and species. A focus on classifying things in the universe (developing hierarchies) may be contrasted with a focus on events in the universe. Language is amazing because it embodies both things and the things that happen to things. The brain’s power to comprehend everything is more than amazing.
Mountcastle (1978) proposed a unified framework for understanding micro- and macroscopic phenomena in the brain. I would like to propose a unified information theory about the things the brain processes. (See also: Semantic Models and Conceptual Paradigms).
|Understanding Context Cross-Reference
|Click on these Links to other posts and glossary/bibliography references
|The Context of Knowledge
|Building a Concept Hierarchy
|Ontology References Mountcastle 1978
A functional approach to defining everything seeks to categorize what happens in the context of what exists. Theories of relativity and quantum mechanics describe how things in the universe interact with one another. The physical law stating that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” is an example of a functional theory. As human inference involves both existential and functional knowledge, a universal theory must be able to express both to be useful for cybernetic modeling.
Existential Knowledge: What exists and how it relates to other things that exist from the perspectives of composition and lineage is existential knowledge.
Functional Knowledge: What happens, how events impact on things that exist and on things that will happen in the future, and how events can reveal information about events or things that existed in the past is functional knowledge.
Joe’s Universal Information Theory (or Joe’s Theory of Everything)
I believe that all knowledge is interconnected. You can think of knowledge as a large set of interconnected concepts. Because the language we use to describe concepts is imprecise, often involving words with multiple meanings, context is a critical component of the formula for describing all knowledge. The components of a concept are words. The pseudo-code below describes my theory of everything using letters to represent the components of each concept.
- For all X and all Y (X and Y are any physical or abstract things)
- while C (C = “context “)
- X R Y (R = “is related to”)
- end while
- while C (C = “context “)
I have set forth in other posts (Semantic Models and Conceptual Paradigms) context of theoretical work that has led me to the belief I stated above. The use of triples consisting of X R Y has been commonly used to form knowledge networks. But in these, I have found that the possible values for R are wither too narrowly, or too broadly defined. Allow me to expand upon these theories. The set of all R relations is defined dynamically within the framework of the laws that govern physics, human interaction and thought. For example, if C is the aggregate knowledge of mankind (a network containing all known concepts), then it should be possible to distill any scientific theory to a set of statements of the form: X R Y. Here are some examples of how this might work:
|X = Action
|R = "Causes"
|Y = Reaction
|X = Object
|R = "Includes"
|Y = Part
|X = Step
|R = "Precedes"
|Y = Decision
The Theoretical Breakdown
The theory described above is a simplification of a universal framework in which the author believes all knowledge can be encoded. In the final theory, we will see that the “R” factor is more complex than a single word describing a relationship; it can actually comprise a complete algorithm with parameters, constraints and qualifications (such as the qualification “equal and opposite” applied to the example). At this time, consider the temporal element WHILE. As we exist in a dimension, or universe, bound by time, observations we make are qualified by the fact that anything we can see exists in a window of time. Thus, all theories dealing with observables imply time. Joe’s Theory of Everything (JTE) explicitly states time, further subdividing it by external parameters which combine to form context.
Joe’s Theory of Everything (JTE) is distributed, and can be implemented using a distributed ontology. It supports algorithms to answer questions about anything by representing knowledge about the universe in orthogonal equations or formulae. Its distributed structure allows implementers of JTE algorithms to add new things (Xs and Ys), new relations (Rs), and new contexts (Cs). A breakdown could occur, however, if the implementer fails to describe some overarching context (or hierarchy of contexts) needed to link all contexts together. Joe’s Theory of Everything applies to all kinds of knowledge (explicit, tacit, empirical, heuristic…) as well as to all kinds of beliefs. The distinction between belief and knowledge, however, may not be relevant in the discussion of information, each piece of which we are able to weigh on its own merits.
I’ll go into this more as I describe to you the basis for this information theory and the practical application.
|Click below to look in each Understanding Context section
|Perception and Cognition
|Language and Dialog
|Apps and Processes
|The End of Code