JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES Archives


SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES Archives

SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES Archives


SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES Home

SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES Home

SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES  2002

SUPPORT-VECTOR-MACHINES 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

A Tale of Two Universes

From:

Osher Doctorow <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The Support Vector Machine discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:46:14 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (116 lines)

From: Osher Doctorow [log in to unmask], Thurs. Feb. 14, 2002 9:59AM

In http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum, I have recently argued that a
split occurs in our universe because of a split between two types of
probability-statistics.   Those who do not know simple algebra can skip the
following two inequalities which describe each universe in fuzzy multivalued
logics terms:

L > P > G    (1)
L < P < G    (2)

where L, G, P are respectively Lukaciewicz/Rational Pavelka, Godel, and
Product/Goguen fuzzy multivalued logics.   The inequalities are most simply
explained in the probability-statistics analog language as meaning *greater
probable influence than* (for >) for *less probable influence than* (for <)
with the possibility of equal influence being included.

Since L corresponds to rare events, P to fairly common events, and G to very
frequent events, the two types of universe corresponding to (1) and (2),
written U1 and U2 for short, differ in which events have greater probable
influence.  In U1, rare events have the most influence (e.g., crises,
catastrophes, genius, very fortunate events, events of lower dimension than
the space (in 3-dimensional space, this is events of dimension 0, 1, or 2,
including surfaces of bounded objects, flat bounded geometric figures, line
segments, isolated points).   In U2, the exact reverse occurs, except that
for those familiar with positive and negative quadrant dependence in
statistical dependence research (and few non-post-Ph.D. statisticians are),
G and P can be reversed depending on whether positive or negative quadrant
dependence applies - which in this posting we will consider to be a
technicality.

So one universe, U1, is dominated in probable influence by rare events,
while the second universe U2 is dominated in probable influence by very
frequent events.   To get a rough idea of where our observed macroscopic
(human to astronomical level) universe seems to fit, G corresponds to
*independent events*, and it does seem that independent events (events which
do not depend on each other or on particular other events relevant to the
problem) have the least probable influence, so our universe appears to be of
type U1.   In the other universe, U2, independent events have much more if
not dominant probable influence.

These are models, but they come from very deep theories supported by many
directions of research and theorizing and knowledge.   At the very least,
readers should consider their idea as possibly indicating the direction of
models which can apply to their disciplines in addition to all the other
models and theories which they are familiar with.

For those who are interested in physics and sciences, both philosophically
and otherwise, the universes U1 and U2 appear to be possible candidates for
the following: (1) the expanding versus the contracting universe scenarios;
(2) the microscopic (quantum) versus the macroscopic (human level,
astronomical level).  In the human and astronomical levels, the effects of
General Relativity become very important, while in the microscopic level
quantum theory seems predominant except possibly for gravitational effects;
(3) the early Radiation-Dominated era of the universe versus the later
Matter-Dominated era (although it includes much radiation even today), with
the weight of evidence and opinion presently favoring U1 in the earlier era
including inflation (extremely rapid expansion) and favoring U2 in the later
era (although U1 may apply to both eras if the distinction is inaccurate for
these eras).

Finally, for those minimally familiar with probability theory, or who do not
mind learning it from scratch (beginning), the probable influences of U1 and
U2 respectively differ only in one variable (aside from a constant of 1 in a
formula, which is of negligible underlying importance).   The equations of
U1 involve P(AB), the probability of A AND B (the intersection of
events/sets/processes A and B) as well as P(A), the probability of A, while
the equations of U2 involve P(A) but also P(B) instead of P(AB), where P(B)
is the probability of B.    In other words, U1 is influenced more by
intersections (combinations, ANDs, conjunctions) of events/processes, while
U2 is influenced more by the separate events/processes.

Do the two universes U1 and U2 ever coincide?   Yes.  On important place in
which they coincide is when the universes can be shrunk down from big to
little or vice versa.   In other words, if the science fiction story about
the *incredible shrinking man* who keeps getting smaller and smaller forever
and goes through different phases and universes roughly through the quantum
level and below it is even roughly correct, then U1 = U2.   For those who
know probability, this is because the probability of AB (A AND B) equals the
probability of B provided that B is contained in A *almost certainly*
(except for sets of probability 0 in technical language).   So everything
reduces to a bunch of sets/events/processes contained in each other, and the
macroscopic level shrinks down to the microscopic level.

If this U1 = U2 scenario is true, and those who believe that nature follows
the paths of greatest simplicity and parsimony and efficiency and so on will
probably conclude that the scenario may be true, then why do we keep getting
different results from the quantum and the macroscopic levels - especially
the indications that quantum energy only occurs at discrete values (like l,
2, 3, on some scale) instead of at all possible values like 1.3, 3.77, etc.?
It may be because the scenario is only approximately applicable and that we
really have two different universes which are very close together but are
separated by a one-way FILTER as in biology which filters out everything but
discrete (separate) energy and similar levels when observations go from
microscopic stimuli to macroscopic observer, even through a microscopic
intermediary if any.   The energy which remains, and which is not recorded,
could well go into dark energy, dark matter, quantum fluctuations, higher
dimensions as in string/brane theory, etc.

For all scientists and philosophers, whether in physical or behavior or life
or social sciences, the above models represent the first time that
probability-statistics has experienced a basic change of axioms analogously
to Euclidean Geometry's change to Non-Euclidean Geometry by changing one
postulate (the Parallel Postulate).   In the case of probability-statistics,
I changed Bayesian (conditional) probability's division of probabilities,
the mainstream method of analyzing dependence of events, to subtraction of
probabilities, and it turned out that Bayesian probability results apply to
P events and the new subtraction results (called Logic-Based Probability or
LBP) apply to L/RP events.   A third type of probability applies to G
events, namely Independent Probability-Statistics.

In place of *Live Long and Prosper*, I will close by *Learn Long and Change
Axioms After Learning*.   Hopefully the rest will eventually follow.

Osher Doctorow

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager