Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

## 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

#### Options

Subject:

Comparison between Probability-Statistics-Based and Other Theories of the Universe

From:

Date:

Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:28:25 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (112 lines)
 ```From: Osher Doctorow [log in to unmask], Sat. June 22, 2002 12:36PM At first glance this might not look like SVM, but the universe has some surprises left. On http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum today, I posted the equation (in slightly different terminology here): 1) E(G) = PR E(D) - PV E(ND) = (PR F-->) - (PV F<--) where E(G) is expectation of G, G is the growth of the universe (expansion; negative growth would be contraction), R is Rare Events, V is Very Frequent Events, D is Dark Energy, ND is Non-Dark-Energy (energy that is non-Dark), the other E( ) expression are *energy of* , F is force, F--> is repulsive force, F<-- is attractive force. Although the equation is not in general 0, when we set it equal to 0 we get some remarkable results, including: 2) P(R)/P(V) = E(ND)/E(D) = F<-- / F--> According to this, the lower the probability of Rare Events in the universe, with all else constant, the higher the probability of Dark Energy, or with the other factors constant the higher the repulsive (expansion) force of the universe. Let me first of all say that there is no known way to obtain anything similar to such a result by standard non-probability and non-statistics techniques used in physics, astrophysics, astronomy, mathematics, etc. Physicists at the Nobel Prize level have not the faintest idea whether such relationships hold, being almost always adherents of either the quantum-related schools (including the newer String/Brane/Duality/Loop/Knot/Topological Quantum Field Theory schools) or the General Relativity or its generalization schools, in all of which probability-statistics is treated as a remote third cousin. What techniques do they use, if not mainly probability-statistics? They use algebraic topology, algebraic geometry, and field theory techniques, which are characterized by (1) almost no translatability into even roughly ordinary English or other natural verbal language, (2) very little intuitive comprehension even for experts, (3) extreme abstractness rather than a balance between the abstract and concrete or applied worlds, (4) anomalies and paradoxes which require almost continual *repair*, *revision*, etc. Do the non-probability and non-statistics physicists come up with any simple explanatory or causal variables or factors concerning either the microscopic or the macroscopic universe? Using the above techniques, they almost always come up with the conclusion that nothing is really probabilistic and even the *statistical picture* only holds theoretically in an abstract sense or at the most a thought experiment sense which nobody really carries out. Their other conclusions are almost always one of 4 types: (1) everything is discrete and finite (a slight variation is discrete and infinite, where infinite is roughly being used in the sense that somebody forgot to stop counting), (2) everything is a field (this barely translates, and it would take me too long to do it here), (3) everything macroscopic (large) scale is curvature of space(-time), (4) everything is due to string type tension (roughly speaking, how tight the string on a violin is). It should not be thought that non-probability and non-statistics mathematicians tend to be that much better than physicists except in what is called ANALYSIS (real analysis, complex analysis, functional analysis, nonsmooth analysis, differential equations, integral equations, integrodifferential equations). That is roughly speaking calculus and what it becomes and leads to. The algebraists, for example, have tried to create a *spectacular* interdisciplinary field known as Category Theory, the work mostly of Saunders MacLane of U. Chicago and Lawvere (I have forgotten Lawvere's school). By the use of built-in restrictions based on *what most mathematicians believe,* which is roughly Creative Genius By Voting, they manage to limit their interdisciplinarity to just a few disciplines at a time, and never come near to anything like equations (1) or (2). Perhaps I should mention, to clarify this point, that equations (1) and (2) cross 3 branches of fuzzy multivalued logic, 3 branches of probability-statistics, 4 branches of proximity-geometry-topology, mathematical physics, chaos and fractal theories, etc., with almost identically analogous concepts. There is not even remotely any such thing in category theory. What kinds of explanatory or causal variables or factors does probability-statistics in the form that I have used it come up with? I find that frequencies and probabilities of events of 3 major types have very different influences: (1) Rare Events/Processes, (2) Fairly Frequent (Fairly Common) Events/Processes, (3) Very Frequent (Very Common) Events/Processes. I come up with force and energy relationships based on scalar equations (essentially ordinary equations rather than tensor and vector and non-scalar-based equations of the *field* type except for scalar fields). I come up with Growth across both physics and biology as an explanatory variable related to fractals and chaos and Golden Ratios and Harmonic Means and Fibonacci numbers and so on. For example, the solution to the packing problem with growth is the Golden Ratio angle of seeds and buds in botany and is closely related to equations (1) and (2) for physics of the universe. Like Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford in part, I come up with cross-consciousness-memory-perception-radiation- (quantum) entanglement relationships that interpolate between parts of physics and biology and psychology and distinguish them from the matter-oriented parts of physics and computers. I am *ahead of the pack* in Dark Energy, black holes, phase changes, superluminal research (superluminal phase and group velocities have been confirmed, and Professor Nimtz' group at U. Cologne/Koln argues that they also hold for signal/matter velocities), theories of budding off universes and cosmology, etc. I am not *ahead of the pack* in publications, and neither was Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Schubert, Haydn, Leonardo Da Vinci, Pierre De Fermat (he only published one minor work, all his other work being published from letters by and to his friends and acquaintences, despite co-inventing probability theory with Pascal, modern number theory, etc.), Sir Isaac Newton (he totally avoided publishing until Leibniz did and his friends persuaded him to respond to Leibniz), Chopin, Lord Francis Bacon, Socrates. I recommend David Ruelle's little book Chance and Chaos (sometime in the 1990s, as I recall) to anybody who thinks that Mainstream Peer Reviewers are usually friendly to Non-Mainstream authors. The chaos and fractal and entropy people like Ruelle had quite a time getting into print! Osher Doctorow Ph.D. One or More of California State Universities and Community Colleges```