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:

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

From:

Osher Doctorow <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

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

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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