The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11989
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:04 pm

roydop wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:04 pm
If one were to produce the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would that be? ...
Darwin's.

But knock yourself out, https://www.slideshare.net/fer.reche/ma ... -evolution

roydop
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by roydop » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:14 pm

That's a description of evolution. I'm not questioning how evolution works. A model is different.
Does all of that information include humanity being the cause of it's own, and possibly all life on earth? Does Darwins theory possess any predictive qualities?


This is so obvious people.

If one wished to design the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would it be?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11989
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:36 pm

Did you not read the link? If not why do you think you have simpler models than those?

Or maybe you're using the term "evolution" to not mean "Evolution"?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5038
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:02 pm

roydop wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:51 pm
roydop wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:04 pm
If one were to produce the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would that be?

Would it not be the number system?

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Each progressive number arises from the "base" provided by the previous numbers, just as the emergence of a new species arises from the base of the source species, all the way back.

There is a tendency to overthink/overcomplicate this. Remember, the query is: What is the simplest model of the process of evolution?
Yeah, you are on track, I will create a thread on this. All evolution is: "variation" which occurs through all linearly observed phenomena where in progressing past there origins (ie the number line in this case) and inherent "multiplicity" occurs.
Sounds like you know what you're talking about. I have been waiting for someone to validate and confirm this for a long time. Even my good friend, who has a PhD (literally) in biology wouldn't confirm this for me. Maybe because I laid out the whole wacky theory at once and she didn't want to give me a starting point.

I need this confirmed, as a large part of my theory is based on the premise that 1-9 could be interpreted as a model of evolution. Even better if it were to be proved that it is the simplest model possible of the process of evolution. I intuit it is. One that could be still interpreted by a certain level of sentience as relating to evolution.
"Vortex mathematics" is a beginning field and is controversial but is grounded in the 1-9 nature of numbers as quantities and qualities. Why it is controversial can be explained with the following:


The problem of "evolution" is well "evolution", as this applies to the variations of one "science to many". So when dealing with number's as a foundational platform for dealing with evolution, going to a branch science such as "biology" causes a "language game" to occur as the evolution of the sciences cause a paradoxical multiplicity of not just "sciences" but effectively the grounding "language". This "game" applies as it seperates into religion, math, psychology, etc.

Evolution applies directly to the nature of language itself, to back this point up further.

Using a simple dictionary one is left with a word progressing to another word progressing to another word, etc. One word effectively multiplies into not just an infinite set of continuums but is grounded in the multiplicity of words which define it.

Each word, much line a number, is fundamentally a continuum composed of further continuums; hence each word in and of itself has a nature of a "ratio" where the original word represents a "potential unity" and the words which compose it observe the actual "units" which define it.

Observer 1/x is no different than observing Horse/(mammal,animal,equine,etc.).

What is constant about the nature of "evolution" is it's nature of "progression"; hence we are left studying "space" at the roots to give grounding to all of this as this progression necessitates a linear form/function thus necessitating a "universal variable".

Evolution, in dealing with the progression of concepts (as all empirical realities effectively are reduced to concepts as "memories"...I cannot look at a bird without seeing it through the lense of some memory) effectively necessitates the concept as grounding in a "boundary" or "set of boundaries".

In understand the nature of "concept" then, reductivitely, we are left with looking at the most simple concept of "space" being the grounding variable that represents itself through a continual infinite variation but effectively is recursive. A simple axiom, such as a "line" is recursively observed in the structure of not just "buildings" but the "branching" of nature we see in streams, trees, cracks in rocks, etc.

I will ignore "cycles" for now, considering most people are confused at this point.

roydop
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by roydop » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:31 pm

"Vortex mathematics" is a beginning field and is controversial but is grounded in the 1-9 nature of numbers as quantities and qualities.
Why does 1-9 have to relate to any other system? Why can't it relate directly to the consciousness engaged in it? Similarities may be due to the same fundamental process running in parallel, directly to consciousness and concluding there.
causes a "language game" to occur as the evolution of the sciences cause a paradoxical multiplicity of not just "sciences" but effectively the grounding "language". This "game" applies as it seperates into religion, math, psychology, etc.


Why does it separate? At the core of every major system of thought are uncanny similarities:

Hindism: Brahman - Atman
Christianity: God - Jesus
Taoism: Tao - Yin/Yang Tao = "That which cannot be described."
Cosmology: ? - Singularity
numbers: 0 - 1

Each of these systems begin with this primal relationship of the Absolute being represented by the relative. These are all manifestations/models of the fundamental process. If one understands the message there is no need to go any further with investigation. Indeed, further investigation is an indication that the initial information was improperly interpreted. This explains the vast discrepancy at the fringes. They all start out correct but because of successive misinterpretations at each iteration taken to be true. If an initial misinterpretation is taken to be true and the next iteration is based upon that incorrect interpretation, then such a system would evolve into a labyrinth of delusion, thinking all the while that it's "getting closer" when it is in fact getting further away.

roydop
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by roydop » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:33 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:36 pm
Did you not read the link? If not why do you think you have simpler models than those?

Or maybe you're using the term "evolution" to not mean "Evolution"?
That's a description of evolution. I'm not questioning how evolution works. A model is different.
You don't understand this?

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by AlexW » Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:40 am

roydop wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:31 pm
At the core of every major system of thought are uncanny similarities:

Hindism: Brahman - Atman
Christianity: God - Jesus
Taoism: Tao - Yin/Yang Tao = "That which cannot be described."
Cosmology: ? - Singularity
To formulate a description of really anything all one needs is two symbols, e.g. binary code. There is no need for ten different symbols (eg the decimal system).

I think you are looking at this from a more spiritual perspective, so maybe look at it as a tree that has one stem which branches off into exactly two arms, each of these arms again branches into exactly two new arms - now continue this ad infinitum.
Under the surface, beyond the visible aspect of the tree is the "root" - the tree grows from the root, but the root itself is never visible.

Translate this idea into binary numbers:
0 = root (pure being/AM/brahman/absolute/self... etc... you get the drift)
1 = stem ( "I" am -- it is the the primary concept, the root of separation (not separation itself but the foundation for thought made separation) from which all other concepts spring)
10, 11, 100, 101 etc etc... are a repetition of the primary concept interspersed with zeros (root aka "space") which is generating a different (evolutionary?) layout of the primary "I am"/"the original thought" only referencing itself but disguising itself in the (apparently complex) pattern.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5038
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:27 am

AlexW wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:40 am
roydop wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:31 pm
At the core of every major system of thought are uncanny similarities:

Hindism: Brahman - Atman
Christianity: God - Jesus
Taoism: Tao - Yin/Yang Tao = "That which cannot be described."
Cosmology: ? - Singularity
To formulate a description of really anything all one needs is two symbols, e.g. binary code. There is no need for ten different symbols (eg the decimal system).

I think you are looking at this from a more spiritual perspective, so maybe look at it as a tree that has one stem which branches off into exactly two arms, each of these arms again branches into exactly two new arms - now continue this ad infinitum.
Under the surface, beyond the visible aspect of the tree is the "root" - the tree grows from the root, but the root itself is never visible.

Translate this idea into binary numbers:
0 = root (pure being/AM/brahman/absolute/self... etc... you get the drift)
1 = stem ( "I" am -- it is the the primary concept, the root of separation (not separation itself but the foundation for thought made separation) from which all other concepts spring)
10, 11, 100, 101 etc etc... are a repetition of the primary concept interspersed with zeros (root aka "space") which is generating a different (evolutionary?) layout of the primary "I am"/"the original thought" only referencing itself but disguising itself in the (apparently complex) pattern.


The clusters of the numbers (corresponding to symbols) observe all symbols are sets of "interplaying dualisms" necessitating a correspondence in physics to mass (0/void) and volume(1/being) as "density" (being/non-being and 1/0).

Evolution is variation of a phenomena thus necessitating all "symbols" as "densities".

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11989
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:54 am

roydop wrote: You don't understand this?
You still didn't read the link?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11989
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:09 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:... "Vortex mathematics" is a beginning field and is controversial but is grounded in the 1-9 nature of numbers as quantities and qualities. Why it is controversial can be explained with the following: ...
Vortex maths Ask Professor Puzzler
Vortex based math

commonsense
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by commonsense » Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:41 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:04 pm
roydop wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:04 pm
If one were to produce the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would that be? ...
Darwin's.

But knock yourself out, https://www.slideshare.net/fer.reche/ma ... -evolution
Is it possible to view the slides with English subtitles?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11989
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:47 pm

commonsense wrote: Is it possible to view the slides with English subtitles?
Not sure what you mean? If I click on the slide show I see mathematical equations with English titles.

commonsense
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by commonsense » Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:57 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:47 pm
commonsense wrote: Is it possible to view the slides with English subtitles?
Not sure what you mean? If I click on the slide show I see mathematical equations with English titles.
Oh. I cannot run the slideshow at present. I assumed it would be labeled in the same language that appears on the launch page. I'll try dropping my firewall.

PeteJ
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by PeteJ » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:54 pm

“The Tao begot one,
One begot two,
Two begot three,
And three begot the ten thousand things.”

Lao Tsu
Tao Te Ching

I feel only three numbers are needed for evolution, since with 'three' comes complexity.

But i do have a friend who thinks the prime numbers are step-changes in the evolution of the universe.

commonsense
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Number System as a Model of The Process of Evolution

Post by commonsense » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:58 am

roydop wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:51 pm
roydop wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:04 pm
If one were to produce the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would that be?

Would it not be the number system?

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Each progressive number arises from the "base" provided by the previous numbers, just as the emergence of a new species arises from the base of the source species, all the way back.

There is a tendency to overthink/overcomplicate this. Remember, the query is: What is the simplest model of the process of evolution?
Yeah, you are on track, I will create a thread on this. All evolution is: "variation" which occurs through all linearly observed phenomena where in progressing past there origins (ie the number line in this case) and inherent "multiplicity" occurs.
Sounds like you know what you're talking about. I have been waiting for someone to validate and confirm this for a long time. Even my good friend, who has a PhD (literally) in biology wouldn't confirm this for me. Maybe because I laid out the whole wacky theory at once and she didn't want to give me a starting point.

I need this confirmed, as a large part of my theory is based on the premise that 1-9 could be interpreted as a model of evolution. Even better if it were to be proved that it is the simplest model possible of the process of evolution. I intuit it is. One that could be still interpreted by a certain level of sentience as relating to evolution.
At first I concurred with the foregoing. Then I fretted that we may have stopped short of the model we sought.

The number system may be too simple to be a model that represents evolution. Are we accounting for the attributes of 1 that are of sufficient value to be retained by 2 in the process of evolution?

Are you thinking that I am mucking up a simple but adequate model? I’d say that the number line merely shows a progression—an ordered one at that. Where is the random incidence of attributes that are beneficial to survival? Shouldn’t our model be simple but not incomplete in its representation?

Instead of a given number progressing into a different number, I propose that a number must change into another version of itself.

Without any claim to have produced the best simplest model of evolution, I would rather make use of the assignment operator ( = ) from coding languages:

x = x + n where x and n are any numbers > 0

This model allows us to select any genetic parent ( x ) to produce a randomly new genetic offspring ( x + n ). This model is also fairly simple.

But I am only guessing at this. Surely there are problems I’ overlooked. Can you delineate these problems for me?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest