I was having a discussion today at work related to Quantum Physics and modelling the human brain. It was a good discussion where Brian was explaing his experiences with modelling and representing realities in terms of partial differential equations.
Human brain is a collection of nerves tissues. And they have a very unique way of storing information and retrieving it. Considering the fact that the number of such tissues are in order of billions. But then again as we study more about humans and the way human brain work. Few questions pop up immediately:
1. How does human brain stores information.
2. What is the format in which the information is stored in the brain.
3. How does it relate one information to Other.
4. Why do we remember something which happened long back but forgot something which happened recently.
There are many such questions which can be asked about it. But one of the question which I am very interested (personally) in knowing is how does it relate one form of information to another?
This is my first post to this forum, so rather than coming up with some solution I am throwing questions around :) I guess that's where my strengths lies.
Until next time :)
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Mysticism vs Science
"Physicists do not need mysticism, and Mystics do not need Physics, but humanity needs both." – Fritjof Capra
I think it is important at this point to discuss in an initial manner the role that both science and mysticism play in the quest for semantic application.
As I see it we must make use of both science and mysticism in the pursuit of understanding the underlying reality of meaning.
Science attempts to give meaning and create rules that will allow us to determine and understand the 'absolute' reality.
Mysticism attempts to provide meaning and understanding of the 'absolute' reality but with a more human context. It deals with the deeper meaning to life in the human condition - 'Why are we here' and 'What does it all mean'.
The future development of the concept of quantum semantics is deeply rooted in both lexicons and will require input from both the field of physical science and meta-physical science.
It should be noted that as science pushes the boundaries of determining reality it gets closer and closer to providing the same answers as those pursued by mysticism.
On a historical note it should be pointed out that throughout human history science and mysticism/religion have been deeply intertwined. Many of the greatest scientific thinkers have also delved deeply into the pursuit of religious and mystical thought. It has only been in the last several hundred years that the two have diverged, however it is in the field of quantum mechanics that we see a return to the blending of the two.
As this discussion progresses we will be examining both the science and the mystical element of reality as by merging the two we come closer to gaining an understanding of the 'true' reality - one that is not encumbered by the flawed human interpretation of reality, however one that encompasses the human interpretation as well...
I think it is important at this point to discuss in an initial manner the role that both science and mysticism play in the quest for semantic application.
As I see it we must make use of both science and mysticism in the pursuit of understanding the underlying reality of meaning.
Science attempts to give meaning and create rules that will allow us to determine and understand the 'absolute' reality.
Mysticism attempts to provide meaning and understanding of the 'absolute' reality but with a more human context. It deals with the deeper meaning to life in the human condition - 'Why are we here' and 'What does it all mean'.
The future development of the concept of quantum semantics is deeply rooted in both lexicons and will require input from both the field of physical science and meta-physical science.
It should be noted that as science pushes the boundaries of determining reality it gets closer and closer to providing the same answers as those pursued by mysticism.
On a historical note it should be pointed out that throughout human history science and mysticism/religion have been deeply intertwined. Many of the greatest scientific thinkers have also delved deeply into the pursuit of religious and mystical thought. It has only been in the last several hundred years that the two have diverged, however it is in the field of quantum mechanics that we see a return to the blending of the two.
As this discussion progresses we will be examining both the science and the mystical element of reality as by merging the two we come closer to gaining an understanding of the 'true' reality - one that is not encumbered by the flawed human interpretation of reality, however one that encompasses the human interpretation as well...
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Beauty is truth, truth beauty...
This concept was described by the English poet, Keats (1795-1817) in his poem 'Ode to a Grecian Urn.' One of my favorite poems, it depicts the writer describing the beauty interred in an ancient recepticle. A beauty that is timeless and speaks of the ages past. In our search for true understanding we must delve into the depths of history and language as they share with us a timeless structure of human concepts. We are forever trying to describe and share the meaning of the reality we percieve.
Enjoy....
Ode on a Grecian Urn
THOU still unravish'd bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of Silence and slow Time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
What leaf-fringed legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal—yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unwearièd,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy'd,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy'd,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.
Who are these coming to the sacrifice?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Lead'st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?
What little town by river or sea-shore,
Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,
Is emptied of its folk, this pious morn?
And, little town, thy streets for evermore
Will silent be; and not a soul, to tell
Why thou art desolate, can e'er return.
O Attic shape! fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form! dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
Enjoy....
Ode on a Grecian Urn
THOU still unravish'd bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of Silence and slow Time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
What leaf-fringed legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal—yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unwearièd,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy'd,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy'd,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.
Who are these coming to the sacrifice?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Lead'st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?
What little town by river or sea-shore,
Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,
Is emptied of its folk, this pious morn?
And, little town, thy streets for evermore
Will silent be; and not a soul, to tell
Why thou art desolate, can e'er return.
O Attic shape! fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form! dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously...
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?
Is this just nonsense?
In 1957 Noam Chomsky presented this sentence as a grammatically and syntactically correct sentence. It has all the components of a meaningful sentence and the correct use of language structure... and yet it is clearly a nonsensical statement in standard English language construct.
And this is where the problem lies. In computational terms a machine will interpret such a sentence in its syntax - and yet there can be no meaningful result from it. This is an issue that semantics in the field of information technology must overcome if we are to reach the 'holy grail' of sharing human understood meaning with interpreted meaning of information systems.
In human language it is more that just the words itself that gives meaning. It is the relationships that these words have with others. It is the context in which these words were uttered, to whom they were uttered, how they were uttered, the intent of the utterence and a number of additional elements. If we are to reach a point where we may relate the true meaning of information that will be 'universal' we must look deeply at the concept of linguistics and information transference.
However the problem with this is that languages are constructions of human thought and simply allow humans to give meaning and context to their environment and reality. A prime example of this is the commonly described concept that the Inuit have a multitude of words to relate the meaning of 'snow'. To them the concept of 'snow' is very important - it describes their world and the reality they live in - however in the English based language structure there are many less words that convery the meaning of 'snow'. It is through the use of added language that the English language may be expanded to be as descriptive for particles of frozen water as the Inuit. Thus semantics in the Inuit construct will require far less input to describe the different varieties of 'snow' than would be required in the English language.
Therein lies the problem. How do we cross the barriers of human language structure and convey meaning that may be related, even though they are linguistically miles apart and in languages that do not clearly relate to each other. Some languages can convey the meaning of a simple idea in one word, whereas others require a complex sentence to convey the same meaning.
For 'true' semantics we must overcome the differences in language structures and develop a method of determing what is contextual or relative meaning and what is absolute meaning. This is deeply rooted in the meta-physical concept of Relative Truth vs Absolute Truth - for there are massive differences in the two.
Relative Truth: may be described as human related truth and understanding. It will vary depending on each individual. It is determined by the context of the individual.
Absolute Truth: may be described as the ultimate truth and meaning. It is not rooted in human meaning and has a far deeper underlying structure. The quest of science has been to determine the Absolute Truth - unattached to the relative truth of the individual.
I would describe it thus:
Relative Truth = Human Understanding
Absolute Truth = Universal Law
Is this just nonsense?
In 1957 Noam Chomsky presented this sentence as a grammatically and syntactically correct sentence. It has all the components of a meaningful sentence and the correct use of language structure... and yet it is clearly a nonsensical statement in standard English language construct.
And this is where the problem lies. In computational terms a machine will interpret such a sentence in its syntax - and yet there can be no meaningful result from it. This is an issue that semantics in the field of information technology must overcome if we are to reach the 'holy grail' of sharing human understood meaning with interpreted meaning of information systems.
In human language it is more that just the words itself that gives meaning. It is the relationships that these words have with others. It is the context in which these words were uttered, to whom they were uttered, how they were uttered, the intent of the utterence and a number of additional elements. If we are to reach a point where we may relate the true meaning of information that will be 'universal' we must look deeply at the concept of linguistics and information transference.
However the problem with this is that languages are constructions of human thought and simply allow humans to give meaning and context to their environment and reality. A prime example of this is the commonly described concept that the Inuit have a multitude of words to relate the meaning of 'snow'. To them the concept of 'snow' is very important - it describes their world and the reality they live in - however in the English based language structure there are many less words that convery the meaning of 'snow'. It is through the use of added language that the English language may be expanded to be as descriptive for particles of frozen water as the Inuit. Thus semantics in the Inuit construct will require far less input to describe the different varieties of 'snow' than would be required in the English language.
Therein lies the problem. How do we cross the barriers of human language structure and convey meaning that may be related, even though they are linguistically miles apart and in languages that do not clearly relate to each other. Some languages can convey the meaning of a simple idea in one word, whereas others require a complex sentence to convey the same meaning.
For 'true' semantics we must overcome the differences in language structures and develop a method of determing what is contextual or relative meaning and what is absolute meaning. This is deeply rooted in the meta-physical concept of Relative Truth vs Absolute Truth - for there are massive differences in the two.
Relative Truth: may be described as human related truth and understanding. It will vary depending on each individual. It is determined by the context of the individual.
Absolute Truth: may be described as the ultimate truth and meaning. It is not rooted in human meaning and has a far deeper underlying structure. The quest of science has been to determine the Absolute Truth - unattached to the relative truth of the individual.
I would describe it thus:
Relative Truth = Human Understanding
Absolute Truth = Universal Law
Thursday, September 21, 2006
So why Quantum Semantics?
The concept of Quantum Semantics has been developing between myself and Samir for some time now. In developing our semantic theories we have been discussing the concept of breaking every element down to its smallest atomic particle along the lines of standard atomic theory, however this fails to take into account the 'human' nature of information.
The reasoning behind applying quantum concepts is to take into account the contextual relevance of human perception and meaning. Everyone has their own reality, their own meaning - and it is this unique meaning that needs to be understood to come to an understanding of the greater truth. By applying the concepts of multiple quantum realities we put ourselves in a position to be able to greater understand the mass of realities that exist in the world we live in. It allows us to understand at a deeper level the core underlying constructs that everyone exists within and how these independant realities merge and combine in a greater reality of the wider world.
"Quantum mechanics is a more fundamental theory than Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism, in the sense that it provides accurate and precise descriptions for many phenomena that these "classical" theories simply cannot explain on the atomic and subatomic level" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)
Current thinking on semantics is by my opinion too structured - it attempts to impose meanings on things/information and fails to take into account the inherent complexity of information in relation to individual concepts and personal realities. Even though the quest for true semantics is yet to be achieved i am cautious that by limiting our concepts to straight lines we do not gain a greater understanding of the inter-connectedness of all things and all information. Applying quantum theory to semantics will hopefully allow us to push the boundaries and step outside the square into a world that is a mesh of indivual realities, and hopefully it will allow us to make sense of the myriad of perception and thought that exists in the human consciousness.
The reasoning behind applying quantum concepts is to take into account the contextual relevance of human perception and meaning. Everyone has their own reality, their own meaning - and it is this unique meaning that needs to be understood to come to an understanding of the greater truth. By applying the concepts of multiple quantum realities we put ourselves in a position to be able to greater understand the mass of realities that exist in the world we live in. It allows us to understand at a deeper level the core underlying constructs that everyone exists within and how these independant realities merge and combine in a greater reality of the wider world.
"Quantum mechanics is a more fundamental theory than Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism, in the sense that it provides accurate and precise descriptions for many phenomena that these "classical" theories simply cannot explain on the atomic and subatomic level" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)
Current thinking on semantics is by my opinion too structured - it attempts to impose meanings on things/information and fails to take into account the inherent complexity of information in relation to individual concepts and personal realities. Even though the quest for true semantics is yet to be achieved i am cautious that by limiting our concepts to straight lines we do not gain a greater understanding of the inter-connectedness of all things and all information. Applying quantum theory to semantics will hopefully allow us to push the boundaries and step outside the square into a world that is a mesh of indivual realities, and hopefully it will allow us to make sense of the myriad of perception and thought that exists in the human consciousness.
An brief history of time...
For millenia humanity has been searching for a deeper understanding of reality and the meaning of reality.
Semantics is not a new concept, it is a concept that many of the greatest minds throughout history have pondered and considered.
This blog has been established as a discussion forum to delve further into the deeper meanings of reality and the application of these realities in the modern context.
Semantics is not a new concept, it is a concept that many of the greatest minds throughout history have pondered and considered.
This blog has been established as a discussion forum to delve further into the deeper meanings of reality and the application of these realities in the modern context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)