Neurophysics of Space, Time and Learning | Mayank Mehta

This lecture confirms me that the idea of using Finsler geometry for Brain Structure (my article) is on the right tract. I noticed that one neuron activate about 10 000 others. That is cool, but the essential thing is that there is phase locked polytopes forms on the terminal site. Expecially a triangulations of same phase.

This means one cell can induce spacetime structures on polytopes in Leonardo. Leonardo as Finsler funtion has then two time strctures to model. See article. One is Space (spatial structures) and the other is timing structure of the spreeding spike structure.

There are polytopes in space structure, but different polytopes are connected to phase structure of spikes. Phases measure spatial travelling times and distancies. Interesting thing is the observed triangulation structure sespect to spikes from a source.

Now it is clear to me that observations can be coded by spike trains to specific Phase structures for instance in neocortex. This Structure may be possible to model by Finsler geometry in Space (Active neurons) and Phasetime (same phase neuron respec to original signal).

My opinion is that our thinking uses mainly thios phase structure of signals and our consciousnes is based on that. There are many good reasons to believe so.

Notice how well my fractal induction works here. The same cell or one observation can induce different Connectomes depending synaptic spatial activity and spikes phase activity distributed on brains. There are two geometries on action!

Now I think we have keys to understand Brains coding.

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/tautological_descriptionrelativistic_metaphysics_is_the_theory_of_everything-153304

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/tautological_descriptionrelativistic_metaphysics_is_the_theory_of_everything-153304



Observer has one property that change the conclution. We have to deside how to separate observer and observable or take account self observation of observer and in limit the self obrevation of universe of it self and at least one algorithm is nesessary that can count to parts as existing or not.



If we take attitude that the measurement of self observation of the universe is null (information to us) and self observation of observer is one (observer is real). The observation of total all is realtive to universe and realtive to observer. We count M= 0 + 1 + P - 1. P is the fenomena, P-1 is phenomena exept observer and 0 means there in no information about university, We get M=P. So we never measure the totality.



We can have model L, with two connectomes Q and A. One for observer and one for observable universe (A is all). Still there is the desition to be made by the measurement which is analogue to set of reasoning rules and logics. We have constraints. The observation is allways in content and can not be done outside.



L= P +P(Q+A)P + ....



M= <L|M|L>= PMP + PM(Q+A)P+ ... = PMP + PMQP+PMAP+ (L-P)M(L-P) = 1+P -1=P



P = PMQP+PMAP=P(MQ+MA)P=PM(Q+A)P=M



Mesurement M inteact with phenome Q and Universe A. All interacting paths P  with contact to measurement and connectome are involved.

Message from the Big Bang --'Confirms Quantum Origin of the Universe'

Message from the Big Bang --'Confirms Quantum Origin of the Universe'



Gravity waves were not yet observed. The origin of structures may be in
quantum fluctuations. What was the reason for them? This is the "There
is no resason for that - problem" and so the power of randomness.

Posteriory
pobability of the universe in its all aspects is positive in any
scenario of sigma algebras. Likelihood of something is not smooth with
any smooth appriory probability.

This means it is the likehood of
the universe that fluctuates. This is hard to casp, because there is no
observables experimental values to expres likelihood.



So the
likelihood is complex. So the universe is quantum with complex wave
function.

This was easiest prove for the quantum origin of the universe I have invented.

The Theory Of Everything Is Not Empirical Science

The Theory Of Everything Is Not Empirical Science



This argumentation that theory of everything leave no room for falsification is odd in sence that we may take a partial version of the theory and test it and have an approximation of the theory.

Then if we take the full theory then there is no room for falsify observatio from OUTSIDE the theory. Of cause any test may take false results. And if the reason is that some aspect of the theory is false then the theory is false.

False theory is wrong, but it may not nesessary be bad theory, beacuse it may contain hints where to prove and make a better theory.

The hidden cap is in the expression force of languages and on concepts we can use. Some may say that we cannot formulate all the questions with restricted cabability to understand and formulate infinite propositions. Then we are on the fields of Orch -OR of Penrose were we rise our consciousness above logical, linguistical and mathematical level. Penrose propose we can solve noncalulable problems.

TOE may be not testable. This reminds it is a Gödelian nonprovable truth, but our consciousness may be omnipotent and state the theory and rise the prove to higher believe system such like religions take the final answer responsibility to the God.

After a century of relativity, a new view of gravity - opinion - 03 January 2015 - New Scientist

After a century of relativity, a new view of gravity - opinion - 03 January 2015 - New Scientist



Worth reading article.

Kvanttigravitaatio

Kirjoitin jutun ja julkaisin sen : https://twitter.com/ZuRisto/status/549205607967117312.

Juttu kertoo periaatteista, miten laaditaan painovoimaa ja kvanttiteoriaa yhdistävä teoria rakenne mallia varioimalla ja sallittuja polkuja algebrallisesti rajoittamalla. Ajatus on yksinkertainen, mutta jokainen yksittäinen malli, joka näin laaditaan on haastavaa matematiikkaa.

http://zuristo.tumblr.com/post/106356145589/how-to-unify-quantum-mechanics-and-general

Piste ja polku ovat yksinkertaisia käsitteitä, mutta kysymys siitä miten pisteitä voidaan sijoittaa eri tavoin tai piirtää pisteille verkosto (konnektomi) on haastava kysymys. Kohde, josta on kyse on nimeltään hypergraafi.

Hypergaafin pisteitä ja viivoja voidaan värittää. Sanon näitä värejä ominaisuuksiksi. Pisteet voivat olla usean värisiä, kirjavia ja viivat voivat olla moniraidallisia ja eri väriä. Tietty väri voi muodostaa erilaisen verkoston ja kuvata eri asian mallia, kuin jokin toinen väri.

Näin voi samoilla pisteillä ja viivoilla kuvata eri ilmiöitä, vaikkapa kvanttimekaanista ilmiötä ja painovoimaa. Yhdistetty teoria on yksinkertaisesti tässä tapauksessa kaksi värinen hypergraafi, joissa on sekä kirjavia ja yksi värisiä osia. Yksi väriset osat ovat niillä mallin alueilla, joissa vain toinen teorioista toimii.

Painovoimalla voin värittää vain kausaalisesti toisiinsa liittyviä pisteitä, sillä yhteys on rajattu niiden pisteiden kesken, jotka ehtivät välittää tiedon toisilleen, koska valo ja informaatio yleensä kulkevat korkeintaan valon nopeudella.

Silloin kun kahden tai useamman pisteen välillä on kvanttikietoutunut polku, niin tieto olemassa olosta on välitön. Näin syntyy kuvaamani kvanttigravitaatioverkosto, joka mallintaa kvantti- ja gravitaatio vuorovaikutukset.

Kvanttikietoutunut polku (quantum entanglement) on yhteys kietoutuneinen kvanttitilojen välillä. Kvanttitila voidaan usein mitata ja paikallistaa suhteellisen tarkasti (Heisenberg). Kietoutuneista tiloista tiedetään toinen tila varmasti, vaikka mitataan vain toinen kietotutuneista tiloista. Saatu tieto on totta heti riippumatta kuinka kaukana toinen tila sijaitsee. Tämä näyttää paradoksilta, sillä tieto siirtyy korkeintaan valon nopeudella. 

Connectomin avulla paradoksia ei ole, sillä riittää, että tilojen välillä on rinnakkaisuus (adjacency) ominaisuus. Tilat ovat aina rinnakkain riippumatta miten kaukana ne ovat. Tämä merkitsee sitä, että rinnakkaisuus ei ole avaruuden ominaisuus, vaan riippumaton vapaus aste.

Kehittelen mallintamismenetelmää edelleen. Työn alla on solmuteorian rakentaminen kaiken teorian mallistani.

What is the truth in science?

Look at http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiability_and_the_integrity_of_physics-151714 and then consider my point of view.

There is triple truth requirement in science. First the models used must be among the atlas that cover the reality with well understood demarcation lines between different theories. That is math in the theory must be correct.

Second the measurement model used with physical model must be consistent and the limitations on measurement model must be respected. You should decide right math with right devices you use for measurement. Understand your devices.

Now you have two models physical model and measurement model. But it is not enough. You have to have model for gathering information and making predictions and inference. You need mixed model of experimental results and analysing statistical model, for instance Bayesian inference method.

As a result you can have only approximation of the true value you are looking in experiments.

This interaction of tree theories is a loop or a proses. Form some argument you can improve the result, the theory and the devices and methods of experiment.

The subjective truth is in what you believe you have find. You can be sure, but the others try to confess that you are not right yet.

The truth as we understand it may not lie on lose ground. This is our forth model we have to use. The logic is a theory and some of them are incomplete and we have some unknown reason to believe to unprovable truths.

Science want to limit it methods to provable logics that are independent about the observer who proved. That is a challenge.