Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Isomorphisms of Hierarchies - Drawers to XML

Hierarchies, Trees, Nesting, Multidimensional Arrays, Drawers

Hierarchies or branches of the single hierarchy ;-) show up when things are organized or categorized. Our folders and files on the computer and indeed Web servers and Web pages are all stored in hierarchies. Any nesting is hierarchies so Universe > Galaxy Cluster > Galaxy > Solar System > Planet > Continent > etc. right down to house > room > dresser > drawer > pant > pocket > material > molecule > atom > electron > quark > string. In life we have trees and most if not all things that grow. Time causes us to choose options that branch before us.

Taxonomy in teaching, invention claims in patents, table of contents in books, classification of animals, etc. All these and more are hierarchical. I would guess that hierarchies are at the root of every domain - each called something different and represented in different ways. So if you recognize a hierarchy in your field, please leave a comment.

Isomorphisms of Hierarchies - From Drawers to XML

In programming, the latest paradigm is Object Oriented Programming (OOP) and this is all hierarchy based and levels are accessed via dot syntax: parent.child. This is how all the latest games that model life are created. In XML, the current standard way in the information age to share data between companies and software is hierarchy based with nodes.

OOP and XML is the cumulation of thought from the most logical people in the world en mass modeling life. This is a mass philosophy born out of trial and error and few people if any think of it this way! Nodism is the synthesis and analysis of this phenomena.

Dan Zen

Sunday, May 4, 2008

On the Equivilancy of Context and Content to Kinetic and Potential Energy



Of the many realizations that have been derived from Nodism, two of the most interesting are the connection between context and content and the potential isomorphism between context and content and kinetic and potential energy.

Simply put, context is the nodes along the branch of the hierarchy above a node and content is everything under or inside the node.

So if we have node zero / red / bikes / Asia / then the context is red bikes in Asia. The content would be all red bikes in Asia. This would be Lain's red bike, a red bike in a store in Bejing, etc. All would have a common denominator of the context.

CONTEXT IS KINETIC
When you refer to a node its context is defined, it has been determined, it is created by this and this and this, it is in the past. Energy goes into defining it. You have arrived at the node and are rolling with the kinetic energy of context.

CONTENT IS POTENTIAL
The content is undefined, it is a series of ors, it could be any one of them only to be determined in the future, we only know if we use up more energy and provide more context. There is the potential to go to any one of the branches. Content is full of potential energy.

CONTEXT + CONTENT = ESSENCE
To define something fully is to move every attribute out of the node and into contextual nodes. This would take all potential energy out and we would reach essence. Contrarily, if we rise up the single hierarchy towards Node Zero, we deplete kinetic energy and gain potential energy.

Node Zero is all potential energy. And reality, the actuality at any moment is all kinetic energy. The energy we are talking about is perhaps the energy of essence or truth or logic.

There is a more complicated aspect to all this and that is the aspect of relevance. Relevance is most likely not going to fall easily under probability but rather move into subjectivity. Subjectivity does bow to probability in the end. There is also the possibility of truth, essence and logic providing a definitive answer - like in the Glass Bead Game by Herman Hess. Relevance is a whole other article.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Article Saying Hierarchy May Be a Fundamental Organizational Principle for Complex Networks

Just found this post in the Kurzweil newsletter...

New technique for extracting hierarchical structure of networks

KurzweilAI.net, May 2, 2008

Santa Fe Institute researchers have demonstrated that many real-world networks can be understood as a hierarchy of modules, where nodes cluster together to form modules, which themselves cluster into larger modules--arrangements similar to the organization of sports players into teams, teams into conferences, and conferences into leagues.

This hierarchical organization can simultaneously explain a number of patterns previously discovered in networks, such as the surprising heterogeneity in the number of connections some nodes have, or the prevalence of triangles in a network diagram.

This result suggests that hierarchy may be a fundamental organizational principle for complex networks.

Santa Fe Institute News Release

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Node Zero is Synonymous With The Big Bang

If time is the medium of branching then node zero of the single hierarchy referred to in Nodism could be synonymous with the beginning of time. We see that every option taken, every possibility turned into reality by the tide of time can be mapped back physically to a time of no time the beginning of time, the big bang.

Now this paragraph needs to be looked at closely. Just before I forget, there is the issue of physical branching. Are things at a microscopic level actually branching in any way. Perhaps if they split up, yes. But when they join, how does this relate to a hierarchy?

When we join two things on the hierarchy, theoretically, we can split the thing in two (at least) and join the first thing under the second thing and the second thing under the first thing. This gets us to a single theoretical hierarchy as envisioned by Nodism. My father and my mother and me. My mother and my father and me.

But what happens in the physical with respect to mixtures, combinations, chaos, etc. This certainly does not seem like a physical hierarchy - but with respect to decisions in time, or movements through time... if time can override feedback, does time override a mixture. Is a combination, when viewed with respect to time (as in, only the present exists type of time), still a physical branching of possibilities and hence, still a physical hierarchy?

This question I continue to approach with thought experiments. It is not easy. It is important. I certainly feel like I am wrong to place everything into a physical hierarchy. I expect there are benefits to placing everything into a theoretical hierarchy (that would be called organization). But would these benefits be greater if indeed the single theoretical hierarchy could be shown to actually be a single physical hierarchy.



The picture above does not appear to be a hierarchy. It is located in many places of a theoretical hierarchy. But what about physically? It is a series of photons or whatever scanning across the monitor. Well that is a time based boolean AND - this and that and that and that. That is a hierarchy. Looking at it smaller than photons, who knows but we will want to know. I suspect that at the most traditional level of understanding, we do not see a hierarchy and therefore, the true physical construction (hierarchy or not) is not really relevant to our appreciation - making the question of whether everything is a physical hierarchy um, silly, cold, overly-reductionist, moot, missing the point, etc.

Life is another question. Growth - is all growth a form of life? Does growth act only within a hierarchy. What about crystalline structures. If they grow in time, which presumably they do, is branching a necessary attribute? This would seem to be a related topic to that of above.

Getting back to the first paragraph, there is also the possibility that we have cycle where the beginning is the collapse of another cycle's end. It is interesting to think that the goal of life is to communicate and eventually in what might seem like an eternity, our forces of organization will consume the entire universe, bringing us closer together for efficient communication until we collapse. This cycle could have been going on forever.

I suspect that the current theory and explanation for time and space say that this is not the correct way to see it. Time and space just did not exist before the big bang is what they say. Non-existence is good for a nice solid node zero. A cycle is more difficult for a node zero as it would have to take another meta step to outside the cycle. Cycles in general - sine waves, etc. pose a challenge to a hierarchical system unless reduced to the micro-time branching explanation (which still needs to be worked out).

I leave you now.

CommentRight comment care tool

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

The Past Holds No OR


When contemplating Nodism, one realizes that siblings in the hierarchy are ORs and children are ANDs. Going across possibilities is an OR statement. Going down deeper and joining attributes is an AND statement.

There are many future possibilities - perhaps infinite number (but not exhaustive) with a set of mysterious probabilities - but the past holds no possibilities. The past holds facts or truth or connections sealed in time. Our perception of the past is rife again with possibilities but that is not the past - just the cusp and curdle of the present as it churns the future into the past.

Think of your files and folders on your computer. You decide to open a folder - that is selecting from an OR statement - selecting from sibling folders. Once you make the choice, that choice becomes history - you are moving down the hierarchy. Your choice cements the start of an AND. Then you choose from folders within that folder - again selecting from siblings. Your choice is again cemented. So now you are in the DanZen / Nodism folder.

It is the benefit of exploring a philosophy that pushes us towards questions like "what happens if we decide to come back out of the Nodism folder? How is traversing a folder structure on our computer related to the hierarchy of life - does the hierarchy hold up?" This also relates to the aspect of feedback which also appears to go against a hierarchy - similarly, the aspect of a Web, etc. The same solution is starting to appear for these - it is a solution that I may have already explained or if not will explain in the future. But the point of this paragraph is to say that if you treat this thought as exploring a philosophy, then you have a duty to complete the thought rather than just leave it standing as an interesting thought.


So once again, you are invited to explore as well - don't worry that the philosophy has a name - that is just a name. It is your thoughts that count. I'll keep adding mine, but yours would be nice too.

CommentRight comment care tool

Friday, June 1, 2007

The Relationship Between Quantum States and Paradigms

Yellow

Quantum states are (if I remember correctly and maybe I don't) are those energy levels or radius of orbit that electrons tend to travel around the nucleus. It may be that the concept of truth is related to these states. In which case things like the Heisenberg Principle, etc. might apply to well, truth, and things that come from truth - like definitions and thought, etc.

In perhaps a related area, Nodism seems to allow for everything to be under every node. I have been working on this lately and may have come up with something a little different than that but regardless, in the searching to see if this is true or what it actually means, we come to the concept of how to organize or order "everything" beneath a node.

So as children, which comes first - is it the most relevant. What does relevance mean? Is it based on reciprocal links - well if all nodes contain everything (again I am now suspecting that this is not the case) then reciprocal links would be equal. Or do the strengths of the reciprical links affect the relevance. Certainly that would make sense but is there a paradox here.

So I have been experimenting with branches containing shades of red, etc. How true is it that this apple is dark red. How much light red is there, etc. There are many things that are subjective but even these might average to a "truth" almost like the electron motion averages to an energy state. Objective values should be easier but we always hear people say that there is no truth. Nothing is set in stone, etc.

Along these lines comes the paradigm and paradigm shifts. This is one of the most interesting concepts that Nodism helps explore. Para means next to so it would imply a sibling. A shift from one embodiment to a next.

One thing that is neat to think about is figuring out where in the single hierarchy of nodism, a paradigm appears. Is it on the edges out along the siblings (in the land of presumed lesser relevance) or does it insert itself between existing parent and children right before our eyes. I expect it could be either.

The "right before our eyes" type of paradigm or invention might arise from prior art pointing in a different direction. Nobody has a rollthrough ad that takes you to a site when you roll over it. The public would not stand for it and thus we have the current paradigm if you will of clicking on an ad. This is an energy state and it appears to be true or at least has been for the last 15 years. But if someone says, hey... I am going to make a rollthrough ad and it will be for a vacuum cleaner that sucks so hard it takes viewers through the ad without clicking or a black hole, or a blind date, or a magnetic personality or a... then suddenly we could have a paradigm shift and roll through ads become "normal" or the current energy state.

This last paragraph harkens to acceptance being part of the paradigm. Not quite sure how important that is. Certainly with respect to marketing, and things like memes that is very important. But we will leave it for another time.

Inventor Dan Zen, reporting what has been on his mind lately... and the post is unedited - sorry if it is difficult.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Nodism Forum Created



After a few happy hello's from new Nodists, it is hoped that a forum might be in order to converse beyond comments. So, a forum has been created at:

http://www.nodism.org/nodismBB2

I feel like I should offer a prize. Okay... Nodists will one day be listed in a branch directly off of Node Zero and we have to order these for presentation. So... the Nodists will be ordered in the order they join the forum. Better get in early ;-)

Love Dan