Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in Mathematics by Dr Kedar Joshi PBSSI MRI

Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in Mathematics by Dr Kedar Joshi PBSSI MRI

In this article I address 3 of the 7 millennium problems in mathematics announced by the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI), USA. I propose solutions (not all of which are meant to be conclusive) to the problems using the ideas in Superultramodern Science (SS), which is my foremost creation. (The remaining 4 problems seem to be outside the scope of SS.) It is of utmost importance to note that the nature of the ideas and consequently of the solutions is very radical and it would take painstaking efforts to fully understand and appreciate the solutions proposed. Also it has to be considered that according to Conmathematics (Conceptual Mathematics) : the superultramdoern mathematical science, the superultramodern scientific solutions to the problems are, though apparently philosophical, in fact, mathematical. Virtually all of the 3 problems are such that they demand revolutionary changes in the current (modern/ultramodern) sciences. And SS is thought to be an appropriate change. I shall state the problems exactly as they are stated on the website of the CMI. However, the statements are the ones which are brief and not the ones that are official and descriptive. This choice is out of the revolutionary nature of the solutions which makes it senseless to consider the conventional or orthodox symbolic patterns which essentially make the (official) statements look complicated and descriptive.

1. Yang - Mills Theory
The laws of quantum physics stand to the world of elementary particles in the way that Newton's laws of classical mechanics stand to the macroscopic world. Almost half a century ago, Yang and Mills introduced a remarkable new framework to describe elementary particles using structures that also occur in geometry. Quantum Yang-Mills theory is now the foundation of most of elementary particle theory, and its predictions have been tested at many experimental laboratories, but its mathematical foundation is still unclear. The successful use of Yang-Mills theory to describe the strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property called the "mass gap:" the quantum particles have positive masses, even though the classical waves travel at the speed of light. This property has been discovered by physicists from experiment and confirmed by computer simulations, but it still has not been understood from a theoretical point of view. Progress in establishing the existence of the Yang-Mills theory and a mass gap and will require the introduction of fundamental new ideas both in physics and in mathematics.

SS solution :
I suppose that light, for example, is a classical wave and photon, for example, is a quantum particle. Its an assumption in modern/ultramodern science (relativity theory) that no massive entity travels at (or above) the speed of light. From the Superultramodern Scientific perspective [in particular, the NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process) theoretical perspective] space is a form of illusion, mass is bulk or quantity of matter, wave and particle are two conceptually distinct entities existing in the form of non-spatial states of consciousness/feelings. To sum up, wave -particle behaviour is an orderly governed illusion where the massive quantum particles do not really travel in space but are presented at the time of wave collapse.

2. Poincare Conjecture
If we stretch a rubber band around the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking either the rubber band or the doughnut. We say the surface of the apple is "simply connected," but that the surface of the doughnut is not. Poincar, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked the corresponding question for the three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from the origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since.

SS solution :
According to the Joshian conjecture in Superultramdoern Science (SS), that space has 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions, the concept of three dimensional sphere (and consequently Poincare conjecture itself) is absurd.

3. P vs NP
Suppose that you are organizing housing accommodations for a group of four hundred university students. Space is limited and only one hundred of the students will receive places in the dormitory. To complicate matters, the Dean has provided you with a list of pairs of incompatible students, and requested that no pair from this list appear in your final choice. This is an example of what computer scientists call an NP-problem, since it is easy to check if a given choice of one hundred students proposed by a coworker is satisfactory (i.e., no pair from taken from your coworker's list also appears on the list from the Dean's office), however the task of generating such a list from scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical. Indeed, the total number of ways of choosing one hundred students from the four hundred applicants is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe! Thus no future civilization could ever hope to build a supercomputer capable of solving the problem by brute force; that is, by checking every possible combination of 100 students. However, this apparent difficulty may only reflect the lack of ingenuity of your programmer. In fact, one of the outstanding problems in computer science is determining whether questions exist whose answer can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure. Problems like the one listed above certainly seem to be of this kind, but so far no one has managed to prove that any of them really are so hard as they appear, i.e., that there really is no feasible way to generate an answer with the help of a computer. Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin formulated the P (i.e., easy to find) versus NP (i.e., easy to check) problem independently in 1971.

SS solution :
According to the NSTP theory, one of the major of components of SS, all problems which, in principle, have answers are, in fact, P problems. This implication is based on the idea of the non - spatial superhuman computer that takes zero time to process information.


About the Author
Creator of Superultramodern Science (SS)

Disproves God... by Terry Dashner

Disproves God... by Terry Dashner

Disproves God

Terry DashnerFaith Fellowship Church PO Box 1586 Broken Arrow, OK 74013

Can scientific discovery disprove God? If that question seems awkward, let me state it like this: Does science prove Gods existence? If science can, then scientific discovery is higher, superior to God. Or in the words of the 19th century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, God is dead and since He is dead, live like it. Everything goes.

Before I get carried away in thought, let me make this thesis statement. The purpose of scientific discovery is not to prove or disprove God, but to expand knowledge. St Thomas Aquinas, the most brilliant man to live between the time of Aristotle and Descartes, talked about reason and faith. One does not contradict the other because both are from God. Not only is Christ the beginning and the end of our faith, but the Bible declares that every good and perfect gift comes from God. Knowledge is good; therefore it comes from God. Human reason can lead us far in this life, and well it should. Then again, faith can take us above all earthly knowledge into the courtyards of God. When my understanding breaks down, I can always advance forward by my faith in God.

Are you hearing me? One of my favorite authors, and I have many, is Peter Kreeft. He is an intelligent philosopher who teaches philosophy at Boston College, I believe. He writes wonderful books about philosophy and faith and I buy everyone of them. (Some of them I read often.) Peter, in his book entitled, Your Questions Gods Answers, writes the following words of interest. But do not let yourself be intimidated by atheists who claim that science disproves God. That is like claiming that studying Shakespeares plays disproves Shakespeare. If there were no God, there would be no science, because there would be no world for science to know.

Likewise, belief in science does not contradict belief in miracles. Science studies the way things usually work in the world, and it formulates laws to express these ways. Miracles are exceptions to these laws, but miracles presuppose these laws. If there were no scientific laws, there would be no sense in calling anything a miracle.

Exceptions to a law do not disprove the law. Suppose the President pardons a criminal. The laws of the court still hold, but the President adds something else from outside. The laws of the court are like the laws of science, and the Presidential pardon is like a miracle.

Suppose your employer gives you extra money for Christmas, over and above your paycheck. That does not disprove your contract, which tells you how much you usually get in your paycheck; it just adds to it. That is what a miracle does.

If there is a God, there can be miracles. If there is no God, there can be no miracles, because there is no one who has the supernatural power to do them.

God created the world by intelligent design. That is why science is possible. It is no accident that science arose in the West, which believed in the doctrine of the Creation, not in the Orient, which did not. Most of the great scientists in history have been Jews, Christians and Muslims, because these three religions believe that the world is created, therefore intelligently designed, ordered. Science and religions are allies, not enemies.

My friends, I cant say it any better than that. Thats why I quoted Professor Kreeft heavily, word for word. Keep the faith. Stay the course. Jesus is coming soon. All the signs of creation point to this fact.

Blessed, Pastor T.dash..


About the Author
A pastor.

Silicon Awakes by Charles Douglas Wehner

Silicon Awakes by Charles Douglas Wehner

I have taught many things to idiots. I showed them how to calculate sines and cosines (http;//wehner.org/fpoint ), how to make animate pictures (http://www.wehner.org/tools/animate ) and 3D (http://wehner.org/tools/anna ).

The idiots were made of STONE.

Yes - they were silicon chips. They were "Central Processing Units" (CPUs). They were so dumb that they gave me no help. They just sat there waiting for me to tell them what to do - and I had to understand the procedures down to the finest detail in order to teach them.

If I told them wrong, they would obediently follow the wrong instruction. Then the computer would "hang", or do crazy things.

So I learned patience.

Given enough understanding, there is virtually nothing you cannot do with silicon. In the future there may be other semiconductors - possibly boron trinitride - but for now, silicon is king.

The methods used on one kind of semiconductor, however, will be valid for all time. It is not the details of the program on a specific chip that are important, but the ideas behind them.

Inevitably, we analyse our own minds as we work. We have to learn to distinguish belief from knowledge. Belief is a "feeling" in what Freud called the "Preconscious" (Vorbewutsein). Knowledge is the set of solid ideas that have been tested and proven over and over again.

One cannot program a "conscious mind" into a silicon chip, when one only has a "feeling" of what a conscious mind is.

Mohammed ibn Musa abu Jafar al Khwarismi wrote a book. He said that numbers are made of parts, and can be divided into their parts... and so he went on. It was an excruciatingly slow process of reasoning - designed to avoid errors or omissions. It became a style known as "Al-Kwarisms".

According to Professor Donald E. Knuth, European professors with their European accents were teaching in the States. The students thought they were saying "ALGORITHM" - and a new technical term was born in 1956.

You need an "algorithm" when you want silicon to come to life. You need to think like a Greek philosopher - to question the nature of "me". You need to distill the very essence of awareness from your knowledge of the world. Unless you find it - and unless the finding is TRUE - you will never reach the point of rousing the silicon imbecile.

I spent my life conjecturing about the nature of conscious life. The new revolution of data theory helped me. Computers became abundant, and information technology was going into realms like the neural net. As we learned about silicon, we also learned about ourselves.

I considered that we have just one-and-a-half kilogrammes (about three pounds) of brain. All the data of our lives is stored inside it. There must be data compression.

My studies showed that there are mechanisms that refine the data from the eyes (http://wehner.org/3d ) and from the ears (http://wehner.org/honk ).
There are mechanical things like the basilar membrane, and neurological things like the auditory and visual cortices. That means that the brain is being fed with refined data.

With the help of Martin Wilsher, I had also updated Aristotle's five senses. There are, in fact SEVEN senses - as told on the page about the honky-tonk piano (last page mentioned above).

What goes on BEYOND the data-refinement? What happens when data - generically - is being analysed?

I found a new variant on DIFFERENTIATION. It is not a mathematical process. It is a LOGICAL process. It is the logical parallel of the calculus. I call it the new calculus of sets.

This process - DIFFERATION - seeks out anything NEW. New data cannot be compressed. It is passed on unchanged.

Old data can be defined by a coding system which states that it has been seen before. In the BINARY calculus of sets, if TWO old sets of data repeat, they become ONE new set. So the amount of data shrinks whilst the data is flowing in.

If the two sets are of the same size, sixty-four items may become thirty-two, which become sixteen, then eight, then four, then two, then one.

This is a phenomenon. It is a sensation in the world of data compression. Never before was there a system that thrives on abundant data, and consumes it with exponentially improving efficiency.

Or perhaps Nature got there first. Perhaps that is how we store our lives in such tiny brains.

However, the compression system is unstable. A tiny change to the data, and a flood of output occurs. It is exactly like the "THETA STORM" of the roused human or animal mind.

On my new page, you can see it all:

http://wehner.org/compress

Bear in mind that patent negotiations are in hand. This information is for academic use only.

Awareness is the awareness of TIME. We can only be aware of time if we have the OPPOSITE to compare it with.

But what is the opposite of time? My studies show that it is STORAGE.

Data that is slipping into the past must be stored. If it is not, it is lost. Data that is flowing in must be compared with stored data.

Thus the conscious mind is the point of analysis - the incoming data in the time domain.

The subconscious is the stored data.

There is a term "heuristic", from the Greek "Heureka, I've found it". The new calculus of sets is the ultimate "heuristic algorithm" because it finds difference generically - without being told what to seek.

Eventually, the machine will become too full to preserve its raw data. It will be forced to "TURN INWARDS UPON ITSELF". It will be obliged to collect again (to "recollect") its memories from the compressed data.

That is the moment when the "ME" is programmed.

I AM the totality of my life. The data in silicon is its sum-total. In the new jargon, future compression must achieve "DIFFERATION BY PARTIAL SUMMARATION", when the machine deciphers its stored data piecemeal for comparison.

But that is elaboration.

For now, the demonstration of "awareness" is just about all that the average audience can fathom.

On that page - http://wehner.org/compress - you see the actress POLLY. Her acting is rather wooden, but she is a wooden horse.

She enters the image "Stage Left", and the "differals" appear. They can be seen to be diminishing in number as she moves. The system is becoming "familiar" with her. However, on the left-hand edge there are always some grey dots of raw data showing that new "EVENTS" are arriving from the left.

Then she stands still, and the number of "differals" shrinks by half, half and half again.

Then she approaches the camera (or does the camera approach her - or does the camera zoom)? The change in scale causes problems for the compression system - which "wakes up" to her presence.

When she has become so close that her face fills the screen, the system again grows "bored". It only wakes up when she starts moving away again.

This is - as stated on that page - the BEDROCK level of awareness. It does not get any more fundamental.

A silicon chip has no feelings. It has no needs - for food, shelter, companionship. It has no philosophy. As stated at the outset, it is an idiot.

So what is the machine "philosophising" about? It is saying "NEW". It is saying "OLD". It is saying that about pictures. It is saying that about sound.

It does not know anything about pictures. It does not know anything about sound. In fact, it does not know anything. However, when fed with bytes it can tell which groups of bytes are new - in the domain of time - and which are not.

What we do with the numbers we receive from the machine is OUR decision. Perhaps, we program a database to recognise faces or sounds. We would call this a RELATIONAL database, because we relate a picture of a horse to the name "Polly". But the system is open-ended.

Because it is so fundamental, it reaches out across the whole world of information technology, offering exciting new advances.

Charles Douglas Wehner

About the Author
Charles Wehner was born in the Isle of Man in 1944. He became a technical author in radar, nucleonics and electronics instrumentation, also a factory manager and design engineer.

He has been professionally involved with computers since 1962.