The Third Millennium Blog

Third Millennium Thought

Reality in Three Paradigms

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

Three Paradigms

Do you want to know if all the reality of our universe, our existence, is causatively bound by the strict, exclusive  determinism of natural laws – exclusively?  If strict determinism is the final causality and the future is determined to every finest detail, then  probability, any human decision making, and free will are false illusions.  Every thing of unique importance  to us as humans – love, family, hope religion, belief is false. Strict determinism has been and is – a position of many top people in pure science, philosophy of science, and related fields.

If strict determinism is the first paradigm but scientific findings have proven the limits of strict, exclusive determinism, then the good news is that a Second Paradigm that also includes emergence and self organization as valid, with additional causality. We now have a science-based view that is more comprehensive and it explains the world we know. Strict Determinism has been successfully challenged as exclusive by experiments with supporting mathematical predictive models. This is an evaluation of three different ways of looking at these ultimate questions – three paradigms. 

First the Deductive Logic of Determinism has to be defined as separate from the logic of Emergence dependent on Inductive Logic.

Deductive Logic vs Inductive Logic

Deductive Logic supports the causality of strict, exclusive determinism. The deterministic, pure science knowledge of causality depends and is advanced by deductive logic. The causality resulting from emergent agency is supported and advanced by inductive logic. We need to understand the difference in these logical approaches.

By the way, the Strict Determinist never made any inroads into the studies based on emergent causality -Psychology, Consciousness, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.  What are the standardized elements? What are the formulas?

There are formulas in areas that have emergent causality that are derived by mathematical technique and back-engineering measurement of what is observed – Inductive Logic – to produce a formula for best curve fit or just correlation . I can make up a list of x,y pairs with no actual causality and submit it to the Curve Fit program and it will yield a selection of curve fits with parameters and I can select the best curve fit offered – eg a parabola vs a normal probability. I can also pick an X factor by random and a y factor by random and compute correlation. Neither of these results has any deductive validity. You can not directly establish causality or have valid concurrence by correlation alone. When there are no standard, defined units and concurrence to expected outcomes, then there is no deductive validity.

1. Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic – Science based on formulas and deductive logic (Physics, Astronomy, Electronics, etc) these have strictly defined and measurable parameters (mass, time, velocity) and formulas that always work precisely with proper input. they are supported by valid, deductive logic.

Deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain or sound conclusion.

Arguments in deductive logic are either valid or invalid. Invalid arguments are always unsound. Valid arguments are sound only if the premises they are based upon are true.

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false – in any single case. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. All the laws of motion, for example, are the result of deductive logic. Every apple must fall out of the tree. No apples should fall upwards.

Versus

2. Inductive Reasoning or Inductive Logic – Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation. It may be triggered by a guess or a hunch but it starts with “what do I see”. By using inductive logic these sciences help us understand the principles of causality behind emergent phenomena. Here – we use statistics, correlation and analysis, and where possible, the same tools as pure science. This is most obvious in the behavioral and life sciences: Psychology, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.). The difference is there are no exactly defined variables and no formulas. This is noted and valid as a criticism of evolution by Dr. David Berlinsky on U-Tube. Evolution is supported by inductive reasoning. It is not supported by the Deductive proofs provided by strict definition of measurables and formulas.

 

Inductive reasoning, also called induction or bottom-up logic, constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. In the end it establishes truth the same as deductive reasoning. The certitude and concurrence are often not as obvious but when it is right, the truth is that the causality is from emergence and complexity and not from sole determinism.

Here is a spectacular example: We observe life – all its levels of organization, complexity, expanding functions and new areas of dominance. Life also progresses in the logical and mental sphere: culture, invention, conquest of environments, consciousness, beliefs, philosophy, science. None – of this is gets final concurrence from the deterministic formulas, details, exact measurements. Those are the necessary, limiting tools of deductive reasoning – pure science validating by deductive logic. None! Hard limits! The advance of evolution is not supported by any laws of physics – because it is Emergent.

Arguments in inductive reasoning are either strong or weak. Weak arguments are always uncogent. Strong arguments are cogent only if the premises they are based upon are true. An example of inductive logic: In Cultural Anthropology we can analyze the factors and results of an achievement society vs a ascription society. Using this insight – example –  Modern Capitalism vs Medieval Birthright – we can predict a set of characteristics that transcend many societies across geography and time. This does not come out of deductive logic and is only generally true or valid. We can enhance insight and progress to further advances by using statistics – in an approximate way. Notice there is no exactly defined units and no universally applicable formulas.

The need of science to move past the limits of deductive logic and recognize the science of emergent phenomena.

The science supported by inductive logic, by definition and method is not validated by deductive logic. At the highest level of logic and the broad standards of science, truth must be addressed in all its forms.  it is flatly unscientific to ignore observed reality because of the limits of the deductive approach. Can science ignore emergence and emergent processes and platforms because of the limits of deductive logic?  There is a seemingly unlimited amount of processes that are seen and addressed by inductive logic. Is it scientific to ignore the known basis and mathematics of emergence and, instead, pretend that pure, deductive, deterministic science is making steady progress in the vast emergence arena? It is not and That is not science, it is ideology and more religious-like than science. The advance of evolution is not supported by any laws of physics – because it is Emergent.

Paradigms.

My use of “paradigm” in the philosophical, logical, and scientific sense is its use at the highest level of abstraction.

The First Paradigm is Determinism

Determinism: Scientist observe, then postulate formulas for natural states and processes like force of gravitational attractions of two bodies:

eg: F = g[ m1m2] / r2. This is one of Kepler’s laws of motion.

The terms are defined, F = Force, m1, m2 = 2 masses, r = distance -.

It reduces (reductionism) a huge number of trials and future parameters to strict prediction and a mathematical algorithm or formula with consistent concurrence.  It, then, is considered a law of motion. It conforms with the rules of Deductive Reasoning (see below) or deductive logic. It is valid and is always true as defined. In fact, to be deductively valid it must be always true. The nature of these laws is more than reductionism. Their resultant effects can be combined and applied to new processes, combinations and ranges as in the case of landing men on the moon.

Strict Determinism or Total Determinism:  From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s demon was the first published articulation of  scientific strict determinism by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814. According to strict determinism, if someone – a super intelligence – in his example: “La Place’s demon” captures all information –  knows the precise location and momentum of every atom, energy state, or sub-particle in the universe, and their past and future values for any given time are entrapped – ie rigidly, exactly predictable. Laplace and others were absorbing and extrapolating this universal principle from a  large wave of advances in Classical Mechanics in the 17th and 18th century –  that could, for instance, predict the future movements of all the heavenly bodies indefinitely into the future –  limited only by the knowledge and accuracy of the starting state – of all parameters. The expansion of proven scientific laws just kept coming most notably by Kepler’s laws planetary motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion . By the extrapolation of present and expected future discovery of all pure science states and processes, the future of everything can be calculated from the laws like classical mechanics. Strict determinism assumes that there is no other causality.

The theoretical result of  strict determinism is a complete, unitary view of a universe that is a machine (“clockwork universe”)that progresses from an early state to one outcome for all future time .  The outcome cannot be altered. In this view all reality viewed across all time – first to last moment – is one timeline  with no branches – it is like one motion picture and there was never any chance of any outcome or any variation in-between. This universe does not allow choice, real chance or any other agency such as free will or independent causality. Free will, chance, probability are all an illusion caused by our lack of knowledge.

I ways anticipated that this way of restricted thinking could not explain all  causative reality.

 

The Second Paradigm is Determinism  – co-existent with – emergence and self organization 

The second paradigm is a universe with the reality of causality of the first paradigm: determinism and also- additional causality that is not deterministic. Examples are many and exhibit their own causality over a huge spectrum that was never addressed by determinism because there was never deductive logic (see below) that explained their causative mechanisms:  water going down a drain from a basin, weather with certain conditions approaching chaos, life, consciousness – determinism is initially indifferent and then there is the emergence of self organization. We typically experience this on a much larger scale. eg:  a whirlpool in a sink or a hurricane) the entire taxonomy of life.

I will shorten – “emergent self organization from chaos” – to simply – “emergence” for brevity. In this paradigm emergence does not contradict determinism (that would be magic). It is additional causality. The second Paradigm is a combination of the First Paradigm and Emergence. Focus on the fact that these forms of additional causality are just additional causality.  Determinism and emergence are both independent and entwined. They do not operate like a two-state light switch that switches to one state and then the other. Even in dominantly deterministic processes there can be a resultant mix of two or more deterministic causal factors with a resultant outcome.

Emergence

Complexity Theory: the theory that processes having a large number of seemingly independent agents can spontaneously order themselves into a coherent system or structure or even entirely new platforms. (see Platforms below). The starting deterministic causality may be on the molecular level and the emergence of a structure may be on an immense level – 100’s of miles. A dripping faucet may drip deterministically in an exact period. Driven by a higher input a random, unpredictable  output may emerge. Some forms of emergence are always present like the thermodynamic structures in weather patterns. Some are like a one in a octillion long shot when some mix of organic proteins evolved both gradually  – over billions of years. This was punctuated by sudden, quantum jumps into a fully coded replication process – RNA DNA, multi-cellular.

Examples of structures: whirligig, tornado, hurricane, ocean wave system, DNA, life, consciousness.

The mixing of many causative factors with a resultant outcome applies to factors that are strictly deterministic with factors that are emergent because of emergence – complexity.  The more we find out about emergence, the more we discover that the two (determinism and emergence -operating at the same time is more common. (Maybe always).

Consider determinism and emergence where emergent complexity has the additional causality of emergent, self organized, output or process that are separate but do not in any way contradict determinism. What are the problems in strict determinism where some processes have outputs that are invalid by the measure of deductive logic?  What is the criteria for exclusive determinism to be logically deemed invalid in these cases?

Where do we see emergence that is not deterministic by using deductive logic processes or standards.

When I was taking Physics 101, I remember learning about Laplace’s conjecture and I thought about wind over water causing waves. The deterministic thermodynamic laws governing water are at the lowest molecular level.  Because they are, initially driven in all directions, approaching randomness. The surface has a directional energy input but this would only directly support flattening. This is not a workable plan for the distribution of energy at some higher level of energy input.

The equilibrium state, if enough external energy is applied (wind), the result, is not a flattened sameness  but may be, for example, be a 50ft height wave pattern.  This may repeat for 100’s of miles. Where did the larger pattern come from? I know at the thermodynamic level there is a chance variance but it does not explain what emerges. First there is no relationship that can relate a molecule by molecule study to the structure we see. Any deterministic thermodynamic analysis at this smallest level can only be addressed by probability. Wait – probability then this is not deterministic. Also there is no immediate or scientific causality for a 50ft. amplitude and a 200 ft. period and a three hundred mile reach. Determinism is a boundary but does not explain (causatively)  the structure. The different scales are in the order of magnitude of 10 to the 30th. The dispersion of energy imbalance is effected with greater efficiency than if the approach toward randomness had persisted.

Many years later when I heard about Complexity Theory  and self-ordering systems in the books Chaos and later, Complexity, I had recognition, but no surprise. You see – anyone who wants to analyze deep and follow their own questions may get some insight. In Chaos we see a mathematical model that support chaos as the door to self-ordering systems. Validated papers such as  Period Three Implies Chaos; Tien-Yien Li; James A. Yorke
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 82, No. 10. (Dec., 1975), pp. 985-992. This establishes a mathematical proof that certain processes can output results that vary unpredictably into infinity.  There is also the mathematical discovery of fractals with infinite perimeter that demonstrate that a phase diagram (x and y coordinates that show basic properties such as angle and velocity) can show chaos that can not be deterministic. These mathematical patterns are structural to physical reality. Mathematical algorithms like helixes are used as emergent solutions.

This is a difficult subject to explain so I will refer to my own doubts and readings in places like the book Chaos or the internet presentation  Chaos: The Science of the Butterfly Effect

by Derek Muller  This is a good source to explain the topic.

One of the breakthroughs seems to be that Lorenz discovered how to calculate a phase space simulation that was totally sensitive to input parameters for prediction of weather. the sensitivity to initial conditions is a recurring theme in Chaos Theory. Once again we are talking about sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The discovery of sensitive conditions may have been exhibited by the artifact of limits in the length of input number strings but the essence is that this chaos has the opposite behavior of formulas that are deterministic.

The case against deterministic exclusivity gets stronger in the now obvious cases of chaos/emergence effects. Now there is a new meaning of the butterfly effect. Lorenz’s 3 dimension example of phase space has two attractors resembling the 2 wings of a butterfly and it has a general pattern, of course but; at the detail level it  is inexplicable – and not predictable. Even on the larger scale it is unpredictable why the progression is in one wing or the other as it wanders back and forth. Most tellingly, At 6:40 Derek Muller says “In truth, our system will never revisit the same exact state again.”

At this point you have no chance of deterministic, deductively logical or valid predictability.

The case for exclusive determinism gets worse.

Around 7:30 Derek Muller says, although it wanders in arbitrary, dramatically different path for two trials now matter how far you go out – the path would be the same if you 1. had the number in infinite exactness (impossible) and 2 put in the exact same starting conditions. There is a paradox that disputes this because the lines, in reality, are a continuum and no real-life duplication can keyboard in the needed input as the exact length demands a number of digits that goes to infinity and can have no limit.  Later he concedes this. The exactness required goes to infinity and therefore exceeds all the information in the universe. This contradicts information theory –  reversibility. It does not seem to be even technically deterministic in the real (limited) world.

The case for exclusive determinism is faulted at its foundations – Kepler’s laws of planetary motions.

At 9:09 in the video Derek reveals that even the motions of our planets are essentially chaotic in the long run. After 10’s of millions of years they are on new paths that are not predictable. Remember this was the basis and considered the best case for strict determinism to be all encompassing.

There is another initial and surprising limit in that most students are led to believe that Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion explain the paths of all astronomic bodies with deterministic exactness. This was the solid? cornerstone of La Place’s conjecture. When is there a limit? The shocking answer is when there are THREE bodies. There is a mathematic proof of why this is so. Look it up. One=ok, two=still good. Three – works for a while then complexity enters. The Three Body Problem.

When we see a limiting boundary to the extent of what can be explained by  strict determinism, we can then metaphorically imagine an  empty “frame” and this starts  us to realize there must be a Second Paradigm. Then we learn about emergence and self organization mixed with determinism in positive terms. Beyond the negative case is the spectacular array and spectrum of emergent phenomena at every scale. All the structures at the astronomic level, weather, RNA,  DNA ( a code set!), first cells, multi-cell simple organisms, plants, animals, memory, association, decision, culture, religion, philosophy, political systems.

 

 

Timeline of the evolutionary history of life

The fact that the First and/or Second Paradigms can not explain why anything exists  sets up another “frame”.

The Third Paradigm

The inability of either the first or second paradigm to explain the biggest question – why does anything exist – sets the “frame” for the Third Paradigm.

The attempt to explain why anything exists is a complete failure. 

I watched a segment of the TV Curiosity series that offered to show how they can explain the existence of the universe without a prior cause – without God. Of course, they did not mention the Law of Conservation of Energy or The First Law of Thermodynamics. They did recruit a moderator with peak credibility: Morgan Freeman who has often played God and is a nice man.

At the risk of being perceived as not open minded, I immediately braced for SHAZAM ! I started my timer. Alright – I was a know-it-all and mentally tapped my mental foot.  This magic word does not answer to any analysis or any type of causality. It is how Captain Marvel exploded into his superhero form. A cheap form of Superman’s high gravity evolution story. Just say the word – SHAZAM -. That’s it.

Also, at the set up, as I have seen in similar attempts before, they quickly liquidated the inconvenient existence of time. This is an attempt to foil the obvious, (unavoidable?) question: “what came before?”  They flat-out stated that in this original state – there was no time! How sublime – no minimal tickso no change – no next moment –so no trigger for next moment –  Frozen – alright it is a strain for me to conceive.  This elimination foils any inquisitive mind to wonder the obvious, annoying  repeating question –  “what came before?” So there was only a condition of no time. Got it – no tick – no change – don’t you understand – it’s frozen. Stop asking!: “and before that?…”.

Oh no they can’t say what I think is coming. Yep – – – “AND THEN”   and then?   did you just say “and then” = SHAZAM! “and then” means in the next or later moment in time. You insisted there is no time in your frozen state, not mine. That is what you specified to avoid any “before” questions . Did you think we forgot?  Is this “and then” a teeny tiny tick of no consequence. Well, actually your final claim, if true, would be the biggest tick ever. It is cheaper than SHAZAM and that was ridiculous.

They even have another word that can excuse anything  – “singularity” as if the use of a word, in itself,  is logic. This eliminates all previous science and causality. Well – not to me. A word like this is just a transparent diversion.  “How did the vase get broken Brian?”, “only you were  here” – precocious four year old : “It was a singularity” checkmate – there is no more reason to consider – no agency – no  causality. No validity. Is this cheaper than SHAZAM? It does not matter.

An inconceivable amount of condensed energy in the timeless state waiting to release our Universe of energy:

Kinetic Energy K.E.=1/2×m×v2 –       v   See v needs time.

Potential Energy P.E.=m×g×h          See g is acceleration and needs time.

No time = no energy.

It occurs to me that all this is quite unworthy of scientist. It almost seems like they started with a conclusion and worked (desperately?) backwards. I feel I am challenging someone’s religion.

I will not sum up this presentation. It will bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.

 

 

Progress in Understanding the Causality of Emergent Processes.

Platforms:

The mechanisms developed by emergence have a higher level of design: Once a planform emerges – there is often another, new range, processes and menu of causality available. Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!), first cells, multi-cell simple organisms, plants, animals, memory, association, decision, culture, religion, philosophy, political systems.  Each of these is a construct with new causality. Often they are step-like and each step increases possibilities of new functions.  The elements affecting causality do not have distinct definition or measurable units – mass, displacement, velocity – vs  – good, bad, gods message, innate rights, the “right” philosophy or rules. We can use measurables by making them up and hoping for a good correlation. The  exact, predictive  outcomes can not be explained by the principles of deductive logic. A system of deductive logic for future prediction can not be verified.

Consider, more closely,  what it means to say life is a platform that has it own rules – “Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!)” –  Our DNA has a code set of four proteins that do not correspond to the resultant output proteins and other chemicals structures and process control – some of which are expressed in puberty and beyond 12 yrs later. They are a coded formula and have many processes controllers. As a programmer I see how profound and intelligence-like this is. As a systems analyst, I know a system when I see it. I now see evolution as a system. I know, it uses randomness, but so does a casino and yet there is a system ” the house always wins.” Randomness is exploited within bounds. Recent experiments show a gene pool of organisms keeps continuously improving adaptation and optimization to exploit its environment and it is not an asymptote that somewhat levels but keeps improving. – A system. The intrinsic properties of this system is at a way higher level of abstraction then it’s component deterministic causality. Sometimes the changes are marginal. Other times they are revolutionary. A primitive algae oxygenated the entire earth. Life conquered multi-cell complexity, and developed nerve control and eventually consciousness by deterministic limits.

Given the natures of determinism and emergence there is no chance to deny the existence of free will. PS. we use it every day.

Memory to Consciousness

Since the basis of emergence is a negative,  determinism has no solution to go forward  – chaos is a negative to determinism – chaos is an opportunity for emergence. Determinism, while not contradicted, does not continue with a deductively logical foundation for emergence. In order to progress as scientifically as possible you typically have to start in the middle. Inductive logic starts with observation – simply of what we see. Then you use inductive logic applying all the scientific and mathematical tools you can, to describe source causality and resultant causality. As an example: As a physics student, when I was immersed in  determinism, I thought that no one would ever be able to scientifically define consciousness nor its causative source. I was both right – you can not use deterministic logic – and wrong – use deductive logic and start in the middle.

  • Start with the fact that the first life forms do exist. – Emergence.
  • Primitive life forms, in order to increase in capability needed to store information – memory.
  • Memory enables association.
  • Association links past input, to outcome.
  • A mechanism to change DNA in the direction of better outcome even if it is as crude as discovery by constant changes. This tendency is a fact that is now being studied and measured.
  • Association is needed for survival: to avoid or approach.
  • Reaction behavior is changed
  • Success of new reaction patterns reinforces.
  • For any animal some level of association needs to understand a mental construct such as the physical ability, behavior and, later the personality of a predator.
  • For social animals. there is a need for a level of association to develop a complex mental construct of each of our social group’s individual peers.
  • The construct of each peer needs  our internal model of their uniqueness, generally, or how they react in any situation in order to progress in our relationship or optimize their pecking order or to interact safely or maximize access to food, sex etc.
  • We need to maximize our relationship to them, – to manage how they see us – manipulate?
  • At a higher level of using a construct such as the recognition of a unique personality –  in our planning, we can include an internal model of ourselves.  We see the uniqueness and pattern of ourselves – a self aware and self referential level of consciousness.

Once we had the precursor of the ability to recognize the mind model of our primary relationship we can manage our image and planning by having a construct of ourselves. At this point we can examine our consciousness. Consciousness includes the central command of all the brain’s resources both automatic but, uniquely directed – problem solving and at the highest level – improving image and self improvement.

I am going to post this now because I just keep delaying while I work on it. 

I will continue edits and add conclusions below.

Further Insights and Conclusions – I will add to this ongoing

This is an example of the visible failure of a simple (non-complex) deterministic solution and an emergent solution in the direction of minimizing energy loss in achieving a new equilibrium.

Emergence also consist of the appearance of Structures that are not relatable to the molecule by molecule deterministic forces

Consider: there is an isolated, calm tub of water 400 ft in diameter, 40 ft deep  and the 2 inch drain is pulled. The plan for each molecule is the same – to head towards the drain responding to gravity and weight/pressure.  If we isolate for study – a ring at the same radii of molecules at the same depth they must (as a deterministic, first instant as a rule for each one molecule level) all proceed to the same spot at the same pace with the same driving parameters. All should arrive together with the same priority. At the beginning water transmits the message of increasing back pressure. The need is to move a number of molecules that are several orders of magnitude greater (1000X?) than the capacity of the drain. Anyone who has ever seen a large crowd try to get through a small door knows it will not work.  Deterministic dominant processes have no efficient solution. An  organization is needed and it emerges! I sense all the molecules, as independent agents, that are acting like the parts of a massively parallel analog computer.  Paradoxically, this chaotic mess is solved by triggering the emergence of a Structure on a larger scale – whirlpool.  Often thermodynamic systems that distribute heat imbalances will reach out to the mathematics of the helix to solve heat distribution problems with a minimized energy solution.

Mathematics

  • Mathematics as a “permission” for a physical process to happen as a mechanism of strict, exclusive determinism – eg: The laws of motion. The math and the simple, direct determinism are functionable. Always exact, always dependable. eg: planning a lander on Mars.
  • Mathematics as a limit and a barrier to a physical process to take place as a strict, exclusive, simple deterministic causality. The Mathematics that show limits to simple determinism eg: Three body system. Systems with feedback.
  • Physical system with a large number of agents as  a mathematical  – AI-like – computer for a solution to emerge that is not deterministic. A structure may emerge – eg: waves, Gulf Stream, tornado, El Nino.
  • A platform – life
  • A platform  – with the addition of an evolutionary System . The progression has been both gradual with many small, marginal improvements punctuated by major jumps separated by millions of years. It has a new expansive set of rules/causality.
  • Startling improvements emerge – DNA code stores information, provides variance,  sets up future, developmental store and processes  – in the manor of a enhanced mathematical computer with a code scheme. It is a system for continuous improvement, exploitation of further ecological niches. At this  point evolution is a system and later, at a higher level of abstraction, it has a DNA based function system where the evolutionary system is improving.

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

 

 

 

 

Proposal for Voting Systems Designed to Prevent Fraud

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

The reports of the characteristics of some voting machines and software and security are astonishing to me from my knowledge of being a programmer and systems analyst for forty years. I have experience on systems that process applications that are far less critical to the future of the US than federal voting.

I will propose some ordinary and possibly minimum standards and features of a mail-in voting system intended to be integral with a professional level of protections. The other details would be left to the state legislatures within the legal boundaries of the federal constitution. The only purpose of this list of criteria is to fulfill the stated, shared intention of the outcome of a valid, proper election process without helping or enabling cheating.

Here is a summary of characteristics of a Mail-In Vote Processing System designed to minimize fraud (cheating). I will add details and discussion later.

 

  • Unique Supervision and User Id’s Assigned to screened and registered individuals – never shared.
  • Id’s have levels of  permissions – System Id, Master ID, Auditor, Legal Liaison, Site Director, Site Shift Supervisor, Report access, Counter, Party A Observer , Party B Observer. etc. These delimit who is using access and transactions and the Party affiliation or other role and what can be allowed. Paired, linked monitor displays that are six feet separate are available to party observers and supervisors confined to a defined set of functions and views. Mandatory sign in for pairing workers and observers.
  • What is logged – basically everything. All actions and transactions are logged including history of changes, changes that are reversed, deletions – where allowed. The deletions are functional but the historical data is preserved – before and after. Nothing is really deleted. No working access to logs.
  • The log includes, ID, permission level,  Date, Time, Transaction Ident, history notes, etc. Limited mass transactions that effect more than one vote unless they are pre-defined batch level and the history log keeps the before and after state down to vote detail.
  • Any system that does not have the above features as a minimum is designed to enable fraud.

 

  • Since Mail-ins, both requested and voter-list mailout,  if returned, are tendered with Outer envelope – name, address, etc and another, inserted inner vote envelope with vote- choice information only. The two envelopes and its paper are separated permanently to protect identification of who voted for each election choice. Each paper should have a unique ID number one for the demographics paper and a different one for the vote paper.
  • The matching access between the two papers and their ID’s would be maintained – encrypted in an Auditor data base and not be available at the working level. Then  Names – address, demographics can also be encrypted to be a unique number so duplicates can be identified but name detail can not be read only seen as different information. Eg; a name and address  could be uniquely encrypted to 1234779123 and that combination of name and address will always come out to that number – this  can be searched for any repetition in the system that is a duplicate candidate  to be flagged. Similar combination but not exact combinations can be identifies as similar.
  • Low level AI and statistical audit – If fifty-three batches all had the same percentage for a candidate to four significant digits, that would be flagged.
  •  Other statistical test would be able to detect and flag generated data as opposed to individual votes – person by unrelated person.
  • Jovan Pulitzer is the expert who has the most patents on QR Code and other scan technology. He has proven that he can scan 100’s of thousands of ballots in a day and tell if the vote was never folded. These votes were never mailed in an envelope. They were printed separately only for voter fraud. The valid ballots have clear horizontal marks that show they were folded. These properties could be enhance to show the history of folding and other handling.
  • No internet access
  • Micro marks to prevent outside sources of ballots
  • Drop box locations covered by photographic record

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

 

Why We Dream

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

The evolution of man’s dreaming reaches way back into the evolutionary mammalian past. Researchers accept evidence that dogs have dreams. Any explanation of the evolutionary, initial ratification and benefit must have, at base, a simple justification. So why did this remarkable facility evolve? Let us imagine how it helped the earliest humans.

Disclaimer – When I first formulated this theory, I fell into the self-centered trap of “if this theory is true then other conjectures must be false”. On reflection, I realized this is a completely, arbitrary A OR B trap/falacy as opposed to A AND B. I think my theory is very basic in terms of early development and evolutionary ratification of survival benefit. It can even be applied to other mammals like dogs. When I later thought about other dream effects/motifs like broad, non-specific  anxiety, I have to admit it does not directly fit my model presented below of specific danger-avoidance and attraction to better opportunity. I should know enough to understand that the Evolutionary System ratifies on the basis of the sum total of all outcomes that are supportive.

Dreams and nightmares as a necessary repetition mechanism to establish deep association for avoidance of danger.

This is my explanation of the initial, basic, and continuing, mechanism. I see an explanation that is the as evolutionary ratification . I think the easiest explanation can be seen in a scenario:

.A carefree juvenile is being warned to stay away from the high grass but like any youngster the communication may be clear but the urgency is not there. It does not compete with his short attention span, and immersion in play. The focus of juveniles at play is very narrow. Initially, he does not even see the proximity of the high grass.

He hears a muffled grunt. He smells a meaty smell. He looks up and sees high grass very close. His parents have been acting concerned and motioning and verbalizing the young ones to stay closer. He notices the adults stiffen and sniff the air. Strange, escalating verbalizations come from them and he can see the whites of their eyes. They begin to look like children that he has seen when frightened.  Normally his group does not go near high grass. He wonders what all this means. He does not have an immediate, automatic reaction so he is frozen in place.

Suddenly everyone is screaming wildly. He has never seen every adult in the extreme of complete panic – this is terrifying.  A monstrous animal leaps from the tall grass and seizes another child of the group who screams piteously. – Blood and panic. His mother runs to him and grabs him, almost dislocating his shoulder as she yanks him and runs away. He is frozen and traumatized.

Rhetorical question: Will this juvenile dream about this that night and on subsequent nights? Of course – he will have many, many nightmares. These nightmares are very common in young people. They are also almost inevitable after episodes of extreme stress at any age.  Will not all these associations be cooked in at a low level in his consciousness?

Why constant dreams/nightmares? Memory, learning and deep association can only be effected by direct and intense repetition. The research I see now, is emphatic on the role of repetition. This mechanism is necessary down to the biological/chemical processes at the synaptic level. The most effective system of association and priorities is dependent on repetition. It has been explained to me that it is like a system of game trails where the most trod path is dominant and there are many lesser branches. The alternative would be real-world, sporadic repetition of near-death experiences until the person is dead or more alert. This is not the best survival path. How do we get the repetition? Dreaming.

By the repetition in dreams, all these important associations and reactions are intensified. The next time he is carefree (maybe never to the same degree as before) and absorbed in the immediate, but smells that meaty smell, or sees the adults get still, or sees that look, or he hears those peculiar noises from them, or gets too close to the high grass, or hears that grunt, or adult alarm cries- will not his attention be automatically riveted and Adrenalin flow . This is a fight or flight reaction?  Won’t he start running towards the adults and safety? Is this not a survival trait? The trigger that acts past the state of immediate absorption is a monitor – the hidden observer. This would be the main ratification and driver of the unique dream state that is, otherwise, a drain on energy resources. I think it is the main reason for dreaming to evolve going way back to other mammals that dream. This does not exclude other theories. 

Most times the conscious mind (left-dominant) must be rooted in the expected and absorbed in the immediate, whether it is food gathering and especially in play. The hidden observer can compare with past associations and trigger a mental tap on the shoulder.

Dreaming sets up the associations after the remains of the day are relived and re-hashed. Things that the left brain in the Usual State of Consciousness is willing to forget or deny are associated and relived with new intensity and re-tuned with the glandular responses. The chemical process of deepening synaptic paths continues. An ordinary memory string can be triggered by a connection starting point like a picture, a poem or a song. The above memory links are more like alarm triggers. 

We could consider Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome as a more extreme and sometimes excessive effect of this mechanism. I think many therapist know that these patterns evolved to deal with short term, immediate threats and reactionary patterns resulting from juvenile input are dysfunctional in later life.  I think that hypnotist therapist are using part of the dream mechanism to reverse these effects and I think they know or sense this. 

The Hidden Observer

The question of the Hilgard’s Hidden Observer in relation to my dream theory has been raised by an expert hypnotherapist. My reference in this write-up, logically, seems to be the same mechanism in a different setting. I have not read much about his theory but one point is that  it basically says that the hypnotic subject, in trance, is not completely dominated and unware past suggested bounds even when commanded to sleep or can not remember. There are experimental results that say there is a hidden observer function operative in the subject that monitors, records and sometimes intercedes in some parts of there reaction or overrides. 

I will relate Hilgard’s Hidden Observer  to the dream mechanism: Experience, dreams, association, an attention trigger by a hidden observer. The economy of evolution, brain functions in human are allowed to consume a large portion of our energy budget. Evolution would not allow such a basic function to develop and improve at this cost for no reason or in preparation for hypnotic sessions late in our high culture evolution. Without this we could just rest at night. To say nothing of the astounding and sophisticated reversal – the awake reality that continuously perceives – – compared to  dreaming  – internal perception becomes reality to the dream observer. This has always astounded me and always will. I am a conceptual person.

It occurs to me that, in addition to setting up this monitor/alarm function, – it is also known that we need brain activity at night to support long term memory. This latter would be the precursor to dreams in evolution and continue

.

This made me think at a deeper level about this function/ability. Chronologically as a total system:

First we have daily experience and this function would have to monitor and retain (input) extracted content related to danger (negative)  or opportunity (food, sex) – with its own priority .

Second comes the Dream Director in sleep/dreaming that will impose needed evaluation of importance, driving repetition to deepen association. Our dreams, even hated nightmares, will associate environmental clues to danger night after night. repetition is physiologically necessary to deepen association and fast access. This is a high cost in the economy of energy use. There are many other negatives/costs.

Third – In the future – near or far – we can be absorbed, as described above, in food gathering, socialization or play. This is not a good state to monitor and be aware of clues to danger(major) or missed opportunity (minor). 

Fourth the facility of this hidden observer in the future will monitor past our absorption and give us “a tap on the shoulder” to get ready for fight or flight when the associated trigger perception is detected, consciously or subliminal . This is the part that relates to Hilgard’s Hidden Observer.

There is no reason to exclude this facility in the hypnotic trance state.     

I have received all of these pieces from others in articles. I just put them together in a good guess. I fail to see the harm and thank you for your indulgence.

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

What is Hypnosis

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

I have had a theory to explain what hypnosis is for many years. The explanation is overly structured for the purpose of analysis. It does explain things I knew about hypnosis and it has explained or predicted other things – additional, unplanned outputs.

When I was first taught about hypnosis by a teacher/hypnotist, he described the behavior of people responding to experimenters and stage hypnotists. I also saw hypnotist shows. I had the shock of immediate recognition. When I have seen people hypnotized and read of many examples I was struck by what a willing dupe they are and the similarity to my memory and questioning as a dreamer.

I remember my dreams and moments of questioning inconsistencies. I habitually analyze everything. In order for the dream to continue past obvious inconsistencies such as  – the dead-end by my house is now ocean front – in the middle of Queens, NY – miles from the ocean. The doubt is immediately suppressed, glossed over, as in Star Wars: “These are not the droids you are looking for” the suggestion appears that “there has been a lot of rain lately” – and I buy it!

The hypnotized in a session or show are similarly compelled to muddle through a proposed or implied scenario and they ignore an audience that may be laughing at them sometimes mockingly and not supportively. The relationship to the hypnotists is dominantly important and certainly is unique – no other person present has this directive power. As a start, I recognized the dreaming dupe as the same dupe in the hypnotic subject.

I started posting this theory to HypnosisOnline in the Forum – “Hypnosis Theory”. I proposed at that time (2005) that this will only be scientifically verified when brain function mapping provided by dynamic PET/CT scans clarify specific-purpose functional areas in dreaming and hypnosis. Now – January 2017 

Bing searches find hits on both dreaming and hypnosis identifying the same areas. “Reduced self-monitoring in dreams may be related to the deactivation of brain regions such as posterior cingulate cortex, inferior parietal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.”

– I have received concurrence.  https://hypnosisonline.com/forum/topic.asp You can see the response from Gil Boyne (died 2010) a pre-eminent American Hypno-therapist and teacher in many seminars.

I then had to identify the key parameters that would identify differences in the Usual State of Consciousness (USC) vs Dreaming vs Hypnosis. The emergent view of dreaming concurs with my experience and the writings of others on dream and hypnosis experiences.

For the 3 states that are input:

  1. Awake or the Usual State of Consciousness (USC)
  2. Dreaming
  3. Hypnosis

This is where I am going: here are the permutations:

State Physiological State Consciousness

Control 

USC Awake USC Consciousness USC-Control
Dreaming Asleep Dream Observer Dream Director
Hypnosis Awake Dream Observer Hypnotist as Dream Director


Here are the three parameters necessary to differentiate the three states: USC, Dreaming and Hypnosis:

 Physiological State:

What is the comparison of the USC (Usual State of Consciousness) to Dreaming? The first parameter must be physiological state (awake or asleep). The USC and Hypnotism are physiologically awake and dreaming occurs while we are physiologically asleep.

Consciousness

What are the similarities in consciousness in these three states? Consciousness is self aware experience of our identity, our awareness of self and our perceived command of mental resources especially decisions. It is a subjective sense of our span of internal control as opposed to the external Not-I of all other reality. Any other perception beside our body and our mind is perceived as the Not-I. Consciousness is an overall coordinating function that brings together many internal inputs and outputs many mental resource elements and functions. e.g. I will try to remember. I will try to manipulate another person. I will overcome fear of an external factor.  How am I perceived by others. etc

What differentiates the USC from Dreaming? The high-level answer is we are cut off from the physical world and are immersed in a Dream World. In the dream world there is an obvious  parallelism to our awake world. In dreaming there is a different but familiar experience of the internal I and a familiar sense of all other dream reality (place, people, time, mood, etc.) as the familiar Not-I.

In the dream state the Not-I, of course, is technically us but analyzed by perception we perceive a separate I and a Not-I. This is, by perception. It feels the same as when we are awake – in dreaming it is an illusion, of course.

How much access to critical thinking?

The dream world has its own logic. I can open the side of a fish tank like a door and the water stays but the fish may drift out. Gravity mechanics are so weak that I sometimes question 40 ft jumps and have the option of becoming lucid (realizing and embracing that you are dreaming).  In order for the dream world to persist with all the illogic and shifting reality the Dream Observer must be a dupe with limited access to critical judgement.

When we dream, we do not control the monster chasing us. It is a Not-I element along with many other Not-I elements. The mood, the time-frame, the theme, external events, surprises. The Dream consciousness interacts with many other person-entities. Those other entities – dream people – interact with each other as I watch. These entities and a whole world are all generated and designed by a Not-I element! This is utterly spectacular and should not be glossed over because it happens every night. By this definition, the dream state Not-I elements have to be separated to define the dream sense of I.  I call the dream sense of I the Dream Observer as do others (Stephen Labarge). (I call the   Not-I elements the Dream Director – more detail below.)

The Dream Observer, as I have so far described it, sounds wholly passive, but; it is really a participant like an overwhelmed improvisational actor swept along by external direction, setting and expectation but still a partner in determining the story line. For this reason I include in the Dream Observer the concept of this dominated but participating improv-actor and a contributor to the story. Dominated, but with a second level of inhibition stops. Some dreams have a media form of stream of consciousness and others have a more pointed message and/or impressive insight and/or a story. Some people do not remember dreams or only remember a stream of consciousness. We are behaviorally variegated by genetics just as we are physically variegated.

Consciousness – Hypnotic State and Dream State 

As I stated in my overview above the hypnotized in a session or show are similarly compelled to muddle through a proposed or implied scenario and they ignore an audience that may be laughing at them, sometimes mockingly and not supportively. I saw a show in which the hypnotist’s scenario involved telling people they were having babies and they complied in a cartoonish fashion as best they could under the circumstances. Yes – some of them could have been faking. For this discussion, the only important thing is if some of them were not. This and many other descriptions of hypnotized persons compels me to recognize them as the same Dream Observer that I am very familiar with.  Especially when I was younger – I remembered all of several dreams through the night in detail and because I analyze compulsively I remember discrepancies and being forced to ignore them. Sometimes I become lucid because the reach is too far. This locks in the sense of “What a dupe!”. This is the basis of my recognition of the hypnotic subject as the Dream Observer.

Control – Dream Director

In dreaming – I call the Not-I Control element the Dream Director. I am not talking about a light switch on/off mechanism but a relative shift in priority and dominance. When I am the dreaming, I have a lot less control and access to critical judgment. Another center of control has shifted to a higher level of dominance compared to the USC. I have perceived this shift some times as I became lucid when analyzing events such as a long jump a block long. I remember everything experienced in the shift. The metaphor of a film director conducting an improv lesson is right on because we are given an entire world, people, mood, story line, surprises. Think of an overpowering director using improv to teach actors who are overwhelmed and eager to follow any direction without any critical thinking. This is close.

The Dream Observer Consciousness also accepts the illogical dream world as a matter of course. Compared to the dream state, in the USC I have a relatively much higher level access to critical judgement and I have the choice to persist in using it. This control element is intrinsic to the USC, so lets call the USC control element simply “USC-Control“.

The Dream Not-I – The Dream Director (DD) – What are the characteristics of the dream Not-I? The not-I determines that we have a nightmare when I do not want to. It creates other people entities and monsters in our dreams that are not-I. Why am I dreaming about my basement that is changed in incongruous ways. Why have I gone back in time? Where did the theme, feeling and mood come from? Why do I agree to false memories? What compels me to go down the basement when there is a foreboding sense and I don’t want to. It tweaks the story line by turning the stairs into various fun house stairs when we are fleeing from some threatening presence and I do not want this to happen. To me, all of this is clearly Not-I. The forceful introduction into the dream is a significant, other center of control. What is the  more dominant control element in dreaming? I call this dream control element the Dream Director. In this view of dreaming, the control element is not absolute but relatively more to the Dream Director. I am only taking about the default when we add up all the not-I. I am not saying that the Dream Director is another person with all the functions of a person, but; there is some coordination especially in a message dream as opposed to a stream-of-consciousness dream. The former is rare.

In dreaming there is a shift in the control element to the “Dream Director” and it is the relative higher control element in the dream state. Relatively, the degree of this control, is not the same as in the USC. In the USC the Dream Director is probably a part of the the hidden observer facility that can connect with past associations and emotional triggers – the instinct that may give us a tap on the shoulder when we are awake. It will feed inputs into the next nights dreaming after sifting through the remains of the day and assigning its own importance. Associations are deepened according to the Dream Directors priorities and this is a survival trait. See my write up on Why We Dream attached.

Where does hypnotism that is somewhat dominating come from? There is an economy in evolution that does not develop extra body part or extra behavior wasting scarce resources. I am not talking about a person referred to as being “hypnotized as they read a book”. Nor am I denying these partial states. I am talking about those instances of a dominating state in which, for instance, a stage hypnotist (or experimenter) can tell a person that mathematics is funny and a person that is usually too inhibited and has no innate acting ability will play the role with conviction. More significantly they will ignore derisive laughter of everyone else in the audience. The hypnotic subject ignores the significance of a large audience laughing at him as directed. He overcomes previous lifetime patterns of sensitivity and inhibition. He is compelled to go along unless a lower level of inhibition is triggered or he finds a way to resist such as sleeping, coming out or ab-reacting. This, to me, is a distinct state from the Usual State of Consciousness. A completely honest and sober person who is directed by the hypnotist, or knowledge of what is expected, will confabulate a story of satanic abuse (so convincingly that the FBI investigated for all the murdered sacrificed babies /other evidence/participants and nothing came of the investigation) or past lives or alien abduction. These effects are spectacular and needs to be explained. The expectation, hint or leads from the hypnotist are accepted as part of the direction as well as the subjects cultural information about hypnosis. The relationship to the hypnotists is dominantly important and certainly is unique – no other person present has this directive power.

My theory is simply this: The hypnotized person, without changing physiological state, gives up their USC Consciousness sense of self to the Dream Observer consciousness and allows the control element to shift from USC-control to the control element of the hypnotist acting in the role of the Dream Director. One obvious induction method is relaxation, suggestion and related techniques that “bore” the left brain into giving up control just as we do every night! As we fall asleep, before we go into a later prolonged dream state. We can fall into immediate reverie that is dream-like. I do not have an explanation for other induction methods but they must result in the giving up of left brain control element, “I”, of the USC. In dreaming we switch control to the right brain control function of the Dream Director – “Hypnotist as Dream Director“. That is why its unique messages are often in the visual form of a verbal pun. The right brain is normally verbally challenged when it is driving the point.

Here are the permutations:

State Physiological State Consciousness

Control shift

USC Awake USC Consciousness USC-Control
Dreaming Asleep Dream Observer Dream Director
Hypnosis Awake Dream Observer Hypnotist as Dream Director

-Other outputs not anticipated until I extended combinations

State Awake Consciousness Control Shift
Lucid Dreaming Asleep shift to more USC Consciousness USC-Control 
Corridor Dream Asleep Dream Observer Dream Director not active
Transcendental Meditation Awake Dream Observer Prior Intention
Fugue Awake? Dream Observer Dream Director

This theory also explains why honest persons who are hypnotized will tell convincing stories of satanic abuse, past lives or alien abduction wholly according to the specialty of the hypnotist. The same type of thing happens every night. The dream observer is compelled to go along with the theme and direction. It explains the dangers of false memories. I have supported dream absurdities with false memories many times and this is a lingering effect when I am waking.

Note the other outputs that I did not anticipate when I related the three elements to Dreaming, USC and Hypnosis. They emerged and helped to give me the feeling that this theory clicks.

If we become Lucid, become aware, that we are dreaming and decide to take control, we shift toward USC-Consciousness and realize we can take control but if we decide to dismiss the dream world we wake up. If we decide to stay in the dream world then we decide what to shift and change. I have done this many times but not regularly. As we become Lucid, we shift from the passive, submissive Dream Observer to a state approaching USC-Control. When we are lucid, we can change the not-I elements, the mood, the entire dream world. We can choose to continue to interact with other dream entities (our dream people created by the not-I Dream Director) or choose to interact differently or dismiss them and our surroundings or change our surroundings. The Dream Director as control element shifts down inversely as our USC-control increases. I have experienced this many times as do thousands of others. Many people do not even remember their dreams. We are behaviorally variable.

Dreaming and hypnosis share a shift in access to critical judgment, inhibition suppressed to a lower level, amnesia, false memories, resistance, lucidity, time-shift, ability to tune out external stimulus (but hypnosis is not physiological sleep). Why do honest people confabulate both when they are dreaming and when they are hypnotized? This is why the the hypnotized person is the worst experimental subject imaginable. The hypnotized subject will remember a valid reality better than in the USC but if there is no reality matching expectation then the hypnotized subject or dreamer must confabulate a false memory. He is being directed to either remember or to conform by confabulating.

Deconstructionist point out that there are many partial effects and shared elements. This is true. Why does the sharing and mixing of mental functions in other states invalidate hypnosis as a separate state? Partial hypnosis effects or long term effects from therapists (another route to the same transaction?) does not invalidate hypnosis any more than all the partial or shared effects of sleep in rest, momentary reverie etc. invalidate the state of sleep. If we insisted that we address sleep as all or nothing (it can be deconstructed) and we addressed partial effects such a momentary reverie, automatic driving a car to establish a continuum then the state of sleep could be denied with as much logic as deconstructionist use to deny hypnosis as a distinct state. Both have partial elements that may be present in continuums and present in various combinations and degrees.

Let me put it more positively. There are certain states that have been ratified by behavioral evolution: the usual state of consciousness – Awake, and Dreaming (see Why We Dream in this blog). There are other states that are combinations of behavioral functions – that is portions of these mechanisms and combinations. Lucid dreaming, Fugue and sleep walking are recombination of behavioral functions that seem to be in the wrong physiological state and are probably not ratified to support survival by evolution. Hypnotism is another recombination but I do not know if hypnosis is ratified.

As an Analyst, I constructed the first table for 3 states with the 3 factors necessary to differentiate them:

The table of additional outputs is an unanticipated output of the first analysis. Consider the symmetry and recombination in the process of becoming a lucid dreamer compared to my suggestion about hypnosis. The fact that these factors yield some insight into other states is an indication of concurrence.

In changing from dreaming to Lucid Dreaming we shift our Dream Observer Consciousness from the dominated Dream Observer to the I of the Usual State of Consciousness and Control from the Dream Director to USC-Control while not changing our physiological state.

In changing from the USC – awake to Hypnotism we shift our consciousness from the I of the Usual State of Consciousness to the Dream Observer Consciousness and the Control Element from USC-Control to the the Hypnotist as Dream Director Control while not changing our physiological state.

Can we see these patterns?

These shifts and Fugue and Sleep walking and Transcendental Mediation show that such recombinations exist usual or unusual, evolution-ratified or emergent.

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com