Social-Spacetime wrote:I will clarify.
That would be nice.
In referencing the image below, our known universe has 3 spatial dimensions (green area at the way bottom). The three spatial dimensions make up Einstein's MASS in spacetime (E=MC² -- see way top of image), because MASS, such as people, exist in three spatial dimensions.
Well, far from clarifying anything, all you've done is utter yet more illiterate bullshit. Try this:
The walls of the box make up Schrödinger's cat because the cat exists inside the box.
Or:
The wall makes up the brick because the brick exists inside the wall.
This is some really fucked-up version of the fallacy of division. I'm quite impressed that you've managed to find a new version of a very, very old fallacy. Your model at least has that novel feature, even if it is catastrophically wrong everywhere it makes contact with Einstein. Frankly, either you need to take less LSD, or I need to take more.
MASS in social-spacetime exists as SPACE -- the same as Einstein's formula of E=MC² or Energy = Spacetime (E=MC²).
While it's easy to see how you arrived at this nonsense, you should be aware that space and time don't actually appear in Einstein's equation in the way that you're latching onto them. The role of
c2 is simply to provide a single numerical value. The mass-energy relationship simply tells us how much energy there is for a specific amount of mass. That relationship would hold, from a relativistic perspective, even for mass that wasn't in space. A little careful thought would reveal this to you easily, because if it were the case that the space and time were a factor in that relationship, and the speed of light played the role you think it does, mass would change when immersed in different media. While weight certainly changes in different media, mass does not. Space and time only play a part in those relationships on comoving frames (because all observers have equal claim to being at rest). Thing is, once you start moving, all those relationships change, and the stationary form of the mass-energy relationship goes out the window and has to be extended to the energy-momentum relation, because you have to factor in momentum, and things get a little more tricky.
Funnily enough, if you really wanted to put time in your model, you've put it in the wrong place. The correct place to put it is in the first character of the equation. Why? Because the numerical value for energy is given in Joule-seconds, and it's precisely that energy is given in Joule-seconds that we can use a speed as the coefficient. Other than that, it's totals all the way down (SWIDT?)
(I'll assume that LaTeX still isn't working)
In fact, you may want to factor into your equation that some people walk everywhere while others have private supersonic jets and all points in between. How does that affect your relationships? Do the social values change based on whether I'm running toward or away from you?
And have you factored in relativistic time dilation? You really should, not least because all the people and objects you're referring to live in a gravity well, wherein time runs slower than it does in a vacuum.
In social-spacetime, how we interact in our 3 dimensional world with people and objects is equivalent to what I call the 2nd Law of Social Fabrics, which is "physical closeness" -- how we behave around people and objects in accordance to how close or far away something is in 3 dimensions we interact in. How we seek goals (the ego) in our three spatial dimensions represents how we seek to attain and protect our survival mechanisms (our subconsciousness), as well as other conscious goals such as hedonistic activities like watching a movie.
And have you factored in relativistic time dilation? You really should, not least because all the people and objects you're referring to live in a gravity well, wherein time runs slower than it does in a vacuum. Did you even know that your feet age faster than your head(unless you spend your entire life lying down, of course, or standing on your head, which wouldn't surprise me given how arse-about-face your grasp of physics seems to be)?
From simplicity to complexity, and as a hierarchy, nested inside itself:
Which brings me back to the earlier question you've avoided about simplicity ands complexity lying on the same spectrum. There's a good reason for this question. You'd do well to think about it, since it seems to be that you've attached some importance to these concepts.
Further, the notion of a nested hierarchy, nested inside itself, is something that Bertrand Russell would no doubt have much fun with, since it seems to be very like the paradox that spelled the death of set theory, whose exposition bears his name.
In referencing the image below, our known universe has ENERGY, as E=MC². Food, for example, is ENERGY for life to maintain itself (and is identified in social-spacetime as "SOCIAL", or ENERGY.
There's something about this (all of it really) that makes what you're saying unclear. A part of me wants to rewrite it all prior to debunking just so I can remove all the extraneous dancing and pick out only the meat of what you're trying to say.
This, for example, I would have expressed as:
The known universe has energy, as per the image.All the rest is mud and adds nothing but obliquity, which is unhelpful to you and frustrating to others. Try to be more concise.
My version has all the information content of yours, and is unambiguously correct. To the extent that it contains any other information, it's information that should be delivered with clarity in statement form, rather than dispersed piecemeal interpolated with other statements.
What do you mean by 'social'? Define the term as a simple tautology (tautologies aren't a problem, in the right setting, and any good, coherent definition
should be a tautology. Since you're clearly using that term in a way that it hasn't been used, repeating it and giving example of things you say are related to it without saying why and how or what it actually is is long-winded, overblown, and entirely devoid of information.
Believe it or not, despite the fact that you've raised my hackles, I really am trying to help you here. If it isn't bullshit, I need to work out why, and then I can help you to work out how to present it clearly in a way that makes sense and generates some decent, testable hypotheses. Without all that, you could have the greatest insight the world has ever known and it will go unrecognised. More importantly, though, you should want us to find what's wrong with it so yo can fix it, otherwise you're just fapping. Is this science? If it is, then you should be working to debunk it yourself, because that's how science is conducted. At the risk of self-promotion, there are a couple of posts on my blog about the logic of science (and I don't mean the cookie-cutter version of the logic of science yo get in school, but how logic actually operates on the working side of a laboratory door, as
Cito might say (is he still around? I miss his writing quite a lot).
OK, that's the being nice over with. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
So Energy is social. Explain that. How is energy social?
Social is defined as our survival mechanisms, or anything that life requires to sustain its energy, homeostasis, and reproduction (survival of the species. And in doing so, our bodies self-regulate, a process called homeostasis. Our bodies require sleep, shelter, warmth, and cooling in order to maintain homeostasis.
Again, this doesn't fit any definition of 'social' I've ever encountered, and I'm told I'm quite gregarious. Please define this in a way that relates directly to how it appears in the mass-energy relation (or the energy-momentum relation).
Also, as a small point of order, you needn't explain or define any term as it's used in the primary literature. You can take it for granted that those hereabouts, if they encounter a term they're not familiar with, will simply look it up. Most here are extremely scientifically literate (worth noting that your primary opposition here is an anthropologist, and is more than merely passing literate in the biological sciences). The only time you need to define a term is when your operating definition differs from the way it's used in the literature or when there's ambiguity. It's an interesting feature of your discourse so far that you haven't actually defined any of your terms tautologically, or even at all in any way that makes sense.
In my lexicon, and reflective of not just broad vernacular use but robust use in the social sciences (big clue there), the word 'social' means 'pertaining to interpersonal interactions'. That's clearly not what you mean. Your equation would look silly if it employed those terms the way they're conventionally employed. Let me show you.
'Pertaining to interpersonal interactions = the ability to perform work*time
2'
If you can't see how nonsensical this is and you don't recognise that this is actually what you're saying, we're in trouble. If this isn't what you mean, you need to clarify because, absent robust definitions that I can pin on those terms such that they can be quantified, I might as well multiply them all by green, and it would make exactly as much sense.
In social-spacetime, this is what I call the 1st Law (the left side of the equation that represents SOCIAL, or ENERGY (as E in E=MC²). Notice there are 8 sub-laws that define the 1st Law (our survival mechanisms).
That's not how physical laws work. Sub laws don't define laws, because physical laws are expressions of observed numerical relationships between measurable quantities. How much social is there? Frankly, what you've presented so far looks like the much-discussed 'colourless green ideas sleep furiously', except that Chomsky's famous phrase is at least syntactically correct, which is a vast improvement over your 'first law' as I've expressed it above (and as you've been expressing it all along absent those definitions for the terms you've yet to define).
The first four sub-laws represent simple survival or that which a life requires to sustain itself, maintain regulation of itself (homeostasis), and to make sure its DNA is maintained for future generations, which is reproduction, which is what I call the 4th sub-law of the first law of social fabrics. The 5th through 8th laws are socially complex versions of the first sub-law through fourth sub-law. This forms a hierarchy. These sub-laws are nested into society in each of the higher laws (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th laws). The first law of social fabrics, represents our current laws, justice system, and any part of society that protects our survival mechanisms, that we call human rights. It is our subconsciousness: binary trees as DLA's (diffusion limited aggregates) which sustains life, regulates life, and so forth without conscious INTENT (our DNA creates proteins, instructions, and so forth without conscious intent).
This is word salad. As my esteemed colleague has pointed out it's certainly true that there are some things in there that are true. However, what's not true is that you've done any work whatsoever in connecting the dots. In particular, it looks like a classic example of the bunko bait and switch. Say ten true things and then extract something from your rectal sphincter when your audience thinks you must be honest because of the true things. Hucksters and confidence tricksters have been using this but of flim-flam for aeons, and it isn't something we're at all unfamiliar with here.
In referencing the image below, our known universe has TIME (the 4th dimension), known as C² in Einstein's E=MC².
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.
c2 is not time in Einstein's equation. It's a number. To the extent that it represents dimensions at all (being a speed) it represents both space and time, neither of which appear anywhere else in the equation. Again, the mass-energy relationship isn't contingent on space and/or time, it's what it is regardless.
In
social-spacetime, this represents
time. In Einstein's E=MC², the same thing: ENERGY = SPACE
TIME. TIME, is one dimension, making the known universe equal to 4 dimensions (as shown in the blue section below, at the bottom). Here I define TIME as utility -- something that acts upon a system to which it forms a feedback loop (such as a
spiraling dopamine projection pathway). For better understanding, check out
dopaminergic pathways. In social-spacetime, TIME itself defines what I call the
4th and
5th Laws of Social Fabrics. Both these laws together represent the super-ego, and to which also represent a feedback loop (remember dopaminergic pathways?) to SOCIETY. [see image above where it says at the top, "simplicity to complex" with the yellow and tan colors.] And this creates
culture (to which is created at the individual level of social fabrics as small group of people called
behavioral reciprocity). This is the
Macro-Perspective of society. The 4th Law I define as
morals and
values and is part of the super-ego. The 5th law I define as the system itself, such as a group of people,
a sports team, or an entire society (as shown in the Macro Perspective above, on the lower right-hand side. Society is composed of major contagions such as THE ECONOMY, to which structurally holds all of society together, such as the roots of a tree. The roots of a tree is SOCIAL (or energy), the trunk is SPACE (or MASS), and the branches and leaves represent TIME (or utility -- to capture energy from the sun and make use of it to sustain life).
All that verbiage, and no progress made. Again. Some trivially true statements, but nothing that actually gives us a handle on how to go about finding solutions to your equations. In case you're wondering, finding a solution to the equation is the sole purpose of having an equation. If you can't define your terms in a way that makes numerical sense by making them quantities so that the quantitative relationship between them is clearly expressed, you don't really have an equation, you just have a statement that one thing is related to another, with no potential (pun intended) to see if you have anything worth looking at.
Have you ever read a scientific paper? Or even a decent presentation of an existing scientific idea? We've had lots of words, but they seem to be doing no work in explaining what it is you're trying to tell us, and most of us here are really good at picking apart complex ideas, as long as they're presented coherently. We haven't gotten there yet.
Do you have any numerical solutions to your equation?
So far there are 4 dimensions: 3 spatial dimensions, and one of TIME. But what about DNA, or life itself? (our survival mechanisms...). Life must constructively interfere with its own ENERGY and maintain its ENERGY over TIME, called
constructive interference patterns from four base pairs of A,G,T,C. This creates even more complexity in the universe, of just baron planets and rocks in the universe, called LIFE -- which gives rise to the high levels of complexity of the life itself including the human brain.
I noted this in a passing comment, but it looks an awful lot like you think the twin sugar-phosphate backbones are interfering with each other.
There are a couple of other glaringly obvious flaws in there even if I'm reading you wrong about that.
First, constructive interference doesn't maintain anything, it amplifies. That's why it's called constructive. It might be worth your taking note of the fact that I'm an audio engineer by profession, and my initial interest in physics, despite my first foray into learning about physics being cosmology, was actually wave mechanics. The behaviour of waves is literally my bread and butter, and I can spot bullshit about wave mechanics before you've even finished uttering it without any cognitive heavy-lifting whatsoever. You are very much solidly in my wheelhouse now. And wrong. Several posts on my blog can help you here. I won't link them here, but there are good expositions of waves in sound, in classical physics and in quantum mechanics (including one pretty good outing that relates sound waves and waves in QM).
Now, this next might be being slightly pedantic, but it's impossible to tell. The reason it's impossible to tell is that, because you haven't put any meat on your terms definitionally, it's futile to even work how much you being wrong about this affects your model, because I still can't fathom what it is you're trying to say. It's worth noting it either way, because others will come along and read this, and it would be negligent of me to leave such a categorically incorrect statement uncorrected, so here it is:
four base pairs of A,G,T,C.
This is simply wrong.
There are not four base pairs, and those aren't base pairs. Those are nucleobases, and they are paired, with C always pairing with G, and A always pairing with T (or with Uracil (U) in RNA). These are the base pairs.
Again, it might be pedantic, but only time will tell.[/quote]
OK, I think I've earned a brief nap before I continue. More to follow. If I can, I'll try to address the remainder of the thread in a single pass, so I can catch up to you all.
by 
for analyzing our social world that allows you to understand 
