## Unified theory of our social world

The Social Fabric Framework unifies the social world under the social sciences

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

hackenslash wrote:This looks fun, but I just want to clarify something concerning your terms before I dive in.

I see a few references to Einstein and spacetime, but there's something I'm not sure on. It looks like you're saying that social is energy, mass is space and c2 is time. Have I got that right?

Before I could answer your questions -- because I hadn't had a chance to reply yet, you went to on define the meaning of the variables to which you don't thoroughly understand. This is what you said above (in the 2nd sentence):

hackenslash wrote: but there's something I'm not sure on.

Then you went ahead to a detailed analysis of variables you don't understand, that you just asked about, before I could give you the information:

hackenslash wrote:
What is the value of C? Or have I got this wrong? In relativity, c is a constant, and plays the role of a coefficient telling us the relationship between energy and mass, the variables in Einstein's equation. In order to make sense of this, I think I need to see how the math works. If I'm wrong about C, then M must be the coefficient. I assume that can't be right, because that would mean that the math works in a completely different way, because if M is the constant, then the variable is squared, which would entirely cock up the relationships. It can't be a matter of commutation because of the exponent. I admit, I'm not the most competent mathematician in this corner of the web, my skill falling somewhere between somewhat lacking and entirely absent, but if you take it slow and walk me through the equations I can generally brute-force my way to some grasp.

And then you go ahead to define the variables you don't understand as you have just admitted:

hackenslash wrote:
Then you go on to say that energy is life itself, which is problematic in several ways.

This paragraph has cleared some things up for me (sorry, I'm reading as I go so I can keep it fresh; it can make for some hurdles along the way, but it's the easiest way for me to organise my thoughts, so progress is usually better despite the potential hurdles), namely a) that the constant is indeed C.

There does seem to be a bit of an issue with your text explanation in that last bit. You've given a natural language of Einstein's equation as energy=mass*speed of light and the added terms in brackets (time or C2). That can't be correct, because in Einstein's equation the speed of light was squared. Indeed, that's the first operation to be carried out on the equation by well-understood convention, even to a mathematical dilettante like me. Also, it looks for all the world as if the speed of light and C2 are the same. That's wrong in one or both of two ways:

1. You're missing an exponent on the former.
2. C is the square root of c and the entire mass-energy relationship fails to accord with reality.

The only thing that is transparent to me is that you give answers to questions you don't understand, while admitting so:

hackenslash wrote:
I see a few references to Einstein and spacetime, but there's something I'm not sure on. It looks like you're saying that social is energy, mass is space and c2 is time. Have I got that right?
Last edited by Social-Spacetime on Apr 28, 2021 6:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Social-Spacetime

Posts: 31

Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Otherwise known as the yell LOOK OVER THERE and scamper routine.

Fact is Dan, you've not shown either ability or willingness to engage what anyone else says.

My advice is: get yourself a blog.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 33854
Age: 47

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Spearthrower wrote:Otherwise known as the yell LOOK OVER THERE and scamper routine.

Fact is Dan, you've not shown either ability or willingness to engage what anyone else says.

I am replying to you now, and have done so in almost all of your prior posts.

Spearthrower wrote:
Otherwise known as the yell LOOK OVER THERE and scamper routine.

Regarding what you just said above about, "LOOK OVER THERE and scamper routine":

The zebra's were reacting to an immediate threat in social (survival), space (the water's edge), and time (immediate threat to an alligator attack). Together, this is Social-Spacetime.

I will give you an example in the human world with social complexity, of a similar principle regarding the example of a traffic light (but in this case the traffic light is PROTECTING survival). A traffic light has Mass (E=MC²). We're drawn in social-spacetime to that light because it has mass (through perception in ordinary spacetime). Everyone STOPS at a red light (for reasons of SAFETY for one's immediate SURVIVAL), and is staring at the red light to PROTECT their immediate survival -- unless of course they want to get t-boned by a car that legitimately went through a green light on other side.

Here is what a social situation like this might look like in Social-Spacetime (ignore the labels in the image -- i didn't want to make a new image):

(Ignoring the labels in the image as said I above because I didn't want to create a new image), the traffic light would be the orange contagion -- that to which everyone is FOCUSED on (such as the alligator), but in this case the traffic light is PROTECTING their survival mechanisms, not ATTACKING them. Your survival mechanisms can be either PROTECTED, or ATTACKED.

Their focus, therefore, is temporarily turned to the red light for their own IMMEDIATE SAFETY, making it an object in social-spacetime that has more social mass than other objects around it in social context thereby making the red light less interchangeable in "Social = Spacetime" formula, creating a firewall between the two sides of the equation. See image below.

And again, the same formula but presented with different graphics. The traffic light would be a social resource that PROTECTS the left-hand side of the equation in yellow: 1st sub-law of the 1st Law of Social Fabrics:

Social-Spacetime

Posts: 31

Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Social-Spacetime wrote:

Being so horribly out of practice, I'm still working on how best to voice all my questions and concerns, but something about this intrigues me, namely the bit of the image with the arrow and with simplicity and complexity at either end. Is it your contention that complexity and simplicity are opposite ends of a spectrum?
Last edited by hackenslash on Apr 28, 2021 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

I'll set aside that I know you came on the forum and left in between those two posts, because I saw you there and waited until you were no longer showing as online before submitting the second, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see the post. Had you seen it in the time you were online, there was plenty of time to reply, since it was a closed question requiring only a yes or no and minimal clarification, but OK.

Still, I wonder why you've revisited the forum and composed several posts, including this substance-free post about your assessment of my general understanding (FYI, I do understand relativity - special and general - as a matter of extensive public record here and elsewhere), but studiously avoided answering either that question or the supplementary questions in my follow-up, which makes my being charitable about your opening salvo here rather more magnanimous than my reputation would suggest I'm given to.

So, massively interested as I am in your assessment of my posts, I'd be far more interested in your answers to my questions.

See, to me, it looks like complete bullshit based on the fact that I'm very familiar with the theories you're trying to hang your model onto, and that your presentation makes it look an awful lot like you don't understand any of it even a little bit (that curvature issue is not a small thing, and that's one of the less serious failings of your presentation), but I'm trying to be nice.

I'd rather have a good discussion about your model in the hopes that one or other of us will actually learn something. If you're not up for that, I know there are others here who are, and I'm happy to provide them with some entertainment and edification and to treat them to something I'm informed they've missed in the few years I've been absent; the hackenslash who earned that reputation for a paucity of discursive magnanimity. I've had a scan of the full thread now, and it mostly looks like the illegitimate lovechild of Ayn Rand and a pomo generator. Where it makes contact with physics, it's mostly wrong, and in ways that suggest that your entire understanding of relativity can be summed up most charitably as 'knows what the stationary mass-energy equation looks like'. That, of course, is hardly an achievement. It's the most famous equation in history.

What say you?
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Spearthrower wrote:My advice is: get yourself a blog.

I second this. I have one. They're great. You should have a look at mine, Dan. One of the best things about them is that, if you just want to post scientifically illiterate bullshit and don't want it challenged or to answer questions about it, you can just turn the comments off ( ETA: I don't, because challenges and questions, even ill-founded ones, present an opportunity for me to learn and improve my output; yes, even challenges and questions that are complete bullshit are valuable input - considerably more valuable, in fact, than most positive input, which I usually acknowledge with a word of thanks and immediately discount, not least because it's too easy to let compliments go to your head, and that's a sure-fire way to curtail learning).

Among the things you will find there are a treatment of special relativity that should be right up your street. Click on the link in my signature and scroll down the page about a third of the way and you'll find a post entitled 'The Idiot's Guide to Relativity'. It breaks down the SR in a really approachable way with real-world examples detailing how spacetime really works but in a way that even a child could understand it (although I might have to dial back my penchant for egregious sesquipedalianism for the younglings, though not as much as I'd have to for some adults that have enjoyed tenure here over the years).

In fact, I talk about relativity there a lot. There aren't many posts, even away from the physics and cosmology section, in which I don't talk about Einstein's work to some degree. I also talk about other areas of physics, including quantum mechanics, optics, wave mechanics, and all manner of scientific topics.

Oh, and I just republished a post that you might find helpful aimed at demystifying technical notation and jargon, which might help you firm up your presentation.

If you're going to turn Einstein's work into a palimpsest, it might behoove you to understand it.
Last edited by hackenslash on Apr 29, 2021 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Random thought, but am I the only one who's put in mind of a certain poster who used an aquarium ornament in his exposition of primate combat tactics..?
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

On Apr 27, 2021 11:34 pm, you posted the following:

hackenslash wrote:This looks fun, but I just want to clarify something concerning your terms before I dive in.
I see a few references to Einstein and spacetime, but there's something I'm not sure on. It looks like you're saying that social is energy, mass is space and c2 is time. Have I got that right?

Two hours later, on Apr 28, 2021 1:30 am, you wrote the following big, LONG post:

hackenslash wrote:I'm a bit out of practice at this, so don't be too harsh with me...

Social-Spacetime wrote: The fabric defines the mathematical symmetry of physics, which defines the laws of the universe, giving rise to the complexity of the universe we see today.

Actually, I think you might need to revisit that. A huge portion of the laws of the universe such as those governing, for example, the existence of matter - not sure how important matter is in your schema, but it seems to have some import in the universe - arises not out of a mathematical symmetry of physics, but out of a violation of symmetry.

Of course you, being the expert in both your model and the physics it's modelled on, have no doubt taken that into account. There's no way you could construct a model contingent on symmetry describing something that exists precisely because a symmetry was violated.

I'll also be interested to see how you deal with how complexity can arise out of symmetry, when symmetry is inherently conservative. There's an old saw popular in these parts about a certain German mathematician, wagers and shirts that I think will be rearing its head sometime soon. Oh, sorry. I just realised that I raised its head. Oh, well. I'm sure you've got it all sorted out.

And with that, of further complexity of matter (of constructive interference patterns, of matter that can preserve its energy state over time), giving rise to life itself ... which through the same processes of symmetry, has created the complexity the brain and the social behaviors we see today in society, as a result of this mathematical symmetry of the universe (which represents nesting, hierarchy, fractals, and self-recursion). This is the consilience of unified theory of our entire social world, from physics, to life, to human behavior.

I probably need to see clear definitions of your terms before I can grasp this, because it doesn't gel at all with my intuitions. I'm wondering in particular if we have different understandings of just what symmetry is. Do you think there's anything in the physical world that you can point to that will give me some handle on this? I'd hate to go off half-cocked just because I'm working on one definition and you're working on another. You can be as technical as you like, but try to be clear. What is symmetry, and what does it relate to in the physical world?

Social-spacetime and Einstein's spacetime are interchangeable, as the same fabric, called Social-Spacetime. Notice the 'id' of the human psyche is on the left, in blue. This represents subconsciousness. Everything to the right, in pink, represents consciousness. For example, the "ego" on the right in red, as "space" represents MASS. And the super-ego represents TIME itself as utility or the system of society or social system you may be part of as C², which is a feedback loop that creates culture. The laws of social fabrics (the rules that define human behavior based on survival mechanisms, "social mass", and Einstein's spacetime laws are listed accordingly underneath (see image below).

What is the value of C? Or have I got this wrong? In relativity, c is a constant, and plays the role of a coefficient telling us the relationship between energy and mass, the variables in Einstein's equation. In order to make sense of this, I think I need to see how the math works. If I'm wrong about C, then M must be the coefficient. I assume that can't be right, because that would mean that the math works in a completely different way, because if M is the constant, then the variable is squared, which would entirely cock up the relationships. It can't be a matter of commutation because of the exponent. I admit, I'm not the most competent mathematician in this corner of the web, my skill falling somewhere between somewhat lacking and entirely absent, but if you take it slow and walk me through the equations I can generally brute-force my way to some grasp.

Also it looks like contagion is a gravity well, but that can't be right, can it? gravity wells don't appear in special relativity, because that's exactly what's special about special relativity, namely that, as Potholer54 might say 'Oi, Dan! There's no fucking gravity in it!" If it does have gravity, why didn't you use Einstein's field equations as the basis for your model rather than the stationary version of his the mass-energy relationship. I mean, I know they're much harder to work with than the mass-energy relationship, but still... Or does that well only represent contagion, with gravity not being a feature of your model? That would make some sense, but special relativity can't have wells of any sort because there's no curvature in special relativity, because there's no term for the energy-momentum tensor describing curvature. We seem to be in a bit of a no-mans' land between two relativities (which I suppose is better than being being two warring relatives).

Notice how the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM) by Jeff James and Daniel C. Funk is consilient (unified) with everything in the model below. The Pcm represents how we come to psychologically attach to ideas (as awareness, attraction, attachment, and allegiance). This all unifies with each law, with the id,ego, and super-ego, with social-spacetime, and E=MC². If you read the PCM, you can visualize the networks they speak of, especially as they "crystallize" into greater connected neural networks in the mind, as we come to realize ideas as intrinsic, and intrinsically consistent. Each sub law on the left get nested into all the other laws, and each law into the rest, called the Nested Laws of Social Fabrics (representing a fractal design) of 1,2,3,5,8, and 13 (a fibonacci sequence). There is 1 mind, 2 parts of the human psyche which are subconsciousness and consciousness, 3 parts to the human psyche (id, ego, super-ego), 5 laws of social fabrics that define everything, 8 sub-laws that defines the id for survival (of simplicity to complexity), and 8 sub-laws + 5 Laws altogether is equal to 13. 1+3 = 4 (three spatial dimensions plus 1 of TIME, which is equal to Einstein's spacetime. "Space" is 3 spatial dimensions, and "Time" is one dimension as well. That makes 4 dimensions altogether. If you add in "Social" or "Energy" (of Einstein's E=MC²), you get the 5th dimension, which is LIFE itself (constructive interference patterns) -- matter that can look at itself in the mirror and preserve its ENERGY over TIME. Energy=Mass*Speed of Light (Time or C²).

OK, clearly I'm not clever enough for this, or I at least need some help understanding it. Most of it must just be too technical for me and I need further explanation. it mostly looks like word salad, but that's often the case with high-level jargon, so maybe that's it. There are a couple of bits I think I understand, but two of them look entirely wrong to my amateur eyes, so perhaps you could explain them for me. Here they are:

OK, first, there's a lot of stuff that's beyond my poor cognitive abilities, but then you go on to something I thought I understood, but the way you've presented it doesn't match what I thought I knew. You talk about space and time as the four dimensions of spacetime, and then you talk about energy as the 5th dimension. That's either simply wrong, or you're working in higher dimensions (or both, to be fair). That must mean you've worked this out in something like stringy terms, meaning you must be at least working in some quantum-compatible framework, since string theory is inherently quantum compatible. So which stringy framework are you working in? Are there any dualities in your model such that coupling constants are intercompatible? Can you present your model in a more mathematical form? I'm guessing that Dirac notation is going to serve us well here, since he's the one who made relativity and quantum theory play nicely, which is one of the reasons physicists use bra-ket notation, I'm told.

The you go on to say that energy is life itself, which is problematic in several ways.

This paragraph has cleared some things up for me (sorry, I'm reading as I go so I can keep it fresh; it can make for some hurdles along the way, but it's the easiest way for me to organise my thoughts, so progress is usually better despite the potential hurdles), namely a) that the constant is indeed C.

There does seem to be a bit of an issue with your text explanation in that last bit. You've given a natural language exposition of Einstein's equation as energy=mass*speed of light and the added terms in brackets (time or C2). That can't be correct, because in Einstein's equation the speed of light was squared. Indeed, that's the first operation to be carried out on the equation by well-understood convention, even to a mathematical dilettante like me. Also, it looks for all the world as if the speed of light and C2 are the same. That's wrong in one or both of two ways:

1. You're missing an exponent on the former.
2. C is the square root of c and the entire mass-energy relationship fails to accord with reality.

I think I'll assume that you missed an exponent on the speed of light in your excitement to get the word out,

I have more, but I think that, for a first proper outing on the forum in a very long time, that's enough for now, at least until you clarify my earlier confusion over your terms. I'll try to catch up on the rest of the thread tomorrow, if I can find the requisite spoons.

(Edited to add link to information about the German mathematician in question, a truly incredible woman who was responsible for one of the greatest insights in modern physics.)

hackenslash wrote:

I'll set aside that I know you came on the forum and left in between those two posts, because I saw you there and waited until you were no longer showing as online before submitting the second, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see the post. Had you seen it in the time you were online, there was plenty of time to reply, since it was a closed question requiring only a yes or no and minimal clarification, but OK.

You question is NOT a yes or no answer, because the premise of your question is incorrect to the science of the Social Fabric Framework. But you assumed that anyway and went ahead to define variables in a big long post to which you admitted that you already didn't know about:

hackenslash wrote:
I see a few references to Einstein and spacetime, but there's something I'm not sure on. It looks like you're saying that social is energy, mass is space and c2 is time. Have I got that right?

The TIME between the first post (to which you asked questions) and your second post is only separated by 1 hour and 56 minutes (to which your second post was really long):

On Apr 27, 2021 11:34 pm
Apr 28, 2021 1:30 am

You did not give me a reasonable enough time to respond. You went ahead to define variables you didn't understand while admitting to that. And even if it was a yes or no question (in your mind to which you defined as a yes or no question), I'm not going to respond with a NO or YES without following up with the correct information, to which you didn't wait for my response to your question.
Social-Spacetime

Posts: 31

Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Social-Spacetime wrote:The TIME between the first post (to which you asked questions) and your second post is only separated by 1 hour and 56 minutes (to which your second post was really long):

On Apr 27, 2021 11:34 pm
Apr 28, 2021 1:30 am

You did not give me a reasonable enough time to respond

Thanks for the exposition of what I already know. not sure why you think that's an objection. Certainly, I posted the second without waiting for a response to the first but, as I said, you had been on the forum in the interim. I don't know how long it takes you to write, but I'm quick, not least because I write as I speak so I don't have to spend any time dicking around over choice of verbiage. I waited, dicked around writing a few hundred words on my next blog post, refreshed a few times and saw you on the forum, wrote that post and then noticed you'd left without responding to the first post so I submitted it. All of which is irrelevant diversion because, as of now, you've written all sorts of vacuous bullshit in the intervening period about your perception of my posting conduct without even attempting to answer a single one of my fucking objections.

You went ahead to define variables you didn't understand while admitting to that.

Actually, what I did was to expose the variables I do understand in Einstein's work and question how you were constructing your model in those terms, because I don't understand YOUR use of those variables and, in fact, highlighted one instance in which it isn't clear which are the variables and which is the coefficient.

And even if it was a yes or no question (in your mind to which you defined as a yes or no question), I'm not going to respond with a NO or YES without following up with the correct information, to which you didn't wait for my response to your question.

It IS a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, that's the entire answer necessary. If the answer is no, a simple clarification would be all that was necessary to explain how I'd gotten it wrong, and I'd even have accepted a placeholder along with the 'no' to allow you time to gather your thoughts.

As it is, you've now posted several replies but exactly fucking zero response to my valid objections rooted in work you clearly have no fucking grasp of.

I'll take this evasive dreck as the cowardly response to my query about your intentions for continued discourse and simply treat you like a chew toy, because that's all such discursive dishonesty warrants.

It's been a long time since I flexed my debunking muscles, but don't let that fool you. I need a few hours sleep. After that, buckle the fuck up, because this could be a ride like your 'theory' hasn't seen before.
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Hermit wrote:Time Cube Mark II.

That's what I was trying to remember when I said it looked like the illegitimate love-child of Ayn Rand and a Pomo generator (I note that Spearthrower did the pomo thing to good effect; great minds and fools, eh?). I wanted to say Time Cube and a Pomo generator, but it eluded me.

Edit: Oh, and my brain is pinging, so I know I'm not going to get to sleep any time soon. might as well get started.
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Social-Spacetime wrote:

I am replying to you now, and have done so in almost all of your prior posts.

Typing words and hitting the submit button does mean you are 'replying', but of course, I didn't say 'you are not replying'... what I actually said is that you're repeatedly failing to address let alone challenge the majority of points I am raising, and ironically - that you're not reading what I or others are writing.

So you've now 'replied' by not addressing the very narrow point you're supposed to be addressing, which is the fact that you're not addressing any of the content of peoples' posts.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 33854
Age: 47

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Social-Spacetime wrote:
Regarding what you just said above about, "LOOK OVER THERE and scamper routine":

Social-Spacetime wrote:The zebra's were reacting to an immediate threat...

And you once again immediately launch back into yet another series of declarations that a) show you don't have a fucking clue what you're nattering about and b) outright ignores the fact that I'd already explained to you that the concept of 'immediate' has precisely fuck all to do with Maslow's model.

Once again, of all the people here - I gave you the time of day instead of just dismissing your contentions or mocking them, I brought ample quantities of discursive charity to the conversation, but you have not responded in kind at all. My charity's done run out now Dan - so you either address what I have written, or I will just tell you something along the lines of 'wrong' each time, thereby putting as much effort into my replies as you're putting into reading my replies.

In fact, for clarity, you're going to need to work pretty hard from here to convince me that you're worth having a conversation with: pig-headed insistence of being right despite being shown wrong is not going to net you any appreciation here.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 33854
Age: 47

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Of course Dan, you're so busy trying to tell everyone you're right, you probably didn't even read or process the reason why I focused on your challenge to Maslow's model in the first place.

Spearthrower wrote:
- Maslow has SAFETY as his second tier in his hierarchy, which doesn't agree with our body's natural flight-or-fight response. According to his model, if you are eating something and suddenly a wild animal starts running towards you, you may decide to keep standing there eating. Accordingly, SAFETY (immediate threat) is not as important as physiological needs in his model, such as food. Note that Maslow has "physiological needs" as his first, most important tier. See link below.

I apologize but I didn't read the rest of the post as it's just more of what you've written previously, and I've already explained to you my problem with it.

But the above is a great example of one of the fundamental problems of assigning meaning to models, and the ease with which one can simply mold facts to fit through directed interpretation - basically, a cognitive bias.

For example, Maslow could easily reply - were he not dead - that if you were starving and needed sustenance desperately, you would absolutely risk being killed in order to eat. If you failed to do so, then you'd definitely die whereas you only 'might' die in the process of acquiring nutrition. If you look at the natural world, you see this exemplified repeatedly; it IS the daily life of a huge proportion of the animal kingdom. Safety from external factors comes second when there's a biological imperative.

Similarly, you could approach it from an evolutionary perspective: the first living organisms that evolved definitionally had to eat, but there were no predators to need to flee from, and no need to have any fight/flight response, nor even sense the existence of other organisms. Clearly then, Maslow is right in assigning it to a more fundamental level of need.

This is a warning about the limits of models like this. They're overly interpretative even when very rigorously established, and that necessarily happens only by experimentation - not by artfully assigning values to numbers, or painting beautiful images of connections.

Describing reality is not an exercise in creative writing; the value of a claim is both constrained by and proportional to the evidence that supports it
.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 33854
Age: 47

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

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*time2'

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 = SPACETIME. 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.
Last edited by hackenslash on Apr 29, 2021 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

hackenslash wrote:...but I'm trying to be nice.

Jules from Pulp Fiction wrote:But the truth is that you're the Weak and I am the Tyranny of Evil Men, but I am trying Ringo, I am trying real hard to be the Shepherd.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 33854
Age: 47

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Allow me to clarify....

The temporal differential we call wakefulness is the cosmic interaction of subatomic particles operating in the quantum field, the (quantum) leap represents a fundamental universal constant that we can only speculate upon in the macro scale of wave form frequencies. Consciousness consists of supercharged electrons of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an awakening of the powerful. Complexity requires exploration. The grid is electrified with ultrasonic energy. Eons from now, lifeforms will evolve to tap into that grid and unlock abundant reserves of hitherto untapped energy. We exist, we self-actualize, we are reborn. This life is nothing short of a condensing reimagining of high-frequency spacetime. Ecstasy is the deeper meaning of peace, and of us.

I trust that paints a clear picture and you are all now convinced. If not, I can do some colouring with crayons - I find that particularly effective and credibility-inducing.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 33854
Age: 47

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

Just noticed I had this part typed in another tab, so I might as well, finish it before shutting down.

Social-Spacetime wrote:Funnel-like structure of Social-Spacetime (as if you were to look at an ordinary tree in nature):

This is lovely, because now I get to really pin you down on your model's occupation in relativistic no-man's-land. The Schwarzschild solution is a solution to Einstein's field equations. Where is the tensor detailing this curvature in your model? There can't be any in the mass-energy relationship, because the very thing that makes Special Relativity special is that, once again, "Oi, Dan! It's got no fucking curvature in it!" Reimann ring any bells? Ricci?

This is a colossal failure of understanding. This is the physics equivalent of a one-sided triangle.

If you cut off one hundred percent of tree's roots thereby taking away the tree's starting point for binary tree formation (diffusion limited aggregates) -- a way to which the tree can sustain its ENERGY (E in E=MC²), then the tree will die.

And this relates to your getting curvature from an equation with no curvature in it how?

Spearthrower wrote:I have an idea.
Can you formulate your idea into a single sentence testable hypothesis statement?

Yes I can, but as two sentences, if you don't mind.

As my esteemed friend quite correctly points out, if your hypothesis can't be expressed in a single testable statement, you don't have a hypothesis to test, because that's how it works.

Formally:

If P then Q.

Where P is the hypothesis and Q is the observable outcome.

All coherent hypotheses can be stated in this manner. Pick a single idea, if you need to, and tell us what it implies in observable terms so that we can go away and make some observations to see if it stacks up to reality. Otherwise, it's all just vague metaphysical-sounding inanity.

1. The Social Fabric Framework is a tool for analyzing our social world that allows you to understand any social situation given sufficient information and to be able to make future predictions using the model.

And how does it allow you to do that beyond simple extrapolation from the data? What is the feature of your model that allows us to make predictions and how does it do it?

2. Once you understand how to use it and sufficiently well, the tool (the framework) will allow you to see things that you didn't or couldn't see before, and more so, be able to make future predictions about the social world or social situation you're analyzing,

Awesome. Let's make some chalk dust.

Step 1. Define your terms so that they can be quantified.

and make the impossible, possible, because you can now see the use and unification of things that ordinarily, you couldn't before.

Ummm, you can't make the impossible possible. If you can make something possible, it's possible, and it always was. Don't conflate 'don't know how to' with 'can't be done'. That sort of nonsense isn't going to cut it.

Edit: Fuck me, but I'd totally forgotten how easy it is to lose track of the quote tags on php boards while fisking. This crap used to be like breathing to me. I feel like such a fucking noob.
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 33854
Age: 47

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: Unified theory of our social world

The second best natural history programme ever made, after Gerald the Gorilla.

Wild? I was livid!
hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

PreviousNext