This paper compares and contrasts Objects and Actions. Is this just some esoteric exercise? Or does it have some greater significance?
Objects are a feature of the Science of Matter. Actions play a similar role in my ‘Science’ of Living Data Streams. Comparing Objects and Actions simultaneously provides a comparison of these two sciences – revealing similarities and differences between them.
Objects = a feature of the Science of Matter.
Actions = a feature of ‘Science’ of Living Data Streams
It is certainly bold, maybe a bit arrogant, to call my isolated studies a ‘Science’, even a Physics of Data Streams. However I’m just having fun – pretending to be a scientist (we all have our fantasies). Yet I do have my reasons for my claim.
What is the justification for another science? My ‘Science’ incorporates an incredibly significant side of the human experience that is neglected, even denied by the current obsession with an exclusively material Universe.
The following quotation captures a widespread mentality that has infected the educated. In his excellent book, The Courtier and the Heretic, Mathew Stewart argues convincingly that Spinoza’s centuries-old philosophy reflects a prevalent modern mindset.
“In [Spinoza’s] philosophical system, he offers a concept of God befitting the Universe revealed by modern science – a Universe ruled only by the cause and effect of natural laws without purpose or design.”1
In contrast to ‘modern science’, my ‘Science’ reveals a Universe that has another dimension – one that is not governed ‘by the cause and effect of natural laws’. Rather this Cosmos is instead governed by rules that enable choice in order to fulfill meaning and purpose.
Isn’t this just another philosophy? Can’t this study fit into one of the many academic disciplines? Fitting in would be difficult as I’m investigating the relationship between a unique data base and mathematical system.
Why call it a Science? The traditional Science of Matter and my ‘Science’ have many parallels. Put another way, the logic of both Sciences is very similar – metaphorically compatible (≈).
1) Both are based upon a Math/Fact Matrix (a data base described by a unique mathematical system).
2) The mathematical system of both sciences is a type of dynamics with similar constructs and structure. (See 42.1. Physics of Information?)
Due to these features, my investigations and results would not be categorized as subset of a social science or a philosophy. Rather my studies constitute a mathematical science like Physics. Indeed my so-called ‘Physics’ of Data Streams desciribes the dynamics of Attention (not Matter). Attention is part of an Information Digestion System that enables Life’s monitor and adjust relationship with a dynamic environment. The ID system also imparts a sense of time and the ability to have an Experience. In addition to distinguishing living from inanimate Matter, these IDS-imparted Experiences are an integral feature of Life (Living).
Because the relationship of the two sciences is metaphorical, there are differences as well as these similarities. To highlight these comparisons, this paper focuses upon the metaphorical relationship between Matter’s Objects and the Actions of Living Data Streams.
The first section employs Eco-Time’s 1st Postulate to illustrate a fundamental difference between the 2 sciences. In the Material Sciences, the source and behavior are intimately linked (dependent). In my Science of Data Streams, the Source and Behavior are independent of each other (1st Postulate).
Material Science: Source -> Behavior
Data Stream Science: Source ≠ Behavior
To generate their technological miracles, the Material Sciences quantify 3 attributes of Objects (mass, location and time). These measurable quantities of Objects are called Galileo’s Big 3 (as he was the first to apply this technique to the dynamics of objects.)2 Although quantifiable, Actions can’t be quantified by the Big Three.
The remaining sections examine the metaphorical relationship between Objects and Actions. 1) Both have similar system logic (metaphorically compatible ≈). For instance, both can be characterized and quantified by mathematical variables, such as Density, Velocity and Momentum.
2) While their system logic is similar, the two exist and behave in entirely different ways. For instance, the data that characterizes Material Objects are super-precise, while the data that characterizes Mind’s Actions are rough approximations. Despite this extreme difference, Actions are employed to create Models that help us to more successfully navigate the turbulent waters of living and dying.
3) Actions and Objects occupy and behave in different dimensions of reality. Objects exist and behave in physical reality – our traditional space-time continuum (linear time) – the Realms of Matter. Actions exist and behave in mental reality – Spiral/Cyclical Time (vertical) – Attention's Realm of Experience. Despite this virtual reality, Actions, as the foundations of Experiential Models, exert a huge and continuous effect upon living behavior.
4) Actions and Objects come into being from different sources – have different types of parents. Objects originate from the Big Bang, while Action’s are Mind’s creation.
Despite this virtual reality, Actions have a physiological substrate. Proteins embedded in the cellular membrane (IMPs) provide the building blocks of 1) our sensory/motor network, 2) the data streams that nourish our info digestion system, and 3) the images that feed our imagination (Mind’s Actions).
However IMPs are atomistic – excellent at details but terrible at whole picture thinking. Providing this holistic function, Attention digests these IMP-provided data streams via an Image Overlay Process (IOP). Attention’s IOP provides the sense of time that is a prerequisite for the generation of any holistic system, for instance cells and by extension, all life forms.
Actions are specific type of DS Content. All information comes to Attention in the form of data streams. Attention’s IOP digests data streams - providing analytics to Mind. Mind employs these DS Analytics to generate Models of Reality consisting of both Actions (Experience) and Objects. In this sense, even Objects require Mind to be experienced.
There is yet another difference between Objects and Actions that is reflected in their respective ‘Sciences’. While Objects are governed by inviolable mathematical laws, Actions are governed by breakable mathematical rules. This characteristic is not a flaw, but rather enables Choice, a cornerstone of Life.
This in-depth examination of the metaphorical relationship between Matter’s Objects and Attention’s Actions also applies to the two Sciences – Material Science and ‘my’ Science of Data Streams/Attention/Information Digestion.
In his excellent book called Galileo’s Error, Phillip Goff, a professor of Philosophy, credits Galileo with being the father of traditional science. He simplified the investigation of nature by focusing only upon the quantifiable attributes of objects. More specifically, he reduced objects to a specific mass that exists in a specific location in the space-time continuum – easily plotted on a graph as a point.
This approach has proved so successful that it has dominated science for the last 400 years – ever since it was introduced. Some radical adherents of this model even maintain that these quantifiable features are the only reality.
Galileo’s error and the subsequent scientific error, according to Phillip Goff, is that objects have other significant attributes that resist quantification such as a lemon’s taste and smell. These non-quantifiable attributes are associated with Consciousness/Attention.
Let us share some current insights regarding the relationship between ‘Galileo’s error’ and the famous first postulate of Ecological Time Theory. (Such a bold name for his model! Amazingly audacious for our young ‘scientist’s’ very first work.) In the process, we will examine the difference and similarities between events and objects.
Galileo (and modern scientists following in his method) successfully quantified three features of material Objects – mass, location and time. Despite their transitory existence, subatomic particles such as electrons and photons have even been assigned a specific mass. Although uncertain on the individual level, the probabilistic location of these subatomics on a collective level is so precise that scientists and engineers are able to make predictions that are accurate enough to enable modern technology. So Galileo was definitely ‘right’ when it came to the Object/particles of the Material Realms (Molecular and Subatomic).
However he was ‘wrong’, in the sense that his model and approach does not apply to the Living Realm of Experience. Why? The Experience Realm is not inhabited by objects that can be quantified by mass, location and time. Rather this realm of existence that is unique to living systems is inhabited by Actions, which only exist in our Mind. Despite this virtual existence, these Actions exert a significant influence upon living behavior, especially intentional.
Galileo was however ‘right’ in the sense that the system of dynamics he initiated does apply to both Realms – Experience and Material. Just like ordinary particles, Actions also have momentum and acceleration.
Before we get into ‘Actions’ in more detail, how about the first postulate? It says that the Mathematics is separate from Source with regard to Time’s vertical dimension. What does this mean? The mathematics of data streams does not involve the source of the data stream, except in a peripheral way. The dynamics of DS reveals probable behavior despite not taking the source or type of behavior into account. For instance, the data stream for music practice has descriptive dynamics that predict the length and regularity of future practice sessions despite having no relationship to the music or the musician.
In contrast, Galileo’s mathematical system is intimately tied to the Source, i.e. the quantified objects. They are inseparable. Indeed, this precise connection between math and source drives modern science.
As an indication of this inviolable connection, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle initiated a great controversy when introduced. He proved that it was impossible to precisely determine both an electron’s momentum (mass x velocity) and location simultaneously. Although eventually reconciled, this slight imprecision (related to Plank’s constant for a quanta of energy – very small) was very disturbing to the scientific community. It violated their dogma that the Source’s identity/essence is absolutely precise, rather than inherently ambiguous.
In this fashion, Eco-Time’s First Postulate distinguishes my ‘Science’ from regular science. In Eco-Time, Source and DS Math are forever separate. In the material sciences, Source and Math are intimately related.
In Eco-Time Theory, actions are the equivalent to objects in that they play a similar role in their respective systems. Their logic is similar. Actions are the object/particles of the Experience Realm.
Components of Respective Systems: Actions ≈ Objects
Why do we say that Actions and Objects have metaphorical relationship regarding their system? Before proceeding forth, some definitions are in order.
We’ve spent a lot of time on Events, but Actions? What is their relationship?
For ease of reference, we are going to confine our discussion to the Events referenced in the Experiment. (See Notebook of the same name.) These Events were measured in Hours per Day. Although we are confining this discussion to this specific type of Event, the mathematics and analysis can be easily extended to events with different dimensions and even images. Image is a more general term that includes content of any variety.
In the Experiment, events are hours spent upon a particular activity in a day (hours per day). These events are arranged in an ordered data stream. The activity or Action that binds the data stream together is the content of the data stream. In other words, every element/event in the data stream is related to the Action, for instance, 2 hours of organ practice on Tuesday, 0 hours of organ practice on Wednesday, and so forth.
Put another way, the data stream consists of incremental experiences (Events) that are tied together by Content (Action). Similarly, objects bind material systems together.
Actions bind Data Stream System as Unit.
Objects/Particles bind Material Systems together
Despite the variation in the data stream numbers, the activity identifies the data stream, e.g. the Organ Practice data stream. While everything is changing, the Action persists. In such a way, the Action is the substance of the data stream system. Similarly, Objects are the substance of their physical system – that which persists through time.
Actions, not Events, persist through Time.
Objects persist through Time.
In both cases, Life experiences the Identity of the Action or Object. The Identity of both is associated with both Content and Trajectory/Dynamics. For instance, the Object is a stationary or moving apple. Or the Action is organ practice, whose velocity is growing, shrinking or remaining steady.
Object Identity = Content + Dynamics
Action Identity = DS Content + DS Trajectory/Dynamics
Objects can be quantified by their mass (a measure of inertia) and by a specific velocity, i.e. changes in location over time (∆ location/∆ time). Actions can also be quantified by their density (a measure of inertia) and by a specific velocity, i.e. changes in hours spent over time.
Objects & Actions have Quantifiable Density (inertia) & Velocity
With Density (inertia) and Velocity comes Momentum. Both Actions and Objects have Momentum that can be quantified.
Objects & Actions have Quantifiable Momentum.
As seen, Actions and Objects have many features in common: 1) bind system together, 2) persist through time, 3) Identity consists of Content and Dynamics, 4) Quantifiable Density, Velocity and Momentum. This analysis provides major support for the claim that Actions and Object participate in a similar logic with regards to their respective systems, material and data streams.
While the two are metaphorically compatible (≈) with regards to their system, they are metaphorically incompatible (≠) when it comes to their behavior and existence.
In the previous section, we developed the notion that Actions serve the same function as Objects in their respective systems – Material and Experience Realms. Further, we defined Actions as the Data Stream Identity combined with DS Trajectory. This section explores the differences between Actions and Objects, i.e. where the metaphoric logic breaks down.
The Equations of Material Mathematics are based in relationships between variables. These equations are generally functions of the Big Three (space, distance and time) or their derivatives, e.g. Force. Most formulas are ultimately founded upon our ability to quantify the Big 3.
For instance: As a key to understanding the material Universe, Force is a crucial construct in Physics. Four fundamental forces supposedly determine all material behavior, 1) gravity, 2) electromagnetism, 3) the strong nuclear force and 4) the weak nuclear force. Force is defined in terms of the Big Three (mass, distance and time).
F = m * a = m * d/t2
Force = ƒ (mass, distance, time)
Numbers based upon quantifying the Big 3 are plugged into an equation/formula and out comes an answer. If the answer accords with Reality, this validates the equation. If not, the equation’s functional relationships are invalidated. For instance, experimental results validate gravity’s inverse square law and invalidate an inverse cube equation for gravity (or any other exponent besides 2).
However, Actions don’t have any of Matter’s Big 3 (mass, location and time). Rather Actions only exist as an experience/image – perhaps some kind of molecular reorganization – neural connectivity for humans – and maybe connective tissue on the sub-cellular level.
For instance, Tai Chi practice as an Action certainly has no mass; nor does it have a specific location or time. Although it might be performed in a park at 9AM, these factors have absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the data stream associated with this Action. Rather the data stream only consists of a series of numbers that reflect the number of hours that Tai Chi was practiced in a designated cycle, e.g. day, week, or month.
While Actions are the Objects of the Living Realm of Experience, they cannot be quantified in the same manner. This is the first difference between Objects and Actions, but not the last.
Big Three (mass, time, location) characterize Objects
Big Three can’t characterize Actions
Despite lacking traditional quantifiable variables, a simple analysis of the data stream still provides us with relevant predictions regarding the future. Data Stream Analytics such as DS Density, DS Velocity, and DS Momentum, both describe the Data Stream and predict its future behavior. Living systems employ predictive descriptors such as these to construct useful models of Reality.
Returning to our Tai Chi example: due to the class’s regularity the Density is quite high, even approaching 1. This description of the DS indicates that there is a high probability that the class will continue during the next cycle. Further the class length is almost always an hour plus or minus 10 minutes. The stability of this DS Velocity predicts that the next class will be of similar length.
Despite their utility, the numbers that both quantify the Event (time spent at the class) and characterize the Action (Density of the class) are just rough approximations. In contrast, the numbers that characterize the Objects of the Material Realms are so precise that theories rise and fall depending upon micro-variations in expected values. The imprecision of the data regarding Actions in Eco-Time (Experience Realm) stand in stark contrast to the micro-precision of the data in the Material Realms, both Subatomic and Molecular. A major difference between Objects and Actions.
Data regarding Objects = Super precise
Data regarding Actions = Rough approximations
Despite the roughness of the Raw Data and subsequent Derivatives, humans as well as other creatures regularly employ DS Analytics such as these to create models of reality to assist them in anticipating future behavior. While only providing rough future approximations, these models indicate trends that far surpass the random probabilities of the Normal Curve.
We and all life forms compute DS Analytics automatically, subconsciously. We then employ these Analytics to generate expectations/models regarding future behavior. For instance, some of my students are irregular (low Density DS); I am not surprised when they don’t show up. Others are always late (low Density DS for arrival time); I am surprised when they show up on time. My Tai Chi students expect me to be at class every Monday morning because I am always there. This expectation also motivates them to show up.
Another difference: Objects are relatively permanent. For instance, my kitchen table is older than me (currently 73) and consists of the same molecules as the day it was created. In contrast, the data streams associated with Actions are transitory (e.g. attendance or duration of my Tai Chi class). Attention’s mental energy is required to keep Actions ‘alive’. As soon as the class dissolves or no one cares (nobody to pay Attention), that Action ‘dies’.
Objects = Permanent
Actions = Transitory
Summarizing: Even though an Action’s DS can’t be quantified by Matter’s Big 3, the data stream provides analytics that living systems employ to generate useful models of reality. Even though these DS Analytics are rough approximations and transitory, they are far better than nothing. They provide an edge – insider knowledge that can be employed to leverage future probabilities.
Here is where Gauss’ Normal Distribution can be employed. In contrast to the predictability of the physical Universe of Objects, there are no guarantees in the Universe of Actions. Yet over time, DS Analytics can be used to generate models that will far surpass random distribution in their ability to predict the future. Although sometimes wrong, these models are more frequently right, especially as compared with the ‘no model’ approach.
Hoping for random (dumb) luck versus planning for the future based upon past Experience. Which approach do you think would be more effective at optimizing existence?
1 Mathew Stewart, The Courtier and the Heretic, 2006, page 15
2 In his well-written book Galileo’s Error, philosopher Phillip Goff develops the notion that Galileo’s three measurable quantities and their derivatives have dominated the Material Sciences for a half a millennium into the 21st century. Despite their utility, Objects have other important characteristics that can’t be quantified. For instance a lemon has a color, taste and smell that resist quantification. Many of these non-quantifiable attributes are functions of Consciousness, another non-quantifiable entity. ‘Galileo’s Error’ is the name Goff gave to this omission of Matter’s significant characteristics.