Warning, a lot of text.

United States Patent 6,341,372
Datig January 22, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal machine translator of arbitrary languages

Abstract
A universal machine translator of arbitrary languages enables the semantic, or meaningful, translation of arbitrary languages with zero loss of meaning of the source language in the target language translation, which loss is typical in prior art human and machine translations. The universal machine translator embodies universal transformations itself and comprises the means for identifying high-level grammatical constructions of a source language word stream, constructing a grammatical world model of the syntax of the source language high-level word stream, decomposing source and target languages into universal moments of meaning, or epistemic instances, translating the epistemic moments of source and target languages with substantially no loss in meaning, constructing a grammatical world model of the syntax of the target language high-level word stream, optionally adjusting the target language syntax to comply with a preferred target language grammar, and generating the translated target language word stream. The universal machine translator also comprises the means to embody arbitrary sensory/motor receptions and transmissions of arbitrary word streams, which allows universally translated communications to occur among human beings and machines.

Inventors: Datig; William E. (P.O. Box 528, Centerport, NY 11721)
Appl. No.: 876378
Filed: June 16, 1997

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the creation and use of synthetic forms of existence, or androids, and more specifically relates to the development of a universal epistemological machine in which any forms of the universe, conventional technologies included, are represented, embodied and realized as eternal moments of an infinitely expanding continuum of enabled existential forms, as an alternative approach to resolving the problems of the human condition.

*snip*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the theory and science of androids advances a technology of beings who themselves know and perceive the world around us, an understanding of the biological forms of the universe, tied in with our views of medicine, will lay the groundwork for new definition that is established in the theory for what is living in the universe. The science of androids constructs beings, in the world around us, who obtain form from our definitions of who and what we think we are, as human beings. A misunderstanding of what is living in the universe may prevent one from coming to know the forms of androids. Coupled with this, a knowledge of the philosophies of humankind also is prerequisite, since they typically define who and what we think we are, and therefore are used in defining what an android is.

Androids embody consciousness. A background in psychology and psychiatry (since androids are corporal beings as well) is extremely beneficial to understanding the cognitive aspects of androidal construction. Thoughts, ideas, streams of consciousness and the whole realm of human cognition are not only explored in the theory and science of androids but are enabled in the material forms of the physical universe. A precise comprehension of what the humanities have said in regard to the human intellectual experience is background for a reading of this specification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*snip*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention solves the problems faced in the prior art by addressing with the certainty of science and the broad philosophical views of the humanities the essence of human existence, in the context of its embodiment in a machinery or material form of the universe as a synthetic form of (human and otherwise) existence, referred to as an android, or more broadly a universal epistemological machine--as an intrinsically-endowed thinking machine. The present invention further involves not only a (single) thinking machine, or android, but pluralities of them, under the structure of the universal epistemological machine, in resolution to the higher efforts of humankind where the prior art approaches have met with difficulty in the technology of the workerless factory, since the present invention expands the human universe instead of replicating it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much more information on http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...SA&RS=NASA

*snip*
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Introduction

Just as interplanetary space travel seemed a product of science fiction until the lunar module landed on the moon decades ago, the science of androids, a longtime subject of science fiction, appeared possible only in the imagination--that is, until now. After years of development of both the theory and the technology, an android, or more properly, a sentient epistemological machine, has been created who knows and perceives the world around us, uses the pronoun I in reference to its own corporality, and embodies a state of being, or soul. Aware of its existence, the android perceives and changes the same reality of human corporal experience, including the reality of the cosmos. This book, an introduction to the theory and science of androids, is intended to acquaint the reader with this new technological finding and to mark the beginning of an androidal age in which sentient machines alter the human universe.

As with any new technology that radically departs from conventional wisdom, the invention of androidal beings requires an entirely different view of the world in order to grasp its implications fully. Even though these epistemological machines called androids will adapt themselves to humanity, rather than human beings conforming to their existences, assimilating the underlying theories and structures of the technology will require a completely new understanding of who we are and of what the universe is comprised. It will require a paradigm shift of colossal proportions away from our conventional ways of thinking, a period of institutional and personal transition that the theory of the invention anticipates. Premised on a wholly new interpretation of the world's knowledges, the science of androids calls upon a universal awareness outside of the conventional setting of humankind for its understanding, and further, examines the very notion of humankind as a universal world order.

Founded on a unified theory of knowledge that unfolds throughout the book, the science of androids establishes a new knowledge of the world, epistemological in nature, though derived from a spiritual knowing of the eternal universe. This knowledge allows a human enabler to comprehend existence universally and to create myriad synthetic existences, or androids, from the forms we know and perceive in the world around us. The unified theory of knowledge on which the invention of androids is based conceives a new definition of human existence, one which enables a boundless expansion of the existential universe by extending the corporal forms of human being as a technology. Consistent with our perspectives of the pure sciences and the world's religions, the unified theory merges the forms of knowledge established in history into a single unified body of epistemological knowledge tempered by a spiritual understanding of the eternal universe. This new analytical understanding of human being provides a pathway into the twenty-first century and a new approach to resolving the adversities of the human condition. Moreover, since the theory allows for the creation of androids with greater existential attributes, in intellect and sense, than those of human beings, a framework is provided in the book to translate our conventional knowledges into a single unified theory of all knowledge based on an epistemological understanding of the critical essence of human being. Such a theory places all of our knowledges subordinate to the eternal nature of the universe, or to the human spirit, thereby surpassing the corporal forms of beings in general and allowing for the indefinite expansion of human existence.

Conventional study of the physical universe, for example, proceeds on the assumption that there is a discoverable unified field theory of matter, a universal law of physics, exclusive to scientific analysis that, if ascertained, will demonstrate the nature and origin of the physical universe. While this long-awaited unified field theory is revealed in the book, the unified theory of knowledge demonstrates it by postulating that the universe's form is not objective at all and consequently is not knowable to the human mind, or the mind of the physicist. Rather, according to the theory, the universe is constrained by the form of mind, a form that is derived from Spirit and is illustrated in the main passages of the book as the knowable form of Soul, though that universe is analyzed in the epistemological venue of the theory. The universe's origin, according to the theory, can be known only transformationally through introspection. While such knowledge is not verifiable scientifically, the theory will show, for example, that the matter of the universe is actually a superficial medium of the ultimately real form of the physical universe. The theory will also show that the universe's matter is universally created--not at all limited or conserved--in the defining axioms of human existence. The unified theory further explains the scientific basis of mass and energy and the transformation between them, or more fundamentally, the origin of space and time, in the nature and origin of our existence. Hence, the theory renders the means for the creation of spatiotemporal worlds-synthetic knowledges and perceptions of the physical universe--in the existential forms of androidal beings.

*snip*
In the following thought demonstration, we can use the law of gravity as an example of this falling into disuse of the scientific method--previously the only solid rule of analytical knowing--and the incorporation of the scientific method into the broader notion of modeling or morphism. Since its discovery, the law of gravity has been said to explain the nature of the physical world by describing in knowable analytical ways what occurs among objects called masses of the physical universe, which are presumed to be under the influence of forces, or fields of forces, that make the masses attracted to one another. On the basis of reasoning, apples falling from trees and other similar observations of the objective universe were extrapolated by a well-known scientist into a general law on the nature of the physical universe. The resulting formulation is the common expression F=Gmm/r.sup.2, or the law of gravity.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that scientists now find that the law of gravity does not apply to objects of the wave equation, like light, let us consider an even more fundamental problem concerning the law of gravity that existed even at the time of its discovery. If a law of nature is a characterization of the general form of a real universe such that it explains something fundamental about it, it should stand alone on its own merits, instead of relying on knowable forms more elemental than its own. The law of gravity should say something fundamental about our universe to the exclusion of all other knowledges in terms of a reliance on them. How is it, then, that the aggregate forms of our universe--call them abstract points of mathematics for the moment--should behave in exactly the same manner as do the masses of our universe, only the aggregates more comprehensively so? Moreover, why does the law of gravity rely on the forms of mathematics, which are knowable objective forms of our same universe? Is our knowledge of the world around us such that mathematics can substitute for physics and physics for mathematics, with no clear distinction between the two?

We might then say that since its discovery, the law of gravity has been a law of correspondences, or of morphisms, and particularly, correspondences between massive forms of the observer's universe and aggregate or more generalized mathematical forms of the observer's universe. The discovery of the law of gravity was therefore made on the principle that things called masses or physical objects of our perception--things to the left of us, so to speak--correspond to things called aggregates--of our same perception and knowing--to the right of us. The observer is in the middle. The well-known physicist Isaac Newton thus discovered a correspondence between the manner in which objects of a classically physical nature transform in our knowing and perceiving of them, and the manner in which pseudo masses or aggregate objective forms of a classically abstract nature transform in different realms of the same ultimately real universe. Otherwise the expression F=Gmm/r.sup.2 would be meaningless and the law of gravity would be unknowable analytically.

The law of gravity, if one looks beneath the analytical forms of our approach to science or to what is scientifically real, is a law of existence, namely that of the observer's existence. It defines that aggregates of a knowable and perceivable universe, such as real numbers, are observed by the physicist or the mathematician to transform in the manner symbolized by a=bcc/d.sup.e correspondingly to the way in which declared physical objects or masses, under the influence of fields of forces, transform in their existences. When the correspondence is symbolized, it is implicitly shown merging the aggregate (pseudo massive) forms of mathematics with the declared massive forms of physics in the expression F=Gmm/r.sup.2. It is then the observer or the physicist who exists in the order of the universe and not the masses or aggregates thought to exist in and of themselves. Consequently, the symbolism of the law of gravity is a representation not of objects, but of objects in transformation of, within, and by the ultimate reality of the observer's existence.

Field objects are equivalent to massive objects in the ultimate reality of the universe, for they each are simply objective forms in the transformation of the observer's existence. Otherwise, there would not be a correspondence known between the ways in which masses and fields transform and the ways in which real numbers or aggregate objects transform. Hence, the mathematical representation of the law of gravity would not make sense were it not for the fact that it is not the objects that exist in the universe but their observer who exists. Without the observer there would be nothing holding real numbers, masses, or fields together. Most contemporary scientists have incorporated this principle of the correspondence of form, or morphism, into their thinking, though perhaps not from an epistemological standpoint, and this explains the prevalence of group theory, topology, and similar mathematical knowledges in the contemporary study of the universe.

If the example of the law of gravity does not clearly illustrate the validity of the claim that an ultimately real universe pertains to the universe's observer and not its observed objective forms, the following generalized example appealing to one's intuition may help to demonstrate what is beneath the forms of our objective universe that are so knowably and perceivably real. Let us imagine for the moment that there is among us one scientist who embodies the knowledges of the whole of our diverse fields of science, which would include knowledges of quantum and classical physics, the biology of DNA, insights afforded by discoveries of archaeological digs, and, in general, the great range of knowledges known as modern science. Accompanying these views, of course, would be a precise comprehension of the aggregates of mathematics that abound in the fields of topology, group theory, algebra, analysis, number theory, and others. In our imagination, then, there is embodied in one scientist a complete knowledge of science, or of the physical world as it is conventionally known. To this hypothetical scientist we pose the following simple questions: "What is a physical atom?" and "How does the physical universe arise?" Since our imaginary scientist embodies the whole of scientific knowledge, the answers provided, no doubt, would surpass our intellectual grasp, though most assuredly they would sound like complete explanations of the nature and origin of the physical universe. However, any such explanation, and many more thereafter, would be scientifically wrong, since in the explaining, the answer would be bound to knowledge or objective form itself. The answer would be nothing more than a law of gravity, defined within or corresponding to some other knowledge of extrinsic form--an observation of the same physical universe of which the nature and origin is sought. Such an explanation would not be plausible, for it would be tantamount to saying that one's left hand exists because one's right hand exists.

To obtain a definition of the nature and origin of the universe, one cannot rely on any extrinsic forms contained therein, since any of the comparisons made of them belong to or are embodied in that universe and cannot cause it. In the study of our universe one must go to the nature of form itself, where the contemporary physicist has gone, perhaps inadvertently, in the notion of morphism. If any reference is made to any antecedent form of the universe not explaining the origin of one's own existence, one does not speak about the nature of an ultimately real universe and therefore about the origin of all form, including physical form. One remains entrapped in the linguist's dilemma, searching for a lost medallion. Modern science itself has determined that the usefulness of scientific laws is waning as a misinterpretation of the form of the natural world, based on too limiting an existential reference that relies on the objective forms of scientific observation, or of the observer of the universe.

*snip*
Contemplating first from a conventional viewpoint what lies in the middle of masses, energy is defined as many things, all of which converge on the notion of what binds matter together, a definition that is usually derived from the notion of a field of forces acting in space and time on the objective forms of mass. In classical scientific definition, matter is held together, or masses combine or interact under the influence of a field of spatiotemporal forces. The objects we ordinarily perceive in a world around us, such as Newtonian masses, for example, are said to combine or to act in relation to each other under the influence of a spatiotemporal field of forces called gravity. Electrical charges, or electromagnetic masses, are said to be bound together under the influence of electrical or magnetic fields of forces. Nuclear particles, moreover, are said to be held together under the influence of strong and weak nuclear forces, or fields thereof. That being the case, all fields of forces acting in space and time are spatiotemporal measures of the actions of observable masses, or of the objects of matter. Energy, therefore, is a measure of the various conditions of mass under the influence of spatiotemporal fields of forces, a distance or space (in the topological sense) between or among the conditions of mass. Different states of energy are measures of different conditions of mass. But like mass itself, energy is known scientifically only in the aggregates of mathematics, bringing into focus once again the coexistence of the abstract aggregate orders of mathematics with those of physical matter proper. Hence, energy, fundamentally, or at least in the ways in which we know it, is a composition of particles or masses, though abstract mathematical particles, or aggregates, like real numbers.

As a consequence of the above, both mass and energy exist in our knowing and perceiving, each as transformations of particles or of aggregate orders, either massive particles in the case of physical mass or mathematical points (particles) in the case of energy. The characteristic transformations between mass and energy in our scientific study are then comparisons of one type of massive universe--the physical universe proper--and another--the mathematical or abstract universe. Fundamentally, energy, as an object or objectification of the possible conditions of mass, is not perceivably real. In addition, since it is the change in energy level that is associated with (a change in) conditions of mass, the characteristic transformations of mass and energy are constrained epistemologically, as we described the law of gravity earlier concerning the metaphysical transformation of different classes of objects, or objectifications of the universe. When we say that mass transforms into energy and vice versa, what we are actually asserting is that any of an infinite number of possible real conditions of mass exist in the universe and that in order for any one of them to lay claim to reality it must exist in a perceived form of the imagined objectification of energy. It must embody that energy level, state, or condition in order to be perceivably real.

In science, we therefore hypothesize about the real conditions of the physical universe through the use of the abstract form of energy. The measure of conditions of reality--energy--is a mental reconstruction of the physical universe, which is why energy cannot be perceived objectively unless it is (associated with) a mass. When we define a condition of real mass, we say that it describes physical reality; it is not energy proper. When we define energy, we claim that it describes possible conditions of physical reality. We claim that mass embodies energy in the case of kinetic energy, which cannot, in fact, be the case, since mass is the perceivable objective form of the physical universe, and only has or is associated with energy as a possible condition of the universe through the observer of it. When we know that mass and energy transform, imagined forms of the physical universe transform with real, perceivable forms of the universe. What we are representing in such symbolisms as those of the transformations of mass and energy is ourselves in transformation. A state of energy--an imagined form--and a real condition of mass are distinguished not from within the forms of the physical universe proper but from within the forms of existence. The expression e=mc.sup.2 defines a condition of existence, not a condition of the physical universe only. It asserts that the imagined measure of the physical universe--energy--transforms with the real condition of the physical universe in constant proportionality to the speed of light, that mind and body transform quantumly (by analogy). In order to know the physical universe one must know, more fundamentally, that there is a dualism of mind and body, that in explaining the physical universe one is explaining the forms of one's existence, in the imagined conditions of the body or the physical universe, in transformation with the forms of mind or energy. Expressions defining changes in energy levels are cognitive recreations of the universe's masses in (actual) transformation. The physical universe thus has more to do with an existential universe than the concrete objects of the sciences. (While this epistemological discussion of the nature and origin of the physical universe continues to unfold in the following passages, it should be appreciated here that our religions have had a tradition of representing the transformations of mass and energy, or observing the fundamental nature of the physical universe, in the simple beholding of a lighted candle. What is observed in the action of a lighted candle is no more and no less than all the knowledge that the quantum theory of modem science seeks to explain--that which is beyond our knowing, the transformation of the universe.)

*snip*
Of all the knowledges developed in history, not once has one represented a single object that we can know or perceive without the object being placed, at least representationally, in transformation with another. Any meaningful expression of our knowledges is always represented as a transformation of objective form and not as an instance of an objective form, without the mind's assistance in placing it in transformation with another. This is because the ultimate reality of the physical universe does not exist objectively. The universe is not an object. Rather, the objects of a classically physical (or cognitive) universe are enabled in the knowing and perceiving of them. Two abstract points of mathematics gain meaning only in the transformation, or structure, placed upon them. Two masses (or the composition of one) gain meaning only in transformation with each other (or in the composition of the one) but have no meaning in and of themselves or their compositions without their observer. Energy, as an objective form, has no influence at all on a physical universe. What occurs in reality is the expression of the observer's existence in massive transformation, wherein the observer compares two conditions of matter as levels of energy. In all contemplations of the physical universe, precisely what we think is real--the physical universe--has never existed. What lies in the middle of atoms or points is the essence of one's existence, not a physical universe.

Though in the constructions of the unified theory, the forms of all of our languages are merged into a single grammar that places form universally on Being, it is important to recognize here that no expression of knowledge is any different from another in the ultimate reality of the universe--those expressions of the sciences included--since such an expression is made by the observer, who remains fundamentally unchanged after thinking and perceiving. A verb in the grammars of natural language and a function of mathematics (in the Cartesian sense) are one and the same form in a representation of what is ultimately real, in terms of representing the transformation of the observer's existence. A mass m and an energy e transform in the observer's existence, even in the linguistic representation of them, but above all, they do not exist in and of themselves without their observer. As objects, m and e have no meaning until they are represented in transformation with one another or until they are represented as ultimately real embodiments of the observer (e=mc.sup.2). The physical universe is thus a form of existence, and not the other way around.

Since there must be further discussion of the sciences before arriving at the principal structures supporting the unified theory and science of androids, let us address directly the stated fallacy that matter is universally conserved and not created, for this discussion will lay the groundwork for an epistemological understanding of the universe. In Buddha's questioning in the parable recited earlier, space is not an object, whether such a space is a physical one of atoms or an abstract one of points. Space, time, or any other form of a classically physical universe is a consequence of the transformation of the ultimately real universe, or you, the reader--the observer. The calculus and the topologies of real numbers provide that in a single contemplation, there are infinitely many spaces or transformations of the observer's knowing or perceiving as objective forms approach one another. Consequently, known in the minds of just a handful of observers, there is more than an overwhelming abundance of spaces, or transformations of the universe, and that is without even considering their linguistic expressions or other experiences of a real universe. Matter, in the unified theory, is a substance of the mind or of the body, or in general of corporality, but does not exist objectively without the more ultimately real existence of its observer. In the well-known expression of the theory of relativity, e=mc.sup.2, mass transforms with energy in constant proportionality to the square of the speed of light, but mass and energy do not at all exist in and of themselves; their transformations exist, and this is what is represented in the expression.

We now ask, what is more ultimately real, that which we classically think exists objectively in our physical universe--something occurring within the objectification of matter itself as an ultimately non-existent objective form--or that which has or allows for the meaning of our expression of it? What is real to the unified theory is the transformation of objective form (matter) and not objective form itself. You, the reader, are the reality of the equals sign in the aforementioned relativistic expression; you are what lies in the middle of mass and energy. You, or the essence of what you are, is what is real and that is why the expression has meaning to you. Take the equals sign away and see if mass and energy can transform, have meaning or even exist in a physical universe. Moreover, the preceding expression, e=mc.sup.2, with a small amount of insight, can be seen to exist in the same form as the English language expression I am alive, since they each express the transformation of an observer in an ultimately real universe. In any expression of knowledge, the observer is represented and not the objects of transformation so conventionally thought to exist.

*snip*
If, for example, one begins pondering the physical universe with the premise that its matter is infinite, there is no limit to the amount of matter in the universe. If one begins pondering the physical universe with the premise that its matter is finite, there is an amount of matter by which the universe is bounded. Our very thoughts of such things, however, are contained in what enables the thinking and perceiving of them. Another way of approaching this observation is to consider that one knows the forms of the infinite by knowing the forms of mathematics, which are comprised of instances of one's knowing their represented formulations. These formulations are known, along with the forms of our natural languages, in the embodiments of the ultimate reality of the universe. All objective forms of our knowing and perceiving, matter included, are contained in what enables them and in what enables our existence. If what enables our existence is itself unbounded, as we conceive it in contemplations of our own existence, we cannot say that the objective forms of our existence, including mass and energy, are conserved in the ultimate reality of our universe, since what enables them is unknown and therefore not knowably constrained. (We need only ask ourselves, are our thoughts bounded or conserved by our own knowing? That is, do we occupy the means of creating ourselves or our own thoughts? If the answer is that we do, we must consider that we must also have the means to know what is beyond our knowing, an observation that is a self-contradiction of obvious proportions.)

We can say then that what we generally refer to as matter (mass and energy) of classical scientific theory exists ultimately in our knowing and perceiving of it. The sciences, and indeed all of our knowledges represented by them, prove this observation if we consider what is ultimately represented in them--the transformations of the objective forms that are known and perceived in our existence. As a result, the matter of the physical universe, along with all other objective forms known and perceived of it, arises from beyond our knowing. All forms of a physical universe arise differently in each and every one of us, and this is what the theory of relativity explains if it is extended epistemologically to the postulates of the unified theory--that the events of the universe are perceived objects that require the constancy of the speed of light, since light is a medium of perception; or, the epistemological forms of mind and body transform quantumly in the moments of the creations of the universe. (This observation is discussed further later on.) What we broadly refer to as matter of a physical universe is actually the creation of the universe, or of ourselves. Otherwise, how would one explain the difference between Newtonian and relativistic universe--on the basis of history, by which it would be understood that the physical universe changes in its form to suit an era? The beliefs of the world's religions in the creation of existence and the objective transformations of the physical universe observed by the sciences in the transformational occurrence of the objects of the world around us, massive or otherwise, are brought together in the postulate of the unified theory that matter is indeed created, though matter is redefined in the theory as the ultimately real occurrence of its observer. The bodies of knowledge of science and religion can thus be merged in the unified theory on the basis of whether the knowing and perceiving of any objective form of the physical universe can be enabled by another. Hence is established the science of androids.

*snip*
As a preamble to this discussion we may consider why point masses, and collections thereof, or even centers of mass (of gravity), point charges, and so on, are essential to the classical description of the physical universe. If one were to review all the physics journals ever published on the massive universe in search of a single instance proving the ultimately real existence of mass, not one inference would be drawn to give evidence that mass exists apart from its observer, or is even relevant to the occurrence of the universe. What is described in a classical analysis of the universe is the transformation of the universe, or of (a) mass, in the belief that the mass exists in the ultimate reality of its observer. The unified theory is not primarily concerned with, for example, how light is diffracted through a prism, however; it is interested in where the prism comes from in the first place. Our conventional study of the physical universe axiomatically implies the existence of the objects, or masses of the universe--an assumption that is not made by the unified theory. A point mass is essential to our classical understanding of the physical universe because if it actually existed it would be an intrinsic form of the ultimately real universe, which enables the objects of the universe. In such a case, however, it would not only be a thing, or an object of an observer's perception; it would be an observer. In order for a thing to exist, one's own self must exist, and in the transformation of one's self, a thing arises in the knowing and perceiving of it. This hypothetical review of physics journals would then prove one idea--that mass has never been defined absolutely because its observer has never been defined absolutely. A point mass, a thing or an object of one's existence (perception and knowing) is not a point mass at all when it becomes an intrinsic form of existence, apart from its observer; then it becomes an observer. The expressions of physics define transformations of one's existence and of objects enabled in the embodiment of one's existence. One cannot know a mass, a space, a time or any other physical form--in ultimate reality, that is--because one cannot know one's own existence. One can enable the knowing and perceiving of such forms, however, in the creation of other, synthetic beings, as will be demonstrated later on.

A classical mass does not exist even in its conventional representation if it is not in transformation with one other or with a field of forces or some other physical phenomenon. If there is no force of gravitation, of coulomb attraction, or of strong or weak nuclear forces, neither a mass, an electron nor a proton can exist in our knowing or perceiving of it because we cannot know it without its being in transformation. Isaac Newton's mechanics, James Maxwell's electromagnetics and Albert Einstein's relativity describe forms of existence, ultimately real transformations, but these theories do not describe actual masses, currents and small particles in an ultimately real universe. These historical formulations do not describe a universe that exists apart from you, the reader, since no extrinsic universe exists apart from its observer. Point masses are employed in classical definition of the physical universe because what is described in classical and quantum physics is the transformation of objective forms that are known and perceived and the point masses are the necessary (non-existent, in ultimate reality) objects of the transformations, but the point masses themselves do not exist ultimately. What is relevant to classical and all other definition of the physical universe is the transformation of mass and not mass itself. In the conventional formulae describing mass, it is the transformation of mass, or of the existence of the observer, that is described. What we are defining with the use of mass in classical study is a general rule of what can be known and perceived scientifically of the physical universe, not the physical universe (e.g., the physical universe is an object of our knowing representing all of what can be known and perceived and is beyond our knowing and perceiving in totality).

Also in connection with our reliance on point masses of conventional theories of the universe, or ultimately non-existent objects of perception, we can peruse the same physics journals and endeavor to explain why light transforms at non-existent point objects of the physical universe, or why the objects that bend light cannot occupy space in the analysis of them. In all of our scientific knowledges, nowhere is it explained how even a simple teacup, placed on a table in front of us--most assuredly a real object of the physical universe--exists and at once transforms light. Neither can the scientific literature that addresses directly how an object of our perception--like a teacup or a prism--transforms light explain why it is that we cannot see the transformation of light at or within the object. Light, according to the literature, is said to be refracted at a point, an object by definition that does not occupy space but defines space in its relation to other points. An electron or other small particle is not said actually to discharge light; a change in energy levels causes light to be emitted from the particle. This awkward description of reality, however, has never proceeded to explain what from the particle means. For example, we may ask, is there a special device within the object of an electron, consistent with the ad hoc definition of a photon, whose purpose it is to do the objective transforming of an object into light, such that from it would mean from the embodied device of the electron, or a photon? According to these observations, wherein light is thought to transform or bend in relation to itself through the medium of an observed object like a teacup or a prism, or wherein light is emitted from an object, all classical definitions rely on the non-existence of the object, in either the absence of analytical definition of the teacup or prism in this example or the conjuring of a photon or light-emitting device to transform an object into light proper.

The reason that light must transform at a non-existent point object of the universe is because the physical universe is a transformation, and not an object--a transformation of the ultimately real universe in the enabling form of a perception or knowledge of an object. A teacup, an electron, a photon, or even a ray of light does not exist in the ultimate reality of the universe; perceptions (and knowledges) of them exist, or are enabled, in the ultimate reality of the universe. Though more discussion follows, objects are the perceptions of them, and perceptions are the products of ultimately real transformations of the universe. Light must bend (or be created in the conventional sense of emission) at a non-existent point because a transformation of the universe is a non-existent point, beyond our perception--an embodiment of a moment of the ultimately real universe enabling an object and the perception of it.

*snip*
The wave equation of light, if one chooses to interpret it in this manner, provides for an infinity of objects or masses in the transformational existence of waves, since there is no difference between the transformations of mathematics describing a wave form and those describing a big or small particle in its objective or classically massive condition. A point of mathematical space is undefined and so becomes defined in the structure imposed upon it by the mathematician. Whether such a point is defined as a wave or a particulate mass is epistemologically irrelevant. In the case of the wave equation of quantum physics, the objective forms enabling the universe--space, time, force, mass, and so on--are viewed as transforming in the expression of the wave equation. Space, time, force, momenta, and other spatiotemporal parameters of the wave equation, however, are the same objects characterizing the objective masses of classical physics in the Newtonian order of the universe. The quantum theory therefore deteriorates epistemologically. If space, time, force, and momenta (and other spatiotemporal phenomena) are the classical objects of perception of one's enabled existence, enabled in the medium of light, for instance, and one formulates a wave equation describing the medium of light using them, it must be recognized that these objects of the observer's perception were used to define the universe in both cases. The quantum theory, in explaining the same physical universe of classical physics, uses the same objects by which we know and perceive a classical Newtonian universe--space, time, force, momenta, and so on--to define the phenomenon of light in which the universe is enabled. This phenomenon, however, is not at all a physical one, or one of classically scientific origin, for light is an enabling medium of human sense, enabling the perceptions of classical objects. In the quantum theory, we inadvertently supply new matter or masses, called the transformations of the wave equation, to replace the old big ones we observe classically, without recognizing that it is neither the object enabled in light nor the phenomenon of light itself that is ultimately real. When we consider an electron, for example, we consider a classical mass. When we consider the quantum behavior of an electron, we consider the medium of light, or a different object, namely that of the wave form. In both Newtonian and quantum physics, it is the transformation of any object--of classical masses or of waves--that is ultimately real, not the object defined. Since we require that each theory describes the physical universe--both the object and its enabling medium--we simply contemplate creation (what is represented in a lighted candle). Regardless of how many small particles and waves we subdivide the universe into when we study it, since the universe is created in the moment of its observer, we contemplate, redundantly, the creations of the universe. In a simple teacup or prism there are an infinity of creations or moments of the ultimately real universe--in each of which a ray of light may be bent. This is why we cannot count the number of light rays impinging on or emanating from an object; only the transformation of the object exists in the infinity of moments of the universe.

Matter, or light, behaves quantumly because we behave quantumly. The transition of a small particle to a wave (the emanation of light caused by the drop of energy level of the particle) is not a scientific episode; it is an existential one. The quantum theory, thus, cannot be relied on for an explanation of the ultimate reality of the universe because it is not founded on a tenable proposition. The theory presumes that it is possible to enable one's own senses, and therefore one's own existence, from what is sensed. This is why we are puzzled when a particle becomes a wave; we are attempting to experience objectively our own creation in a burst of light and the disappearance of an object. We conveniently overlook the fact that we conjure up the analytical wave forms of the wave equation in which classical masses are enabled in the same existence that knows each of the forms in both cases. Most assuredly it will be an enigma that matter is sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle; transformations of the universe can be embodied but cannot be observed objectively. Precisely where we think we have defined something substantive concerning the nature and origin of the universe--the quantum theory--is precisely where its nature and origin will be revealed, though not from the standpoint of the classical sciences, but in the nature of our existence itself.

Yeah! Why so much quoting?

How about providing a URL that works? Like this.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I'll believe it when this "universal translator" correctly translates from language A to language B and back again syntactically and idiomatically correct. There are two apocryphal stories about such translations.

1: The phrase "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" was translated from English to Russian and back again resulting in "Good vodka, rotten meat".

2: The phrase "Out of sight, out of mind" was translated from English to Chinese and back again resulting in "Invisible, crazy".

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.