Any physical process, from quantum mechanics to heartbeat, can be recorded by an observer only through a kind of "lens". Its material is a combination of not only mathematical equations, but also the desire, intuition, experience and knowledge of the researcher. They, in turn, are "nested" in some system of units (for example, SI), which is chosen with the consent of the researchers. Thus, a kind of aberration - a distortion of reality - penetrates the simulation before any physical or even mathematical statement is formulated. Distortion degree images in comparison with the real process significantly depends on the selected class of phenomena and the number of "quantities created by observation".

Instead of thinking of this visual (human consciousness as you call it) as a restrictive force, how about appreciating the dimension it explores...

Now keep adding extra dimensions by other fellow researchers.

The restriction emerges and develops gradually when the followers stop trying something new.

As every individual is unique, so is his/her signature "nesting" capabilities.

The beauty of the "lens" is subject to operation from different perspectives.

The vision of course, is Infinite...

and will continue to stay so,

thereby providing ample opportunities for more accurate modelling.

Dear ,

Thank you for your comment.

At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the following.

" accurate modelling "

Any experiment is preceded by a model of the studied phenomenon.

Absolutely all statistic methods are used to process already conducted experiments and computer calculations. Every model has inherent uncertainty. There is no "exact simulation".

The initial unavoidable minimum uncertainty is related to the qualitative and quantitative set of variables in the model. This is a different approach to assessing the perfection of a model.

However, the newest (and perhaps most controversial) idea is that the choice of any variables in a model is made on an equiprobable basis. That is, in order to describe (model) the same phenomenon of the real world, different observers choose groups of variables that differ from each other, which is explained by the initial philosophical concept (knowledge, experience, intuition) of each research group. Human expectations are biased and differ from person to person, with measurable consequences for behavior and cognition.

Imagine that one observer describes an electron as a particle and another as a wave. Since both observers use only different mathematical descriptions of the same physical object, one cannot say that one of them is correct and the other is not. They are both correct, even if their conclusions about the characteristics of the electron's behavior differ. Ultimately, these observers agree on the entire structure of the electron itself. And that's the whole point. Since the electron does exist, most physicists expect that then everyone, regardless of the point of view and language of the theory, will come to an agreement on its properties. This situation confirms the possibility of equally probable accounting for any variable from the system of units (for example, SI) in the model, thanks to the philosophical vision of a particular observer of the surrounding world.

Thus, I propose a postulate of prior equiprobability (minimum predictability possible) for any variable that may appear in the model.

Agreed.

Apriori equiprobability mapping of all possible variables.......

I think the dominants phenomena is the need and particular form of the need/structure with sufficient mathematical knowledge to code physical phenomena over mathematical expressions, equations or functions (input to output relation for measurements/computing/visualization) .

Dear Geetali Saha ,

I believe I should be critical of my own statements :-)

It would seem that our experience and decisions in the macroscopic world remain based on objective facts. At the same time, with the information method in mind, our most accurate scientific theories (theory of relativity and quantum mechanics) can actually be based on subjective facts (the philosophical view of the researcher) at the most fundamental level in epistemological questions about the fundamental nature of reality. It is in tiny deviations from the generally accepted principles of modeling physical phenomena that the first hints of new physics can appear.

Dear Prof. Muhammad Ali ,

It's hard to disagree with you!

At the same time, on the one hand, the limited power of computers and the knowledge of researchers may not allow solving models with a large number of variables (it is difficult to find exact relationships between variables). On the other hand, a researcher, based on his experience, knowledge and intuition, chooses a certain class of phenomena (electro-hydraulic or heat-electro-magnetic and so on) and the number of variables.

Therefore, from my point of view, there is an unavoidable uncertainty (systematic uncertainty), which all known statistical methods cannot solve. This is because they are applied to experiments and computer calculations that have already been implemented.

We can generalize your argument quite simply. All ways of observation require a focus. Theories, models, microscopes, and telescopes, and human vision are all ways to focus. Focus always comes at a cost. We must decide what we choose to see. Therefore, we must always also determine what we will not see. There is no escape.

However, we can apply multiple conflicting "lenses" as a means of discovery. That is the point of my Dialectical Inquiry paper. The dialectical assumption is that conflicting truths are possible because every truth is incomplete. By that means, we explore the limitations of our lenses.

Dear Eli Berniker ,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Honestly, I am afraid from using a part of the Marx-Lenin philosophy in physics:

"The dialectical assumption is that conflicting truths are possible because every truth is incomplete. By that means, we explore the limitations of our lenses. "

For me, it is difficult to translate your feeling on the mathematical language.

I suggest, if you do not contradict, the following:

Recently published articles claim that the properties of the physical world are independent of our observations of them. At the same time, it is obvious that any physical systems are described in terms (dimensional and dimensionless variables), depending on the observer and thanks to his knowledge, experience and intuition. In other words, the details of observation depend on the frame of reference of the observer or the “free will” of a person. Thus, from the standpoint of the statistical theory of information, the information content embedded in the measurement process model takes on a special meaning: it is due to the freedom of the observer’s thought to choose one or another variable from the set of all possible variables. In this context, according to the suggested approach, the human evaluation of information is completely ignored. In other words, the set of 100 musical notes played by chimpanzees will have exactly the same amount of information as that of the 100 notes played by Mozart in his Piano Concerto No. 21 (Andante movement).

What do you suggest???

Thank you for participation in this forum.

Best regards

Boris

The dialectic is an ancient model most prominently discussed by Hegel. Note that I am not advocating Marxist dialectical materialism. Nor am I suggesting that reality is dialectical. Rather, I am suggesting that our human means of observation are defined by our choice of focus. Thus, multiple competing perspectives operate in a dialectical relationship. None can have a complete grasp of any reality because each requires a selected focus.

Nor would I suggest as you do that observation depends on the "free will" of the person. Reality, whatever that may be, does not depend on anyone's will. Observation, whether human via models and theories or physical via electron microscopes or radio telescopes always requires focus. And focus, by definition, is a selection of what is to be seen. Our lenses may be physical, philosophical, electronic, or physical. They are limited by the need to focus. No one escapes.

And, therefore, there cannot be complete truths. That is demonstrated by our hypothesis testing which concludes with a failure to reject a hypothesis. We do not assert a truth so much as fail to reject it.

I am not sure what we mean by a statistical theory of information. My first reaction is to look at Shannon's arguments about information versus noise in a channel. He notes that the capacity of a channel to eliminate noise is exactly equal to its capacity to carry information.

The comparison between Monkey notes and Mozart's notes containing a similar amount of information only makes sense in the simple sense that 100 notes equals 100 bits of information. However, from a communication perspective, the integrated melodies of Mozart register quite readily in a mind while the random notes do not. We cannot filter the noise of the monkey whereas we can readily filter the sounds of Mozart. The ordering in Mozart is additional information that is not discovered by your statistical lens.

Our consciousness dominates our modeling because all models are, of necessity, mind events. Science involves testing those models as a way of inventing other models. Kepler and Copernicus come to mind. Galileo's tests of gravity.

There is nothing wrong with the assertion about human consciousness dominating models as long as we understand the need to test our models.

By the way, technology, as opposed to science, does not seek the truth. It seeks effectiveness in terms of our goal-directed actions. We used fire for millions of years before we understood it.

EB

No need for AI super machine, which might help for validation, I started my business with this until I faced the problem of how to handle "

Stochastic Model and Worldwide Conflict Resolution: chaos, control, modeling and simulation"

So I adopted another approach based on associating obsevations (triggers) and convergence and to separate this from false convergence a very difficult subject I faced with handling non-linear model. I started the following book in 2014 to be published in 2021:

https://www.academia.edu/43796598/Stochastic_Model_and_Worldwide_Conflict_Resolution_chaos_control_modeling_and_simulation

Dear Amin Elsaleh ,

I read carefully your articles. But did not find any formulas...

You introduced a very problematic problem.

Can you transform your ideas on mathematics language?

Thanks

Boris

Dear Eli Berniker ,

" focus, by definition, is a selection of what is to be seen. "

Please, allow me to use mathematics definitions because they are more known than " focus".

Mathematical-physical model (MPM) can be defined as a physical, conceptual description of a real phenomenon using mathematical concepts and language to facilitate a correct explanation of the system or to study the influence of various variables and to predict patterns of behavior. Moreover, the model is a kind of communication channel between the observer and the phenomenon under study. However, this definition is not accurate, since the MPM is not a material medium and does not transmit information, but only presents it in the mind of the observer.

To my point of view you confuse to subjects: Nature (reality) and mind of observer.

You are right that " Reality, whatever that may be, does not depend on anyone's will"

But:

Conscious observers build their own pictures of the world around them, based on experience, knowledge, and intuition. Creating in their minds a model of Nature, consisting of a huge number of elements, in a sense infinite, the observers select significant characteristics and discard the numerous connections that seem insignificant. Therefore, any model of the world (religion, science, philosophy) leads to a situation where the Universe is seen by humanity as somewhat inaccurate, in a fog of errors and doubts, blurred, in some sense, with information noise.

The method of reasoning, in which the object of study is reflected in the MPM used by the experimenter, is very common in the natural sciences, where observers use the MPM to describe the object of their research, and the structure of the MPM affects the results of observations and determines their accuracy. For example, when a physicist uses an MPM with a small number of variables and an MPM with a large number of variables, she or he gets two different answers. Obviously, although the compared models describe the same PS, qualitative and quantitative differences in the use of variables lead to differences in the results, magnitudes of the uncertainties of the MPM and to differences in the requirements for checking the accuracy of experiments.

I am one of those who expect that science will one day lead to the production of a super-intelligent machine that serves humanity.

Dear Isam Alkhalifawi ,

You are optimistic. It is great! Your model of human consciousness is positive!

I want to hope that our grandchildren will live on the GREEN Earth !

I would be careful to state "Our knowledge of the world begins not with matter, but with perception" since, there are biological factors that predispose humans to certain behaviours and observations. Further, as knowledge is acquired that perception is influenced by such prior knowledge. This makes biological factors, prior knowledge as important as consciousness in the processing of information. For the AI, there are also equivalent factors, such as, the programming of the learning functions and knowledge bases to interpret the phenomena.

"However, if there is a limit to this progress, the rate of discovery will slow down. This remark is especially important for artificial intelligence, which seeks to create a truly super intelligent machine"

There are other implementation factors that will limit a super AI before this, such as complexity of architecture, communication and levels of recursiveness.

Dear Boris Menin, the following link http://www.ediaudit.fr/web-s.htm

describe many models based on mathematical approach, we developed the product "ediaudit" to handle several successful applications; from that time, things evolved, I am using cumulated experiences, and I do believe now to be able to overcome Covid, climate chaos, unpredictable military conflicts, that mathematical models should play the role of support to increase our learning and get better simulations. As far I am concerned,, I shall not formulate anymore mathematical approach, since we need fast convergence to reach our goal within very few months, sorry to disappoint you

Boris,

Your description of MPM is exactly what I mean by a focusing method. MPM requires the observer to select the data that is understood as relevant to particular phenomena. The reason I use the term "focus" is to signal the effect on the notion of a "lens." However we want to formulate the question, we cannot escape the need to choose what we want to see. Therefore, human choices must dominate what humans see. By the way, look at how many Americans literally choose not to believe in the Covid pandemic. Some disbelieve, i.e. cannot see Covid, even as they are dying from it.

Dear Eli Berniker ,

I think that you are absolutely right: " look at how many Americans literally choose not to believe in the Covid pandemic. Some disbelieve, i.e. cannot see Covid, even as they are dying from it."

... how many people died and were killed but they believed to Stalin.

Faith (any kind) interferes with the full perception of reality!

Dear Amin Elsaleh ,

Thank you for this link.

May be, regarding " the knowledge " , you will be interesting on papers of Mark Burgin

Dear Arturo Geigel ,

Regarding " There are other implementation factors that will limit a super AI before this, such as complexity of architecture, communication and levels of recursiveness. "

I am sure that the human consciousness will verify additional FACTORS! At the same time, I want to believe (it is not scientific approach) that scientists can improve our knowledge about the Nature and, may be, about G-d ???!!!

Basically I am a scientist, but the answer to the issue " Is human consciousness the dominant factor in the accuracy of modeling a physical phenomenon? could find an answer in my research on Al-Farabi (10th century)

https://www.academia.edu/8527020/WHAT_COULD_BE_AL_FARABI_founder_of_Islamic_Neoplatonism_ADDED_VALUE

this research deepened my knowledge of modeling and led me to this post:

https://www.academia.edu/44725919/EVOLUTION_ARCHITECTURALE_Architectural_Evolution

I think I managed a final modeling in:

https://www.academia.edu/43796598/Stochastic_Model_and_Worldwide_Conflict_Resolution_chaos_control_modeling_and_simulation

Dear P. Contreras ,

You have raised a very important question!

In my opinion, long answers are not popular in the WG, so I will answer as short as possible.

1. You know that I have developed an information method (theoretically proven) that allows you to assess the accuracy of any model. Its main conclusion is that the consciousness of the researcher, his knowledge, experience and intuition determine (when using any measurement system from which the variables are selected) a threshold discrepancy between the model and the observed phenomenon. For each model, there is an OPTIMUM number of variables and an optimal comparative uncertainty. The advantage of this method is especially evident in the analysis of the errors of physical constants, an area of ​​scientific activity in which the greatest success has been achieved in achieving high measurement accuracy.

2. Perhaps the scientific methods considered are currently limited to taxonomy; in other words, the subject is limited by accuracy, not precision, and that close attention to the underrated taxonomy will bring values closer together over the next few years.

For example. Great care must be taken when formulating forecasts of improving the accuracy of the Hubble constant measurement. The fact is that, with an increase in the number of observed space objects, according to the majority of astronomers using various methods of calculating H0, the absolute (ideal) statistical stability of the parameters and characteristics of any physical phenomena (real events, quantities, processes and fields) will be observed.

However, as was proved [Igor Illich Gorban Gorban I.I. The physical-mathematical theory of hyper-random phenomena. Computer Science Journal of Moldova. 2017;25(2,74):145-194. :http://www.math.md/files/csjm/v2

5-n2/v25-n2-(pp145-194).pdf], the key role in limiting accuracy is played by the non-ideal nature of statistical stability (statistical predictability), which manifests itself in the absence of convergence (failure) of statistical estimates. At small time, spatial or space-time intervals of observation, an increase in the volume of statistical data leads to a decrease in the level of fluctuations in statistical estimates, which creates the illusion of ideal statistical stability. But, starting with a certain critical amount of data, the decrease in the level of fluctuations ceases. A further increase in the number of data either practically does not affect the level of fluctuations in the estimates, or even leads to their growth.

Sorry, for my so specific, maybe, not exact answer!

Best regards

Boris

Dear Amin Elsaleh ,

Thank you for your comments and links of your papers.

At the same time, sorry, that I did not understand your assumptions.

Can you shortly explain your ideas and show practically (mathematical calculations) how to apply your conclusions for verifying an accuracy of a model of physical phenomenon?

Thank you

Sincerely yours

Boris

Yes , You are right that the human consciousness provide the perfectness in the modeling as i have already discussed about the golden ratio and meditation are natural measurement approach for the perfectness or accuracy in the modeling now the computer and further development in AI it could be reflected in the accuracy provided by machine .

Dear Vivek Kumar Sharma ,

Regarding "modeling" - I can understand you.

Please, verify how meditation (by mathematical tools) can improve the accuracy of a model. It is very interesting for me.

Dear Boris Menin ,

Golden ratio is a geometric mean or average . it could be apply to every aspect of life even in which amount we have to inhale and exhale to getting the perfectness that also explain by the meditation. The perfectness can achieve by the meditation that reflects in many Indian temples architecture those follow the Fibonacci series pattern in the temple architecture without knowledge of the series but due the devotion towards the god temple construction they constructed temple with meditation. There are also the statue of Gautam Buddha in which we found the golden ratio without knowledge of golden ration . So some where you can see the golden ration and meditation and devotion are the synonyms .

The methodology is a part of perception, and it is a part of the perception that objectifies reality and brings together the frames of reference of different observers..

Dear Boris Menin, in www.ediaudit.fr every scenario was supported financially, I am ready to do that for further scenarii development according to a request, thank you for your understanding