Testing Bidirectional Temporal Causality

Since we have evolved to generally perceive causality as proceeding forward in time it is at least implicitly counterintuitive to propose that causality may be in fact temporally bidirectional. To suppose such a hypothesis is liberally tantamount to an insult (or at least conservatively indicative of a lack of esteem) towards science as a whole. However as systems become increasingly chaotic our current standard for predictive power begins to approach the limit of its power (e.g. weather, population growth, and the evolution of celestial magnetic fields). Increased accuracies, accommodation of initial conditions, and iterative inclusion/exclusion of increasingly predictive variables does not seem to be appreciably accelerating the curve of this differential. I, therefore propose that our perceived relation to the dimension of time to be a proprietary one. Taking into account that evolution selects for merely the minimally subjectively competitive traits (i.e. in this case, calibration of the senses) we should be careful to not take our conscious experience to be anything more than a locally objective standard. By extension then the pursuit of any truly objective knowledge must follow a comparable course of critical competition if the result is to be the same: evolution.
In science we seek to avoid bias, the most paradoxically challenging one to foresee implicitly being expectation bias itself. Moving forward in time we tend to use statistical algorithms (e.g. Monte Carlos, Metropolis) that follow energy through time since in any open system energy will move downhill. I propose following a disparate variable backward through time will minimize any tendency towards bias, while also adding power to any algorithm that seeks to predict the state of a system for any given time. Extrapolating this reductionistic physical perspective even allows for the tracking of variables (mass, space, energy) linearly through the spatial dimensions as well. Quadratic equations modeled in parallel, holding each dimension constant in turn, will describe the system from the multiplicity of perspectives possible (themselves potentially to be modeled together with a Monte Carlo-like random statistical algorithm). Then since objectivity is merely the sumof all possible subjective states, these proprietary equations may then be combined to give greater discriminatory power for the prediction of the system's state. This information can then be retrofitted back to human perceptual bias as needed for translation into non-mathematical languages.


Mikey Campbell said...

So ru saying an "intelligence" (or any higher level concept for that matter) could be just a relatively more competitive but still randomly generated algorithm for summing subjectively configured interpretations of our universe? And if so, how would you utilize this (randomly generated) insight in order to create a proof of principle? And don't say artificial intelligence that's so cliche!

Mikey Campbell said...

Ok I won't say that. However, this just fell outta meh brain:
internal democracy + endosymbiosis theory + external feedback regulation
Seems to parallel Freud's id, ego, and superego wherein the id decides what the internal community wants, the superego determines what the external community wants, and the ego figures out how to make the external society dependent upon the id so it duznt hafta compromise any more, hehehe jk.

Perhaps the democratic interpretation of the fuzzy comparative voting system could be fixed by receiving every substructure's votes relative to the substructure's maximum, adding some sort of relevance/importance multiplier (floating exchange rate), and then reinterpreting this product in terms of the receiving substructure's algorithm and using it's local max as the objective max for all.

Perhaps too then, everything becomes locally objective by a sum of independent subjective data passing thru a codec (read: perceptual organ) and being reinterpreted locally.

Is my consciousness the highest level of this regulatory process (eg neocortex)? If it is, how am I able to ask this question? If it is not, the delineation of individual humans may approach the limit of being a useless hook we use to hang limited percepts upon. If we are to assume that the individual is defined by an intelligence, and then extrapolate the previous, the feedback regulation as presented by society (and subsequently reverse projected back upon the individual) represents a still higher level of consciousness.

If democracy is to reach it's limit (as would seem is naturally selected for within this model, as it maximizes objectivity) we will eventually be connected all the time, instead of just most of the time.

The floating exchange rate analogy is a powerful one. This type of market system is self correcting thru supply and demand. I propose that this same mechanism describes all levels of feedback in an intelligence as well: increased demand for local behaviors as determined by others would serve to upregulate the local exchange rate, implying a strong economy or an accurately percepting intelligence.

#smeepy boy