The above definition of Effect also asserts a source of or for “Difference”. Analogous to the Electrical term “switch closed” where the original source of difference is both voltage and amperes are free to flow. The RMCM asserts that Inwardly flowing Gravity is our source for closing difference, Difference Closed.
Within Delta when Gravity flows inwardly ∞- and does so in critically proximity to the outward flows, Cause, Timelets from each flow bind into a single unit of time. As time is bound, the passing inward and outward flows discretely snarl implementing a three dimensional unit of mass. Together time and flow at critical proximity discharge a DarkSpark. The DarkSpark is a discrete existential event of both mass and time or MassTime. We already know of this result as a point.
The above Titled definition of Cause asserts a source of or for “Difference”. Analogous to the term switch open where the source of difference is both voltage and amperes. The RMCM asserts that Gravity is our source of difference. In Delta, Gravity flows outwardly +∞ opening difference. The RMCM asserts that this is Cause and Causation.
Along with the method of empiricism as the source of all knowledge goes a definition of cause that is widely accepted today. The cause of any event is a preceding event without which the event in question would not have occurred. This is a mechanistic view of causality popular in scientific circles. All the previous events would constitute the complete cause.
Causality and Causation have been treated philosophically by great minds. Fortunately, for me, presenting a model obviates argument. The model either works or it doesn’t work. Herein I merely try to explain the model, and I do so presuming this model can be tested. Everyone is free to accept or reject the definitions and the explanations I present. I predict that as we approach implementation the arguments that will arise will be exuberant. This model, when implemented, I predict will encapsulate organic intelligence within an inorganic metabolism.
The definitions and the descriptions herein just came to me. Realizations or epiphanies that arose in groups as I contemplated my ambivalences following a disaster that I was blessed to have survived. Initially I understood ambivalence from its dictionary definition as a polarization of feelings. I began to see this definition as wholly inadequate as a description of what I had been through, and what I was feeling afterwards. I agree that ambivalence tends to disable action. I agree that ambivalence can be confusing. The ambivalence of the young tends to be cleaner than the ambivalence of the more mature. My ambivalence was a cluttered thing. To sort through it required that I encapsulate the experiences mechanistically (functionally). Everything I reflected on (thought about) was a mishmash of likes and dislikes. Some of this can be attributed to the debris from a life long battle with clinical depression. Apparently a problem with my serotonin that was brought under control at midlife with Paxil. I had six years of wonderful clarity and coherence terminated by a disaster. Now I have clear moments that punctuate the noise. The only thing that keeps me whole is prayer. The images surrounding the disaster haunt me in my sleep as well as during my waking hours.
To survive I had to make things simple. One room apartment, simple meals, lots of prayer, plenty of music, film, and reflection modest wardrobe basic laundry, no women no kids. Sometime between the beginning of 2003 and the end of 2004, I began to encapsulate everything in ever simpler terms. It became clear to me that there was a profound difference between complicated and complex. Things began to stick in my mind as I gingerly bound the before and after into a new reality.
I remembered a course I attended at The University of Waterloo. I was never enrolled as a math student there; my formal education ended half way through grade eleven. The course was run by IBM. They were introducing their Visual Age software IDE they had just ported from Small Talk to Windows NT. I was using (learning) Borland’s Delphi at the time, and this of course was in C++. So what I really wanted was to know what these well educated people could tell me. I don’t “do exams”, never have never will. So I attended all the classes; I just never wrote the exam. But the course and the instructor were great and worth every penny I had spent. I asked for and was provided with a list of books that would help me understand OOP. I didn’t get the whole Object Oriented thing at the time. It took about six months of my full attention before it clicked. But click it did. And when it did it was like someone had opened the blinds. Significant here is that during the course on IBM’s Visual Age was the first time I had heard the phrase “over inherited”. What an encapsulation! Never forgot it or the almost off-handed way it was delivered, encased in a directive to focus on the Standard Template Library, as a remedy. Seems as though inheritance is over rated and not as helpful as it first appeared to be. It seems as though templates were far more productive.
If inheritance is problem at 2 or 3 gigahertz, then what of inheritance at the paltry speed of the biological operating system? The speed of water and chemicals propelled through water is comparatively slower than the speed of a micro processor.
DNA is clearly binary. DNA is a polymer of the four nucleotides A, C, G, and T, which are joined through a backbone of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose sugar residues. These nitrogen-containing bases occur in complementary pairs as determined by their ability to form hydrogen bonds between them. A always pairs with T through two hydrogen bonds, and G always pairs with C through three hydrogen bonds.nucleic acid. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite.
This is in essence a binary code innately 0 or 1 through binding, and start bit and stop bit through orientation. This way or vice a verse, is arguable. If inheritance is a terminal problem for “intelligently designed” software, then how does nature get away with it? Nature doesn’t. It needs viruses to transfer new templates from one species to another. Viral RNA isn’t constrained to base pairs. It can bring novel binary constructs to bear on a limited or failing inheritance. Template swapping and inheritance combined make increasingly complex life possible. If we encapsulate the reproductive system as a primitive metabolism on its own, then we can begin to envision how life could have grown out of more primitive metabolisms. Metabolisms so fractured and dispersed that we don’t think of them as such. The closest thing we have to them is probably the echo system itself. If one can see an echo system as a metabolic analog, then we can begin to encapsulate the history of life in the four terms primitive, modern, simple, or complex.
Life can be modern or primitive relative to the dispersion of metabolisms or as simple or complex depending on the creature’s perceptive/behavioral distance from the living machine. The more dispersed the attributes of a given metabolism the more primitive the construct. The more tightly bound to DNA, like single celled life, the simpler the life form. We are thus free to see sexual and asexual reproduction as concurrent developments rather than being forced to think of single celled life as having come first and trying to figure out what made it decide to become a concert of two or more. For all we know single celled life is the new comer and multi-cellular life came first (see diversification and purification).
Ambivalence at large can be better encapsulated as concurrent feelings of like and dislike.
I had no idea until very recently that Darwin’s entire thesis was pinned to the idea of probability. Without any knowledge of DNA Darwin could only have seen his theory as a variation on assertion that the hand of God molded Adam from the clay of the earth. All he asserted in large was that rather than God molding just Adam that God through nature molded all life on earth. God had provided a mechanism for man to evolve from the lower beasts. As nature molded life, nature improved on the design by allowing only the fittest of any model in production to be used for further molds. The evidence was all around us if we just took the time to see. Darwin’s failure of course was twofold. One failure was the complete inability of his theory to form the basis for accurate predictions. The other failure was the absence of an algorithm. It is one thing to declare a connection; it is quite another to show the steps that built the connection.
Given enough dots, we can connect them in anyway that suits us. We can construct elaborate transformations and trace a route by which the most primitive connections can be changed into elaborate motifs.
I have defined Cause as Difference opened.
Humans have no capacity to sense movement. Humans are movement. Humans have only the capacity to respond to change. Movement is the source of all change. For movement to occur there must be some event of difference. This is the Chicken-or-the-Egg conundrum, as in “which came first?” Difference requires an event as much as an event requires difference. This temporal conundrum causes origin, evolution, and time to fail. Mathematics and the sciences can never help us here. They all fail because they have no capacity for concurrence – distinct flows arising from the same constraint. The RMCM views mathematics as : the manipulation of Form and Function to elucidate Cause and Effect. The RMCM views science as the manipulation of Cause and Effect to elucidate Form and Function. They combine to form an equality rather than a complexity. The sums are equal to the parts. While such encapsulations are clearly well suited for discovery, they are, by design, incapable of producing genuine novelty. Novelty is a Divine Prerogative, of which The Rational (the universe) is but one implementation.
To make any sense of the event-difference conundrum there must be a source of yet simpler events or attributes hidden by a complex eventhorizon. This event horizon is referred to in the RMCM as a Condition. That Event Horizonwhich crosses from an antecedent simplicity to complexity is the Divine rise of Novelty. The RMCM encapsulates this novelty as Value. This crossover is encapsulated in the Model according to the context.
definition of Growth : the abstraction of value from metabolism. The RMCM encapsulates the crossover event in and of itself as a Shift. Difference arises via Shifting. The Model encapsulates the shift as an aggregate of two identifiable granules (parts). One granule is “Cause”, and the other granule is “Effect”. The Shift executes this climb up the ladder of complexity iteratively as difference opening and difference closing. This provides us with our definitions for Cause : difference opened, and Effect : difference closed. As hard as it may be to talk of Cause indifferently to Effect, a good model provides for such distinctions. A good and true model of the universe should, in and of itself, provide all of us, including those with rudimentary vocabulary and reading skills, genuine access to all possible fields of endeavor, so that we have equal access to God’s plan for each of us.
Granted this can be argued as still just another case of “handing off” ultimate causes or origins to some un-provable otherness. Nevertheless, we can and must build models that can be tested to show that such otherness is at least existential. We can and must find an encapsulation of the universe that can bind all disciplines persistently, because technology will deliver powerful containers available to the “everyman”. Eventually everyman will be able to destroy all the others.
The source of mass is an aggregate of influences, and this would be a universe where pure cause persists independently of any precise effect. Our only knowledge of such a universe is Transcendence, gravity. Gravity persists as itself whether or not there is any kind of substance in proximity. Placing an object of any kind into the proximity of gravity does not change gravity. Unlike radiation (or light), which can be blocked by an appropriate mass, gravity is not an actual part of our universe.
 If the core remnant of a supernova exceeds about two solar masses, it continues to contract. The gravitational field of the collapsing star is predicted to be so powerful that neither matter nor light can escape it. The “star” then collapses to a black hole—a singularity, or point of zero volume and infinite mass, hidden byan event horizon at a distance called the Schwarzschild radius. Bodies crossing the event horizon, or a beam of light directed at such an object, would seemingly just disappear—pulled into a “bottomless pit.”
Black holes remain hypothetical, but observations suggest that such phenomena may possibly exist in the star system Cygnus X-1 and at the centre of the Galaxy.
FROM: star. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite.
Copyright Donald Weetman Cameron; Written and designed by Donald Weetman Cameron; Developed by Donald Weetman Cameron and Rick SillikerDocument name : Cause4free writing; Created : 7/16/2009 5:13 PM
Amended : 8/5/2009 11:22:00 PM, Printed 7/28/2009 5:17 AM; Size 60416 bytes
Page 1 of 4
The smallest construct in the known universe is The Point. The point occupies no “Space”. I could never accept space as a truth. Sure, we “use” the word, and most understand the reference. “Space” then must be an illusion or a concept. As we shed the shackles of this undefined construct, “Space”, and the many others that fill our minds, you will experience a range of emotions. Some will experience general discomfort, anxiety, claustrophobia and even vertigo. I tell you this as we will be shedding many shackles herein. I have been yelled at. laughed at, feared, and I have confounded too many to count. So, of the assertions to come herein, no arguing with others, mistreating others, or harming anyone by misusing the assertions including the lexicon, to blindside, bushwhack or deliberately confound.
I have known this since late childhood
4a : a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates
b (1) : a narrowly localized place having a precisely indicated position
• walked to a point 50 yards north of the building
(2): a particular place : LOCALITY
• have come from distant points
c (1) : an exact moment
• at this point I was interrupted
(2) : a time interval immediately before something indicated : VERGE
• at the point of death
d (1) : a particular step, stage, or degree in development
• had reached the point where nothing seemed to matter anymore