The Wiggins Prime Sieve:

The Wiggins Prime Sieve, or How Creating Math Creativity Sorts The Primes
.
By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
.
Simplify, Simplfy, Simplify
.
Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency
.
Least energy, Least Energy, LE Rules
.
This article is written with many goals. This article shows how mathematical creativity comes about, with protean consequences to solving NP not = P. It shows how Comparisons Process (CP) creates descriptive, basic information, and data, and how THAT information is sorted by Least Energy methods to create an efficient Prime sorter. This is the essence of the new complex system, cognitive neuroscience models, which uses nearly or at least far, far more universal processors, CP, and LE and the many Methods of Comparison (Dr. Paul B. Stark, UC Berkeley)  which create mathematical creativity. Step by step. This new model creates creativity without limit, and enlightens us as to much more of Where math creativity comes from, and HOW to create methods of prime sorting with higher and higher efficiencies, literally without limit. This article will make those who use the RSA for security, very, very nervous!!!
.
Read on to find the wellsprings of math creativity (& indeed creativity of nearly ANY kind in any field) and why and HOW Thermodynamics drives information theory and HOW and why IT works. Then most will have found some of the water of math creativity, but NOT the well from which it comes.
.
This is an efficient method to sieve out 75% of the Number line & which generates the Prime Multiples (PrM) & by exclusion/process of elimination the Primes.  These beginning paragraphs set the stage & background for understanding and the empirical methods which create empirical mathematics, and its applications.
.
The basis of problem solving and creation of understanding is complex system, and thus very complicated. However, it’s manageable by the process of creating the simplicities which create/generate the complexities. We move from the simple to the complex, as a rule. Or in this case from the easily found primes to the primes with very long numbers of digits.
.
For instance in understanding the complexity of cloud formations we must understand the three basic wave fronts of the weather. The Northerly dry, cooler fronts, the Southerly blowing warm, wet fronts, and these imposed on the prevailing Westerlies. We see these complex system stabilities, and then use those pattern recognitions to solve weather problems.
.
Then we begin to see the repeating, complex interference patterns of the clouds as part and parcel of these 3 interfering, interacting waves fronts. We see bits and pieces of the waves, clearly from the West, the North and the South. And then we see the triangles of the cloud complex interference patterns. And thus can generally see the SW winds, the NW winds and those coming by combinations of the 3. From the simple fundamentals, we can develop an understanding of the complexity of the whole
.
IN the same way the complex system Plate Tectonics is composed of 5 simple patterns, by pattern recogntiopns, to describe by words, but not mathematized/or mathematizable, the multiple complex systems of the earth’s surface of most all the plates. The plates, compared to each other, have these characteristics. There is sea floor spreading, and of various types, directions and so forth, but largely the Mid Atlantic spreading zones drive the westward movement of the Americas from the splitting off of the Americas from The Euro-Asian continents and Africa. So the American plated moves west and plows into the Pacific plate. That creates the next major fundamental pattern, subduction of the plates under the Western edges of the Americas. Which then creates the greatest quakes, and the volcanoes all along the Western Americas.
.
Then there are the fault movements accompanying these complex movements, esp. shown by the San Andreas which is moving mostly northwards, carrying a chunk of the Pacific plate, the most basic element of Tectonics, the plates, northwards. There are many kinds of faults, a sort of hierarchy of them. Those are the great simple patternings which lead to understanding of the whole, but not completely.
.
Then there is the hot spot which created the many basaltic lava flows in the Hawaiian isles, the Yellowstone hot spot from the Columbia River, & flows, etc.; the Deccan traps, and the Siberian traps. Thus the most of the complex plate interactions are described, but not easily predictably, by this model, which is descriptive & thus mathematically difficult to model. As Ulam stated Math must greatly advance in order to describe/model complex systems.
.
The problem of finding, sorting to find the primes is just one of a long series of sorting problems which are unlimited in finding solutions to problems, a grand sort of NP not equal to P. If we can solve better and better this problem of creating Prime Multiples (PrM) which when compared to the number line which leaves the primes, & can necessarily exclude, & show the primes. We cannot Generate the primes. We can ONLY find them by excluding all numbers which are Prime Multiples. Those two exclude each other. A Prime cannot be a PrM, and the converse is also true. Therefore by finding a method which generates, creates and finds all possible PrM’s, then by exclusion, an efficient sorting process, we can find all the primes. & the consequences of that, are not just for math, alone. And this is yet another way to do it. An Eratosthenes Sieve, as modified by Paul Pritchard, and then greatly extended, sped up here.
.
Now we go to Gauss’ Razor. Mathematical systems should ONLY be created for practical purposes such as in engineering and the sciences, etc. or for those which show us how mathematics works. The rest of it is so often fantasy, that Gauss rid those of inutility by his simple dictum.He sorted out the wheat from the chaff. & made math more efficient.
.
The Razor is a form of empirical tester, sorter for mathematics. As we know Godel showed that math was incomplete. The Razor helps us complete that by testing, empirical sorting methods, which are least energy efficient by that sorting by T&E. That is what creates math by a creative finding, or creation of math to more precisely describe events. This has only begun, because complex systems cannot be describe very well, Mathematically.  As Ulam affirmed, math must greatly advance before it can describe complex systems.
.
The empirical testing which Gauss’ Razor relies upon creates empirical methods to apply maths. It also understands that understanding maths are needed, too. And so he cut through the mass of math generations of too many useless types, to ONLY those which had a real, practical application, by sorting to show where those worked. As we know, the Lyapunov numbers model to some extent, but not completely (Godel), the least energy stabilities. Brain processes create “consciousness, as Friston’s paper in Aeon.com essays showed, very rigorously. That is a fine example of empirical, creative application of maths. Same is true of the S-curves of Whitehead, based upon what has been written before ( S-curves, least energy discussions).
.
The rule applies to the not parallel line axiom which created the Not Euclidean geometries. But LOOK!  Spherical geometry is NOT Euclidean, because using the longitudes is not a Euclidean geometry. No parallel longitudinal lines!!! AND further, uses comparison of circumference to diameter & created THAT new method which solved the problems in spherical geometries, neatly. Information WAS added to create the new method, I.E. Pi. & by that example, the not Euclidean, 4D maths were created by at least 5 mathematicians, independently & used to model Einsteinian 4D space time. Again, pattern recognition. independently creating as in the Calculus, another useful form of mathematics.  Creation of Pi created the new math!!!
.
The general rule is that our CNS works via Comparison processes to create recognitions, and from those create the pattern recognition by detecting the repeated events in existence created by complex systems. Ulam, Fermi and Pasta showed from the first, that the repeating, stable events in complex systems are those which allow us to understand, control and navigate those. The rule is Comparison Processing creates recognitions. Then pattern recognition shows the relationships among those repeating stabilities (Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1938). & then pattern recognition, pattern recognition and then Pattern recognition without many limits. Those create the efficient categories of Aristoteles, which create the highly efficient, least energy hierarchical arrangements of our knowledge in most all cases. From the simple CP to the complex. From the simple number line, to the simple repeating PrM’s, we can do the job.
.
Therefore this new, efficient Prime sorter using Prime Multiples (PrM) to do the work, and it works, using basic math sieving, empirical means, PLUS the PrM to complete it.
.
Essentially we must find, exclude the PrM’s to sort out the primes on the number lines. This must start with 1 and work up. First we note that every number ending in 2,  or is even, except for 2, is not prime. Then we must note the same for 3, and that creates the casting out method of 2, 3’s.  Then we note that 2X5 creates in all of its forms, those numbers which end in -0 and -5. Thus we can more quickly sieve out 60% of the PrM’s to give us the primes.
Then we note this further, efficient to use pattern: All primes numbers end in 1, 3, 7, 9. Thus we can begin sieve OUT by using this method, all Prime Multiples.
This creates the first set of primes, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7.  We then use those sorting rules to create the next Decade of primes, 10, ends in zero, not prime, but is PrM. 11, 13, 17, 19. And we cannot generate any of that quartet using a prime. Those are the remainders from the exclusion of the PrM’s. So we have then 21, 23, 27, 29. Using the cast out 3’s method efficient sieve, we are left with 23 and 29. Those are primes, because there are NO PrM’s generated by our tables which are those.
.
Thus we have the original 3, 7, prime multiples, then more complete, 11, 13, 17, 19, primes to create the prime multiples (PrM’s). And then we enter those into the 20’s decade, & find 23, and 29.
.
Then we enter those into the 31, 33, 37, 39, prime quartet in the 30’s decade, sieve out the 33 & 39 as 3’s by adding up the digits. Then we know we have 31 and 37. And using this same method without limit, in every decade and every centad (100 numbers), we can sieve out down to only 40 digits which is a 60% reduction in the search size. Using the prime 3 cast out system, by summing digits, efficiently, we can eliminate 13 to 14(most commonly) more of each quartet. Then we use the PrM generating tables to show which of that series are NOT prime, leaving by exclusion, sorting out and in a complementary pattern, the Primes.
.
Same can be done by hand in about 15′ if efficient, the number line from 100 to 200, finding all the primes by this method too. But understanding that the squares of primes times all the primes is needed to further exclude all of the PrM. it uses no more, and rids about 5% of the remainder of possible primes. But because those numbers rise very quickly, there are not many of them, it’s simply that last bit of PrM elimination to get the primes.
.
.
Then we carry out that method without limit, generating the Prime Multiples, which by comparing them to the quartets of each decade, 40 per 100, sorting, and excluding them from the number line, Thus leaving the primes.
.
.
That’s how it’s done. See the next section of the PrM tables which do this, efficiently.
.
.
Thus most all of the work is done and this empirical, efficient systems, works. It’s been checked through 2000 to show the ins and outs of it.
.
.,
Understand these basics. We Cannot generate the primes, but the pattern of generation of the PrM’s is the key to the pattern of the primes. We use the discovered primes to quickly generate a great many more primes, which keeps the system going and propels finding more of the primes. It’s accurate, can be done very efficiently by noting many simplifying rules to generate & ID all known PrM’s. and that’s the general method.  Thus the primes found, efficiently sort the number line to FIND the rest primes. Sounds like impossible bootstrapping, but empirically we are generating a lot more primes in each centad, than we need to find the primes about 4-10 centads ahead, and so forth. But we feed back in the primes sorted out by exclusion of PrM’s which then allows further work to be done. IN short, the Primes are used to sort out the primes.
.
.
The Primes CANNOT be generated at all by arithmetic, but are exclusions and that is not an arithmetic rule, either, but is sorting, which is something quite different from simple mathematics. Using ONLY arithmetics  to find, sort out by exclusion the primes. Simply and effective, too.  See the prime multiples (PRM’s) tables below for examples of how to create those PrM’s, quickly.


.

..
The below Prime Multiples shows us how to do this, using a new method, which is efficient, basic and can form the basis of much more mathematical understanding of primes and how to find them, without limits.
.
.
Efficient methods are least energy methods. and ridding the number line of nearly 75% of the candidates for primes is efficient. As per the starting paragraphs, to show the way this can be created.
.
.
So, in order to solve the prime number sorting problem, we must go to the basics. What is a prime number? It’s defined by the multiplication of 1 times a prime, which is the ONLY multiple a prime can have. It cannot be a multiple of any other number. Then we have the concept of the Prime Multiple. Which means the number is NOT prime but is composed of that set of primes multiplied against each other, the least of which are two primes. All of the other prime multiples are of the type of Prime times Prime, times Prime, etc. But must be at LEAST two prime multiples. Finding a single PrM does necessarily excludes the number from being prime, and we do NOT have to know any of the other multiples, either. That short cuts (efficiency) the problem, very quickly.
.
.
No longer is it necessary to divide all numbers of the number line by at least 1/2 of that number and below, to find the primes. & it’s an Immense savings of a LOT of computing and time. Finding primes can be found using this mehtod very easily, if well organizing by only a calculator and limited by the number of digits that calculator can hold.  If the device can hold 13 digits, the primes can be generated up to the numbers in the trillions, and sequentially, and more besides.
.
.
 So if we generate PrM’s , then we know none of them are prime.
.
.
Therefore PRIMES cannot be generated by any mathematical process in arithmetic, but are in fact, PRM exclusions and eliminations. A method of sorting, IOW.
.
.
So by finding a prime multiple  greater than 2 and even, cannot be prime. Thus only the number line can create primes when it is generated. and ONLY by exclusion, elimination of the Prime Multiples  (PrM’s) can we find, sort, and detect the Primes. That basic, fundamental rule creates an efficient method, using only simple arithmetic, to generate all of the prime numbers, and exclude by a simple Comparison Process, using only what is prime.
.
.
Thus we create this vast simplification of exclusion, elimination. Starting with the simple and moving up the number line to the complex.
.
.
But what about 3? We can exclude that because it’s known that except for 1X3, which defines that prime, NO other number with a 3 as PrM can be prime. Thus the casting out of 3’s method. Sum up any sequences of number, such as 123, or 561, or etc. If the total is a number divisible by THREE, then that must be a prime multiplier of 3, and cannot be prime. This sorts out 1/3 of the number line and empirically 14/40 of the 1, 3, 7, 9, number ending quartets. Thus the 75% sorter.
.
.
Empirically by sorting thru to 2000, we see that the numbers of primes can vary per centad, often from about 12, to as many as 18, or so. And with the higher #’s opf primes found, means the process is ever more efficient than 45% in those cases.
.
.
and there is a very simple rule which can cast out 3’s which works better and better the larger then number of digits in the quartets. Another of unlimited efficiency rules which can be generated to speed up prime sorting out processes.
.
.
So we can generate THESE decades, as we’ve largely excluded most all 3 multiples and the other five. It’s down from 10 numbers/decade to only 4. Vast simplification, as shown in the first paragraphs of this article. And when those 4 are also reduced by casting out 3 & exclusion, what’s left is about 25 numbers which are possible primes.
.
.
Then we extend this method even further by the PrM Series starting with 3 as a demo, and simplification and then 7, 11, 13, etc., multiples of the other primes in sequence. That creates, generates a PrM & not a prime number, necessarily. And by extending the system using a lot of 3X3, 3X5, 3X 7, 3X9, 3X121, we see that NO number of the 3X higher primes in sequences CAN be prime. Thus we are left with 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, etc. as a prime series in the 10 decades of the first centad. By Exclusion/elimination of the PrM’s which cannot be primes.
.
.
This simple sorting, exclusion, elimination method  cannot generate the primes, but excludes  PrM’s  and leaves primes by a complementary process. Primes Cannot be generated, but they can be found by the PrM exclusion process which generates all PrM’s!!!!
.
.
The pattern of the primes is ONLY complementary to the complex interference patterns of the PrM’s. That’s the pattern which has been seen. & within which many other efficiency related patterns can be seen to speed up calculation. Without Limits!!!
.
.
Pritchard used a method of 6, 2, 4 2, 6, 4, which only worked for a while, and which was ALSO generated by the series of PrM’s. And alswyas had to generate those. And did not r/o primes by casting out 3’s or any nubmer ending in 0, or 5. Thus there was a LOT more work to do.
.
.
Therefore we have, if used accurately with good accounting, found a simple way to find the primes, by creating and ID’g All of the PrM’s in set sequnces, which necessarily gives us the primes.
.
.
There is a simple pattern to creating those PrM series, which will now be shown. The pattern is IN the PrM’s which then creates a complementary pattern of primes. That’s the only pattern which can be seen as to how it arises. It will be shown below. There is NO prime sequence pattern.
.
.
Part 2: The Prime sorting method using PrM tables.
.
Below is the general arithmetic, simple method for creating the prime multiples (PrM’s, AKA composite numbers). This leaves out the numbers in the number line which are prime. Thus because NO prime can be generated, as generating numbers are created by arithmetic processes,. The method uses exclusion by  PrM’s.
.
.
 Note we do NOT have to fully factor any suspected prime, but we only have to show that it’s a 2 number, PrM. This greatly simplifies the process.
.
.
Understanding this is easy. Any even number but for 2, (1X2), cannot be prime. That repeating of Four numbers is found in every decade of 1-10, 11-20, or 100-110, 111-120, etc. without limit. The end number of all prime numbers is always 1, 3, 7 & 9. That massively simplifies the sorting process to find the primes.  It’s an empirical form of mathematics, NOT logical.
.
.
Also note that this table is relevant to understanding that quartet of end numbers:
 end 1 can be generated by 1X 1; 3X 7; and 9X 9.
end 3 can only be created by 1X 3; and 7X 9.
end 7 by 1X 7; 3X 9.
& end 9, by 1X 9 and 3X 3, and 7X7;  such as 3X 13, or 23X 83 prime multiples.
.
.
That vastly reduces the choices. And the above prime times prime pair of squares and cubes, etc., multiple prime creators finishes the job.
.
.
also necessary to factor out every prime numbe squared. As those begin the process, it’s necessary to eliminate those when the number is p exp. x, >/= 2. For instance we know in the series 2400 to eliminate 343 & 2401, etc. as those are 7exp. 2 or greater.
.
For example, we take the 3rd centad of the first 100 numbers.
31, 33, 37, 39  casting out 3’s in this series leaves only 31 and 37.
41, 43, 47, 49** casting out 3’s leave only 41, 43, 47 &49. The last is a prime multiple of 7X 7, which is a PrM, not prime. Those will be treated in detail at the end.
.
.
These four end digits lists can be extended without limit to any number of digits, whether 3, 4, or 4000 or 4 Billions of digits.
.
.
The last is more laborious, but using the above series of 3X any prime in series, and 7X  of each prime in series, and 11, 13, 17, 19, & so forth. THAT creates the multi primes which are end numbers of 1, 3, 7, and 9. And finishes the exacting job of excluding PrM’s, and leaves the numbers on the number line which remain that are primes.
.
.
It’s not known if there is a casting out 7 method which works as well as casting out sums of digits divisible by 3 or not, but is being worked on. & likely can be found, altho this will only save about 5-6 numbers int he 40 number in each centad, but is a good extra example of the multiplicities of finding NEW, unexpected simplifying methods drive by brain pattern recognition.
.
].
Thus we do NOT generate primes, and cannot. BUT, we can use the primes to generate PrM (prime multiples), which ARE not primes. and those can be All generated by the simple arithmetic series/ progression we see at first. Thus if the calculator has 9-12 digits we can calculate primes into the billions, but NOT billions of digits. That requires a computer.
.
.
That is the key to sorting out primes. And as the primes are then sorted out 3-4 or more times faster than the PrM series can be generated, it never runs out of primes to test by the PrM method. For instance, the numbers of primes sorted out is just a fraction the number between each prime, such as 3, 7, 11, 13, 17 & 19 times 100. Thus the PrM generator is unlimited.
.
.
This gives us 400 primes sorted out between the series of 7 and 111; and between 11 and 143, about 200 numbers sorted; and between 13, and 17, another 400+ numbers sorted. Thus a single pair of primes can create dozens of primes, and then the primes create the next series of PrM’s to be created. It’s self sustaining. .With some Positive feedback and the rising size of the factorials creates a very rapid growth of numbers of PrM created by this means, too.
.
.
Here are the exemplary PrM series tables for each prime in the -1, -3, -7, -9 end number series.
.
.
Three series
3X 1
3X  3 = 9
3X 5  = 15
Here is the start of the -1, -3, -7, -9 series
3X 7 = 21 cannot be prime
3X 9 = 27
3X11 = 33
3X 13 = 39 etc., and all sequences of the Three multiple prime series are NOT primes. This is the empirical legitimacy of the casting out of 3’s method.
.
.
The next series starts the entire complicated system of creating by a simple subtraction, multiplication and adding, a general universal method not requiring ANY other math, to obtain the entire PrM listing, except for the Prime squares and their PrM’s, which will be shown to be simple at the end. As those are only about 3% of all of the numbers to be sieved, it completes the 97% of PrM created, which create by exclusion, sorting out of the primes.
.
.
The simple mathematically clean and arithmetic progression series can be see. We do NOT need any longer to multiple ANY of the PrM’;s together, but uses a subtraction of the two primes in succession, a multiplication of the Prime series number in this case, 7, and  an addition to the previous PrM pair. And by casting out 9’s we can simply check if the multiplication is correct, or the addition is, too. These show the een number patterns of the Prime Multiples, which laid the basis for Pritchard’s work. altho he did NOT use the 1, 3, 7, 9, ending quartets simplification, either.
.
.
7X 7 =     49 Not prime
   7X  4=+28
7X 11 =   77
   7X2 =   14
7X 13 =   91
   7X4 =   28
7X 17 =  119
.
.
Here we have done the 7 Series through 100.
.
.
Now the next PrM series of 11
.
.
11X 11 =  121
  11X 2     +22
11X 13 =   143
    11X4     +44
11X 17 =  187
   11X2     +22
11X 19 =  201
11X 23
11X 29
11X 31
11X 37, etc.,
.
.
Followed by 17X17, 19X19 and so forth covering each decad and each centad which is needed to be covered.
.
.
Thus we can take say 2400 to 2500 and by finding the prime multiples from 2401 upwards to 2499, compute ALL the PrM’s for that centad and sort out the 2400 to 2500 Primes.
.
.
With a large enough computer with enough registers and memory, we can compute ANY number of digits from say 1,000,500 to 1,000,600, of from 3,000,100,000 to 3,000,200,000.
.
.
And we can generate PM’s at will over ANY range, once those primes have been found.
.
.
Thus from ANY prime by a simple sorting process of the PrM’s which cover that range, we can create ANY listing of primes wherever we choose, as long as we can multiply correctly and do good accounting with the PrM’s which are simple and the Prime Squares, cubes, etc., too.
.
.
There is thus NO limit to the number of digits we can process. Within polynomial time.
.
.
Say a banking password uses 750-760 long prime digits. Those can be specifically created for a complete list of primes and be tested, easily and quickly using this method.
.
.
And if the bank goes up to 2500 digits, and the computer is a RISC which can do these tasks specifically, then the numbers of primes can be found there, as well, and tested. Just get the password code in the chip for the primes, and go from there.
.
.
& the banks can also create vast lists of primes, without doing ALL of the primes calculations but limiting those to the intervals of primes to be found.  The caveat is that the Primes which are prime multiples must be computed, too. But that’s doable. Only need a password chip or set of coded primes, to find out what they are.
.
.
As the computers get more powerful and the registers get larger & larger, there is NO prime series which cannot be arithmetically done in polynomal time which cannot be found. Thus ALL primes within the limits of computational,l power, CAN be found. Without limits, too.
.
.
Using his mthods, Pritchard found 22 sequential primes in the range of several millions of digits. And this method is even faster
.
As each prime creates more PrM’s than the PrM exclude more PrM sorts more primes than it needs to create them. Thus we create the primes by using the PrM which are a self perpetuation series. This can be programmed, and solve the entire series of primes, too, within the limits desired. Simple, not complicated math other than a single subtraction, multiplying and addition, to sort out from the number line, by exclusion of PrM’s, of ALL the prime numbers in that target centad. Using a well designed RISC, to 1, list the number line, then establish the interval and the PrM’s which cover that interval, the entire prime numbers can be efficiently created, too.  This means every single number, within the limits of time and processing speed, no matter how long, can be found Within polynomial time to be Either PrM, Or Prime.
.
.
Therefore, with a good enough computer it’s possible to VERY easily sort out all of the primes in polynomial time. The only limit is the power of the computer itself. And by using these methods, and clearing the memory stacks at intervals, and reprogramming the primes by the computer itself, the next series can be generated very quickly.
.
.
 And the only limits are the powers of the best RISC’s which can be made to sort out the primes by the above simply system. It simply uses the known primes and then goes efficiently from there.
.
.
And it can create a series of primes starting at ANY spot, using the Known primes between those numbers too. It’s only a matter of sorting by arithmetic, now. Nothing more needs to be done. The numbers of squares are matters of using a good CRC, and using carefully chosen prime series, which will give all numbers between same 1,000,000, with the first PrM series, will give any prime series after that, as well. all that’s need are the data, to compute which PrM lie between say, 1,000,000 and 1,000,500. Then the rest of the prime lists both above and below can be computed at will, too. This can then generate LONG lists of any set of primes at any spot we wish to start at, once the computer has done the Prime sorting work to within the range of generating the PrM’s which lie around the Prime targets desired. In a practical sense ALL of the primes into the millions of digits are already known. & that allowed ever more primes to be found, from the prime lists which are a matter of public record, already.
.
.
& that’s how it works. The technical delivery of the Primes is of course a lot of work, but then when most any prime number can be selected out and found, and then an entire list of primes can be generated to extend that list without limit, no prime number can escape from being found, regardless of how long it is. This is an encryption nightmare, which means as the computers become faster, more efficient by using better and more efficient methods without limit, that very likely, the race between prey and predator can be seen to extend to this. The better and better sorting methods which can be based on this method are unlimited as int he number line.
.
.
And the time to find the primes is directly related to the power of the computer, regardless of digits. This method can do that. It’s just a matter of having a good accounting programmer.
.
Further, within each Pr M series, there is an even larger pattern, than these & by finding those patterns, more efficiencies of computing the PrM’s can be found without limits, too.
.
.
.
Thus we have shortened the time it takes to prove and find a prime, Empirically, substantially. & can further test the method for any possible flaws, OR correct mistakes found in the prime number list, which are likely to be substantial, the larger the digit lengths are. Which is experimental, empirical math at its best!!!
.
And byh comparing the tables, we can immensely shorten the calculation times, because we have, like in the cases of sine, and cubes, and logs, we also have done the work. and the LTM efficiency of such tables, is ever more the case because it cuts down the sorting times, substantially. Thus the efficiency, robustness of the method and its sheer elegance, as most all new models must show. And fruitful without limit, besides, the last profoundly important element of any good model/theory, method. and that means, that LTM and archives of info are efficient, Least Energy methods, too. Which is why we use them to gain the LE saving, benefits & profits, above all!!!
.
.
There is much more, but this shows how the method of creating Pr M quickly & robustly sorts & ID’s primes by simple exclusion, and when computer size properly and efficiently,can sort out primes to 10 mega digits in only minutes.
.
This in short is the Wiggins Prime Multiples Sieve Method (my thanks to Paul Pritchard who proved an earlier form of what Eratosthenes created, first.) which robustly, empirically solves the order in which Primes exist, by showing the Not prime, Prime Multiples which sieves out efficiently, by complementary pattern of the NOT Prime multiples; thus sorting out which are primes. & Exactly.
.
.
It’s the Surprise, unexpected use of the Primes to sort out and find the Primes, which is the key here. And as it’s an input, output system, can grow in power by a factor of 2, 4, 6 or more, the more work is done to create the PrM series, the vaster its power. and applicability.
As it’s unlimited, so the ability to solve the encryption problems with this method is unlimited. & nothing by this primes method can resist being broken, even by brute force. And because for each stage, new, more efficient sorting methods can be created, Without Limit, which increases the efficiencies of this method unlimited, then nothing is safe.
Primes are not therefore encryption proof but only so far as the computers cannot improve enough to brute force solve and find the primes.
.
.
But it’s even worse than that. . As sorting is done best by QC, and calculation done best by chip computers, by combining the calculations of the one, by sorting using the QC, and very fast calculation & sroting can be done to find by sorting, NOT trial and error,m the real primes., Just don’t make a mistake and from time to time, check the multiplication results to make sure they fit.
.
.
And moreover, there is yet another implication of this systems, and that is the very easy generating of MORE primes, once a prime succession has been found.
.
.
And then similarly process the rest, and once we have the primes in those ranges, we can calculate out the rest of those numbers say between 2000 and 3000, thus sorting a new list of primes, where before we had a fewer, too.
.
.
And this is hows it’s done and proven empirically and tested to be so.
.
.
Thus we can in polynomial times, with powerful enough computers, break any 12-13 digits numbers or lower or higher, if we can get enough computer power and powerful enough algorithms, which can be generated without limits, by seeing the patterns without limits, and short cutting the problems of factorization. We can find a comparison process prime system of 2 adjacent Numbers of any primes within the range of the given digits size, which we can easily determine if prime  or not, and go from there.
.
.
IOW, we can create  two lines of a single prime series and then generate all of the primes within a set limit such as 2000 to 3000, or 5 billions to 5 billions 1000., 5,000,000,1000. or any such limits, too.
.
.
it’s simply a matter of generating all the prime multiples &  sorting to find the primes, and using the prime numbers thus found, to generate the “not prime” Prime multiples.
.
.
QED.
.
.
  Keep It Simple!!!
Advertisements

Understanding Psychology With S/F Methods

Understanding the Brain;  AKA Using S/F Methods to Create Beyond the Limits of Psych, Maths & Qualia:
.
By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
.
Essentially, this problem of psychology was created deliberately by behaviorism, which refused to look into the Black Box, the human brain, recognizing that was a tough problem, nearly intractable at the time. & Repeatedly stated by both BF Skinner and Watson. Father  Freud, who created those fields, largely and the psychiatrists have done much the same. So they mostly treated the outward appearances and functions of visible behaviors, organized them esp. in the extensively detailed DSM series, and ignored most of the other half of what was going on. The Structure which CREATED and creates the multiplicit, complex system brain functions, the totality of information processing, emotional systems, and their complex behaviors, in part.
.
That simplification took them a ways, but just. Now let’s look at what’s much more likely going on from a comparison process standpoint. We have in the clinical neurosciences the clinico-pathological correlations which are very, very deep, and show us a good deal of what’s going on structurally in the brain. Sometimes specifically and sometimes in a general way. Before CT & MRI brain scans, that was a very laborious process of making slides after preserving and formalinizing the brain (taking weeks).Then looking at the gross pathology by sections (often missing a lot of tiny lesions), then staining said often thin slices, & lastly microscopically examining them in detail. But this is what was found, grossly. When we find problems with speech and word processing we look in the well known speech centers, which about 97% of the time are in the left hemisphere, specifically the Wernicke’s post temporal, sup. temporal area & a bit forward, from there, too.
.
Those areas are Hardwired but only incompletely. Once they start to work about age 8-9 months when language starts being generated & processed, and the functions of the ideas are turned into words, and thus more stabilized, we get speech. This occurs by protein synthesis observed with puromycin studies, which create dendritic proliferation & synaptic lay downs. Those pathways are the well known memory tracings, as well as motor tracings of Dr. Wilder Penfield’s work in the 1950’s at McGill Uni, Montreal. These cortical columns then recruit locally to expand motor programs and memory, & then widely connect, as well. The latter mostly organized and set up by about age 12-14 when the logical reasoning becomes possible near puberty. This is Piaget’s well observed and confirmed logical development stage of personality.
.
& so created are Wernicke’s to Broca’s areas & the connections as well as other sites in the brain which for descriptive purposes can access the speech centers, to describe & create information about what’s going on internal and externally, too.
.
Thus, the clinicopath is more succinctly, more widely applicable & NOW known as the structure/function relationships of brain. When a problem is seen in brain output, or functions, we know there are parts of the brain which do that. And when we we see structural damage in many parts of the brain, visual, sensory, motor, speech, facial recognitions and so forth, we know what functions are highly likely to be abnormal, or even absent. These are the structure/function relationships which used to take a lot of time in the path department to find, which are Now very much easier to create information about, identify & confirm with a fast CT brain scan, or even better, an MRI of brain. Often in a very few minutes compared to weeks. These two scanning methods have resulted in a very great increase in our S/F relationships about how brain works. But the fMRI is even better. Those set off the current S/F revolution.
.
Further, S/F relations are very, very widely used in most all fields. Chemistry, esp. organic, biochem, neurophysiology and the functions of the cells are thus understandable, by these means. Kekule’s famous dream of how he found the structure of the benzene molecule with so lovely a correlation that is, compares with its functions, as a carbon bonded hexagonal ring, & so forth. We have the structural relations of the enzymes, of the mitochondria & the very basic functions of the chromosomes, the specific genes on each chromosomes, the DNA, polymerases; the endoplasmic reticula, the tubules, the nucleus of the cell & so forth. Even the nerves and muscles have S/F relationships which describe, delimit and largely give us an understanding of “how brain events” work.
.
In addition the fields of comparative anatomy, comparative linguistics, comparative ethologies, comparative theology, etc.; and the whole relationships of the vast tree of life are most all comparison process driven & created. These hierarchical arrangements of organized vast amounts of knowledge have already been treated. & This is no accident, because that’s what the cortical columns largely do in processing higher functions of brain. How info is carried by the sensory nerves and transmitted by the 90-95% white matter of the brain which is axonal, is yet another kind of information, which at this time remains a coding enigma, mostly.
.
And if we look at it, this is the problem with psychologies and psychiatry. Where are the S/F relationships for all of those behaviors? For brain functions of other types we have huge amounts of details. Yet, in psych We don’t have many of those. We have those detailed functions & diagnostic criteria, but very little idea where most of them come from and how those arise from the brain. What specifically in brain structures generates those functions? That’s the problem with behaviorism. It ignored the S/F relationships so necessary to a more complete understanding of brain outputs. The same with psych, And the same with the qualia. What do those correlate with? IOW, what do we compare those with? And we have very little, and thus very little understanding in those fields.
.
A similar problem is seen with the completion of the human genome. We have all of those 20K some genes, but not very much information about what they all actually do!! The structure is there, but how they interact with the other genes, gene products and the 1000’s of internal and external chemicals and what they do, that is the function half, is most often NOT there! & what of epigenetics, which can markedly modify gene expression? & to the discomfiture of the pharmacologists who thought the genetic information would give them a vast largesse of 1000’s of gene targets to work on, they find they must wait for most of that unknown functional information.  Which is proceeding by brute force of trial & error testing, sorting and trying to figure it out.  Proteonomics has helped, but simply complicated the sorting, and hardly solving the problems of regulatory genes, either. It’s still brute force T&E.
.
The same conundrum nearly exactly, is being created by the short sighted people who want to create the Connectome of the Brain. Fine. Do all that. But what do all of those masses of pathways do? What are their connections, their functions, their work and processing? Again, half the answers, and the not so important half either, because the Functions are the important outputs, not the detailed incomprehensible connections, utterly incomprehensible because of the billion billions of digits of possibilities from the 10’s of billions of interacting nerves, glia and brain modules. Which structure/pathways are important? We don’t know. So the cart once again finds itself in front of the horse. So Mother Nature once again skips aside, & once again eludes our understanding.
.
We have some basic pharmacology of the psycho-active meds, but not specifically HOW most all those are processed to emotional states. Those are S/F relationships, too, be it specifically and importantly noted. The structure of the molecules is often, but not completely related specifically to their functions, as well, to show ever more so, how important, and nearly universal are the S/F relationship and processors.
.
In the coming “Towards a Complex Systems Pharmacology”, those problems will be more exactly addressed to understand how and what’s going on.
.
That’s the problem. When we want to see recognition we look for evoked potentials in the brain. The brain compares the incoming sensory information with the LTM, largely visual, as that’s how the brain is organized, and it then decides if it knows or likely knows, that is, Re-cognizes what it’s detecting largely visually. Which handles a vastly greater amount of information than do the other senses, of which there are scores of them, not just the 5 the ancients so mistakenly believed.
.
So, we have this problem in psych. There is very little in brain structure which correlates very exactly with the psychological vocabulary, ideas & concepts used with real, brain functioning. It’s  why the field is so backwards, limited. & dreadfully incomplete.
.
However, with the newer fMRI we are getting better insights, and when we add the evoked potentials, auditory, visual, sensory, & cortical EP’s we get lots more information.
.
And when we do the baseline MRI scan, which we know is normal state, we Compare, massively that with the new MRI of each patient and then by these massive comparisons, “read” every image, to see if it’s normal, or not. By massive, developed methods/skills of “reading’ images, in most every case, comparison processing against the fixed, relatively stable descriptive, relativistic standards of normalcy.
.
CF: How Physicians Create New Information.
.
.
So we compare the baseline fMRI, against the changes in brain function to be studied, and those changes light up in the brain by contrast & in comparison. Thus we have created new information by CP, and have found a significant S/F relationship(s). That’s the beauty of the MRI method. When we combine/compare MEG CEP’s with the same fMRI, we see even more. and we know about where those CEP’s are going to arise by this very same comparison,  S/F  processing of information. Thus Information is created by the physicians in this way.
.
See article: The Praxis
.
.
Then we organize and process that info into our understanding. That’s basically how it’s done.
.
Now the qualia do NOT correlate, nor compare with ANY known sites in brain, either. Where does colour come from? We know it’s a construct of  the brain.
.
.
Where does numbness and tingling come from? We don’t know. Pain and Freud’s pleasure are from where? Then they call this the “hard problem” because they can’t figure out to use CP and S/F relationships where we compare structure to function & function to structure for additional information. Input/Output, and then again, and again. & we compare fMRI to CEP for ever more information, too. CP, CP, CP. S/F S/F S/F.
.
And that’s exactly how simple it is. But we have to do the work to sort thru the possibilities to find good, but rarely complete answers, plural, by trial & error, to find what’s going on in this rather largely complicated brain. It is as Gazzaniga so well states, brain is a “Modular complex system”. So are the cells and their organelles, the mitochondria, etc. So we have a virtually universally processing method, S/F, to find out more and more, too. And that’s what’s going on and how to problem solve, too.
.
A Neuroscience of Problem Solving, where the not polynomial descriptions become the linear, polynomial maths. That’s how it works, very likely.
.
& that shows how we take psych, psychiatry, neurochemicals, and neurophysiology to an understanding of brain.
.
Moreover and more deeply, we compare pain meds against the “morphine sulfate standard” of reports of good pain relief, compared to dosages in milligrams & duration of relief. Thus we have created a good standard about how much meperidine, AAP, codeine, tramadol and others are needed for pain control. & we can tell how well, relatively, by comparison, new pain meds work, too. The MS standard becomes the efficient, stable, useful standard to judge the pain relief powers of most the other pain meds, naturally occurring endorphins, and synthetic analgesics, of all kinds, too. It’s another yet again, Einsteinian standard to use. It’s relativity in Pharma.
.
Thus in the same way we use another comparison process using the most important and ancient  neurochemical, dopamine (DA) ,AND all its some 20 receptor sites, which by comparison as a stimulant, to the most ancient circadian rhythm, largely serotonin/DA balance, to figure out serotonin. By this larger, comparison process of what DA does compared to what the sedative, 5HT does. & then extend that model’s findings both to the rest of the neurochemicals, norepinephrine, adrenalin, GABA, neurokinins (for pain understanding) & so forth.
.
&  the article,
.
.
Using those relatively efficient verbal descriptions, which are limited and created by the epistemology of comparisons processes, that is relativity, we learn, more and more. Information is being created by comparison processing, as it most always is and does.
.
Now, how do we mathematize these?  Well, we understand the structure/function of math. It arises out of the Left post. superior aspects of the Left temporal lobe and related areas just above it, and extends forwards connecting to Broca’s area, too. Math interdigitates with that speech area. What damages that speech, damages math, as well. This is well worked out, already.  S/F relationships most all.
.
But please note this. We can speak & teach nearly all of math with ideas & words, but we cannot speak very much of words with math. Mathematize the semantics of “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.” Can’t do that with math. Because math is derived. & that’s how information is created, primarily by the sensory apparatus & sensory cortex. It’s comparison process all the way, against a relatively set, stable & efficient, least energy systems.
.
 Also the motor cortex sits right next to the sensory cortex for high efficiency (TD) & does much the same with closely rleating the anatomies of motr/sensory sites in the body. Those use the extension/flexion limits as the standards for motion, the abduction/adduction, etc., limits, all over the body, to comprehend, memorize via LTM and control movements, too.These summations of muscle movements details how those limits are memorized by the sensory system, to create learned muscle movements which we call the skills.The standard are how far the muscles and body parts can be moved in many directions & against those limits & standards, the entire muscle/sensory cortex is standardized.  That is simply kinesiology, is it not? So the fundamental insight into what creates that science, has a deeper application, therefor. Standards of the limits and kinds of movements of muscles create the basic motor programs of motion.  It creates the many set points of muscle movements which make skilled movements possible, and learnable.
.
That’s how it’s done. Ideas/words, descriptions come first & THEN we mathematize it. Which explains neatly, and confirmably what Newton did, what Einstein did with Minkowski, and we do every day when we convert words into math forms. Again, how we linearize temperatures compared to the water standard scale of freezing  (0 deg.) & boiling, 100 deg. C. How we measure length by hands, feet, & stepped off distances, & so forth. How we create color scales by comparing to the rainbow, ROY G BIV, from the refraction of light at sunrise and sunset, and the green leaves, the brown trees and other organics. This color is then combined with the black or white, lots of photons being white & black, almost no detectable photons. & the unlimited shades of the grays in between. There arises the hierarchical palette of the colors.
.
CF: The Structure of our Color Vision, comparing our visual color system to the EM scale of light frequencies.
.
.
This is how it’s done. the Moh scale of comparing to commonly found, thus efficiently found & used minerals, talc, limestone,, etc. to quartz, corundum (sapphire) and finally diamond for determining, measuring hardness. That creates the information of relative hardness efficiently. Then the GPa system came along which mathematized that further, and provided More information by creating a scale of the hardness data. by comparison processes, again.The creativity of mathematics, found by comparing a method to the senses of hardnesses. Sensory system becomes a workable system, and then is fully mathematized. That’s creativity in action, and the processes of T&E which create it by comparison processing of the sorting outcomes.
.
Those processes & events are all that simple. So in order to comprehend psych better, we MUST create comparison process scales & standards based upon structural events in the brain.THAT will create the correlations, the comparisons, the corresponding information. & thus more understanding of the emotional & personality functions & their disorders.
.
As Feynman stated, if I can’t generate an understanding, that is process according to some set, relatively efficient standard, I can’t understand anything. Generation to him meant processing information to us, using Einsteinian stable, efficient (least energy, TD) processes. & that’s how it’s done. That’s how to create progress in psych. Find the brain correlations for the emotions and feelings, learn how to first efficiently describe them and then mathematize the lot!!!
.
& how do we do that? We create a simple formal comparison logic of relationships, how specific processes show us the connections, the relationships, the associations between two events. This is Einstein’s “Physics  & Reality”. How we understand is by finding relationships by comparison processing standards, among events.
.
That generating creates the information and data which create the knowledge once its organized to types by comparison, creating the categories of Aristosteles, the foudnations of the hierarchies of our understanding, very simply.
So we create an expression: A double tilde ~~, “r” to B. & that is, A is Related to B. & what is the process going on there? Is it height, temp, is it change over time, is it velocity, density, volume, or weight? So we use the proper math in each case.
.
Is it higher or lower, or highest. Is it harder, or softer. is it taller, or longer? Does it take x seconds of time or hours, more time or less? Thus we linearize it to become mathematics, by the TYPES of processes, which have already been mathematized; and thus does the NP become P by adding information. And there that is, quite simply, & generally.
.
.
Ulam stated that in order to model events of complex systems, math must greatly advance. And THIS is a beginning way to do it. Within each hierarchic level of our understanding math can operate. But when we change the levels, the rules change. Those are the scale changes in physics. & so we use different descriptive methods to create, navigate and emplace the members of each scale, hierarchy/ Thus maths must change to acknowledge those differing processes at each hierarchy. And that’s how it’s done, simply.
.
 QM uses probability. Weather forecasting uses probability, scientific studies use a 95% probability of likelihoods, and we cast dice & to decide which actions to use by playing the odds, that is, the probability which we use to describe, generally, complex systems, which is most of everything there is.
.
A r B, & we define the processor, use the proper math within that processing method, and we have it, a general method to mathematize events. Or if needed, to create, as did Newton and Einstein/Minkowsky, the calculus, or the 4-D space/time, to more precisely measure what’s going on. Or as did Schrodinger, the Hamiltonian operators, that is logics/processors which created the QM wave equations.
.
Or again  as did Archimedes to create the comparison process, ratio of mass/volume, AKA density to handle that problem. Or Pi, the ratio of circumference, that is comparison of circumference to the diameter. But we note that we don’t use diameter over circumference, which is a tough fraction to use, but  but that C/D so as to have at least 3 and a fraction instead.
.
That’s how complex systems are mathematized, that’s how NP > P. That’s the basis of creativity visual, using Whiteheadian process thinking. It creates the S-curves of Einstein’s universe of light speed, at the top velocity end, exponential; to ambient temp of brownian movement; to the extreme low energy asymptote, again an exponential barrier, of the Bose Einstein maths. & we live within those,  the highest velocity of particles, light speed, or CEE, versus Zero K, neither of which are reachable & are exponential Wells of particles, fermion limits. Those are S-curves within which we must dwell.
.
Now, mathematize the complex system model of plate tectonics, next. Grin.
.
This is the system and where to go with it.
.
“Any society, which cannot break out of its current abstractions (that is, to grow), after a period of limited growth (the exponential aspect of the S-curve), is doomed to stagnate.” The top of the S-curve asymptote, of capabilities of the methods, which limit growth due to the things a method cannot do, either. Growth coming from TD process of least energy advantages, which create those same growths. Thus we taken the words and mathematize those to the cubic S-curves, noting the high similarity between Whitehead’s description and the maths of the S-curves. That’s how it’s done.
.
Stabilities of events within this universe. which are repeating. And stable because they are least energy. Thus by sorting we find the Lyapunov numbers which correspond to those, a la the redoubtable Dr. Friston, who found the math to describe the verbal events, and give us the fine math advantage of precision, & more information which descriptions verbal, tho efficient but alone cannot give us. Thus the advantages AND limits to maths.
.
.
That’s how it’s understood, organized, & developed. CP, LE, complex systems, and S/F which show us the complex system characteristics, and then the unlimited methods which we can develop to describe our universe of nearly unlimited complex systems.
.
Simple, elegant, highly fruitful & the essence of unlimited creativity, the wellsprings of human creativity, itself. Comparison process of the cortices driving the least energy outcomes of modeling events in existence.


A Basic Model of a Unifying System of Most All Knowledge

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
.

The basic understanding of how mind/brain higher, cortical functions work is lies in understanding the nearly universal basic processing our brains do when interacting with events in existence, which clearly, empirically are outside of us and which we can observe using our sensory systems. Exactly how this importation and learning of information from events cannot be completely ever understood because of the neurological complexities. However, the means exist built into our brains to understand a good bit of it. & that of the analogous nervous systems of the other animals, even plants as well, which mostly work and behave in the same ways as do we.

.
Essentially, repeating events in existence are real, and outside of us. Those repeating events then by these very reinforcements, delimited by behaviorism, but NOT completely, create the long term memories. Those repeating processors in the cortex essentially model the repeating events in existence and create information by  comparing those events to LTM.  Fundamentally, the repeating cortical column processings model the repeating events in existence. Such as seasons, days, nights, persons, faces, places, and many other events without limits. And the processes & characteristics, alsto repeating, which accompany those events.
.
.
Understand that Long Term Memory IS, provably, a least energy, thermodynamic event, and thus is real and exists, too, not just in an abstract sense, but has real correlates in the dendritic processes and the laying down of protein creating the synaptic connections, which lie at the root of the grid field system of memories. That is, it’s a structure/function relationship (S/F) of our cortices. & can be detected by the methods of Wilder Penfield, by fMRI, and by cortical evoked potentials (P300’s) when the recognition processes in the cortical columns are working, activated. AKA the theta activity of the cortex. “Now relax, don’t think.” says the EEG tech. And Theta goes away, replaced by the background activity, synchronized with the visual cortex, alpha waves.
.
Our higher processing functions in the cortical columns use Pattern Recognition, as the majority rule to create the methods, approaches, skill sets, techniques, ways of doing things, the whole panolpies of the rich synonymic elements and members of the methods & skills, of the categories of Aristoteles.  Which of course reflect the complex nature of such events, as well, and are best described by such single scales and levels of the hierarchies.
.
First, we see a repeating pattern of events, and because it’s repeating it’s also stable, in a thermodynamic sense. Then it’s detected again and again, and becomes reinforced naturally into part of the working, long term memory. Then we use those repeating events, those existing, empirical observations to create methods around which we build our skill sets of daily living.
.
Exactly how this is done is seen in “A Mother’s Wisdom”, where a series of repeating events  utilizes, in a very much least energy way, to create a way to efficiently glide through most of the traffic lights exactly right, when riding, driving, or walking. & it’s a universal rule in such cases, too.
.
.
And that’s the general rule as to how most ALL of our techniques and technologies are created by our minds, by massive comparison processing in least energy rules & forms. This general rule can be seen operating in most all the other mammals, adjusted for their sensory and processing systems. In Birds, reptiles, amphibians, arthropods and insects and fishes, as well. This creates a nearly Universal understanding of how even our DNA systems, immune systems, and much else, create what they do; as well as the huge vastnesses of metabolism, of virtually all of the plants, animals, microbes, the entire, greatly incomplete, tree of life of millions of species.
.
This is what creates the pattern recognitions, and the means to predictive control, model and live, empirically, within events in our vastly beyond our understanding, universe.
.
.
How recognitions are created by the LTM being compared to the richness of events, details in existence. A simplification, but still allowing such complex events to be recognized without limits, in all their richness. It’s how we can see a part of a face and know who it is. How we can be bent over a sink and recognize a friend who’s just walked up, without even looking at his face, our recognitions skills of the rich details of individuals can be so well developed, too.
.
This basic comparison process information is then processed by similarities of those events in existence to each other, by comparing LTM’s against each other. Thus we see, recognize and detect those repeating events. Then our brains automatically begin to organize them according to NOT exact equalities, nor identities, but to the richer similarities among events, such as birds, person’s faces and characteristics, trees, buildings, the stars and arrangements of stars, for example. This process of organizing according to similarities is automatic, & built in. We do it subconsciously and because it’s facilitated and habituated, we are not even aware of it ongoing. We do a VERT great deal of our organized, mental processing work, automatically, subconsciously. This is working when Most all of us try much of the time to make sense of events around us, often mistakenly. Over time this cortical system efficiently creates organized systems of knowledge, which we call hierarchies of understanding in their most modern and developed forms. And they are everywhere within us and outside of us, too.
.
& the internally created mental abstractions & hierarchies are very much as unlimited as can be, and differ in most all persons according to their rich sensory, largely visual systems & experiences. Not even the ID twins have the same memories and experiences, altho are often similar. These lead us to the categories of Aritosteles, but in a new way. We see the members of those groups as the  highly similar variations on the same themes, La Chanson Sans Fin. & this grouping, collection is highly efficient, as well. The synonyms are in fact yet another part of these rich collections of organized information. The analogy, the metaphor, allegory, simile, anecdote, story, fable, parable, koan, the entire mythos of explanatory & ancient relationships, and so on.
.
And we do these according to landmarks, conventions  and standards whose Einsteinian relativity standards and limits are the case.
.
But the synonyms are incomplete & but part of the hierarchical nature of nature, itself, which will be addressed, shortly. Each synonym gives us some of the many aspects of those elements of the categories, but not all, by any means. And it’s incomplete as well. The stories, models, theories we tell are essentially NOT complete either, but begin to richly allow us to teach, explain, and understand the multiplicities of the hierarchies of our knowledge and understanding. These comparison processes allow us to navigate the hierarchies, as well as create, add to, subtract and often extend, them, too.
.
In order to understand this hierarchical structure better, those have been stated in their many types, and wide variations. For instance the alphabetical hierarchies of the dictionaries, telephone books & city directories, our Bibles, Korans, etc, and the richer hierarchies of the living systems of plants and animals, microbes and unicellular species, as well as the virions are the case. & every entry, each part of the hierarchies are created by massive comparison processings in our cortices, of how each level is related to the next, of Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and their variations.
.
The family trees and groups are yet further evidences of those. The entire IUPAC hierarchy and indices of those (as are all indices) are 34 millions of examples of the vast numbers of known chemical compounds, as well. More confirming evidences of comparison processings.
.
But it’s even deeper than this. The Scales of physics, which are marked by changes in how events are understood, are yet the same kinds of hierarchical organization. The most common, the reductionist method starts out as proton, electron and neutron, and then becomes the next higher level, the atoms, the elements, and the isotopes. The entire Periodic Table of the Elements is yet another hierarchy of elements ordered by the similarities to others, the alkali metals, the halogens, the noble gases, the ferrous metals, the rare earths & even the platinum group, all organized by their repeating, confirmable relationships to each of these vertical & horizontal lines & columns, at least.
.
So the scale of our understanding of the next level, the molecules, then the organic molecules, then the biochemicals, and finally the cellular organizational and physiologies, are the next.
.
And in EVERY case the rules at each scale, or hierarchical level, can be very different from those beneath or above. And in the case of the cell model show the emergency of the higher qualities & characteristics of each level.
.
The point being, in the physical sciences, the same kind of hierarchies are being seen. As well as in the natural world. We see the branchings of the trees, and plants. from the trunk or stalk, to the smaller branches, then the sticks and twigs to the leaves which are hierarchically ordered but different, yet branchings still further. And when  we move down the trunk to the large, thick roots & these again divide into the smaller roots, finally ending up at the rootlets, too. But what is behind these near universal system, of the neurovascular bundles in the animals, of the nerves, the veins and arteries all travelling together, as they have been created, down the limbs? Then the arteries from their main trunks splitting apart into smaller and smaller segments, finally becoming capilllaries, and then becoming the larger venules. Once again enlarging into the trunk veins & with the arteries are all together. The similar nerve trunk of the spinal cord becomes the nerve roots, then the trunk nerves, which then in the arms, for example, become the  radial and ulnar arteries, and the median, as well. Shall we neglect the trachea, two main bronchi either? & the veins and arteries which do this branching again?
.
But why these complicated, hierarchical patterns? & it’s very, very simple. We have to look to the rivulets,and springs, which become the small creeks and then streams, and then the smaller rivers, and then the larger and larger rivers, until we get to the Mississippi and then its major tributaries. the Ohio and the Missouri,among many others.
.
All of this complexity!!!, but in fact, easy to understand. Water flows downhill following the least energy gravitational topography. The riverine systems are in fact, least energy topographies. & so are the neurovascular bundles, and the trees/stalk plants organizations as well. They are the most efficient ways of doing what they do, functionally. Organized by least energy forms.
.
The same kind of electric power system hierarchies, of the natural gas pipes, the water and sewer pipes systems are going from the small to the large and vice versa. Exactly the same, least energy topographies and organizations, hierarchical, as well. It’s not absolutely least energy (for there is NO absolutely efficient heat engine possible), but a very strong tendency to be metastable, least energy. That is not accidental. But indicates the their rich hierarchies, organized by least energy principles, as well. Going down hill in a gravity field is a least energy route, simply, and repeatedly seen, and confirmed without limits,too. The other hierarchies above are simply the same, Complex systems, least energy forms.
.
It’s that easy.  Simplify, simplify, simplify; efficiency, efficiency, efficiency (Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations); least energy, least energy, least energy rules.
.
Taking the category of understanding synonyms shows further, esp. in English, this richness of descriptive power of the hierarchies of the categories. Comprehending, apprehending, knowing, seeing, visualizing (as we are highly visual creature structurally and in fact),
.
Visual Brain Organization
.
.
— then the word phrases, clusters, which have been so often omitted and ignored in mental, real time, as in figuring out, making sense of, putting it together, connecting the dots, seeing how things work, and further almost unlimited word groups which ALSO are synonymic & richer than those single words, alone. & is a very great completing & extending method of recognition, too.
.
Thus we have groups of words which are lumped together. And the same is true, of our hierarchies of living things. Those mental structures are internal, artificial and a construct, but useful, because it’s efficient, exactly. The variations of each species, are seen as a category in those greater hierarchies. The species of each genus, the genera of each family, and up the hierarchies of our vast millions of species of leaves, of our tree of life of the animals, plants, microbes, and virions we go, for example. A place for everything and everything in its place. All navigated and created by massive comparison processes of external data into created information of very similar events which are grouped tougher, which is then organized further  by the same CP.
.
That’s largely what’s going on. The entire IUPAC of 34 millions of compounds is so organized with like joined with like, efficiently. The Periodic Chart of the elements of atoms and isotopes, is the same. The star charts also organize into arbitrary collections of stars, we call constellations, entirely arbitrarily by pareidolic patterns, but highly efficient ways of doing so. The family trees, which show the exacting relationships among the family groups and family members, by massive comparing of each to the other. The rich relationships of a single male, as a child, young man, father, grandfather, cousin, husband, and so forth, again shows this richly, organized categorizing, which creates, by similarities, the entire family tree. Which is essentially, an unlimited, diagrammatical form.
.
& the same is true of events in existence, which are naturally organized hierarchically. The tree with its trunk, which then above organizes itself into larger branches, smaller branches, the sticks, then twigs and in every leaf, the same rich hierarchies of Xylem and Phloem, analogous to our veins and arteries, of the leaves is seen as well. All abounding in their topographical complexities and richness. The variations without end. La Chanson Sans Fin writ large. Then down the trunk to the large roots, the smaller roots, and into the tiny rootlets which absorb water and nutrients, as well. Highly efficient, highly universal, mostly and thus empirically existing. And very, very real forms. Just like the riverine systems and their tributaries & deltas, exactly.
.
And in humans we have the neurovascular bundles as a good measure of the same kind of highly efficient hierarchies of organizations. and so then the animals & plants  as well. Right down to the tubules, structures within the complex cells, too. Universally, but not quite. The huge aorta splits down into the clavicular artery, which travels down the arm, becoming the various smaller branches and then into the radial & ulnar arteries, which further divide into the not Euclidean geometry of the arterioles, and then the capillaries; which then reverse the process. Tiny venules become the larger veins, and at last again join the clavicular artery & vein, and thence the superior vena cava into the heart origin.
.
& the spinal cord trunk becomes the nerve roots, which then further divide and become the radial, ulnar and other nerves, until they reach the fingertips in analogous patterns of the nerve endings. Then send up sensory information in the same way, combining once again into the spinal cord and onto and up to the brain, where the nerve impulse information is processed into the higher cortical functions of sensation, description and high level information.
.
All of it hierarchical, and real. &the final kicker, which shows the innately efficient, thermodynamic aspects of these hierarchies, the rivulets & springs, which become the creeks, and then the streams, and the little rivers & then the larger rivers. ALL topologically, least energy flowing down the gravitational gradients, in a rich geometry, very similar to the plants and animal’s hierarchies. & those existing within our brains, too.
.
Thus we have the major trunks of the Ohio and Missouri pouring into the Mighty Mississippi, flowing its “mile wide tide to the sea”. And then in the deltas, like in the tree roots, the great rivers of the Amazon, Nile, Congo & the Orinoco and the great Mekong all break down into the tributaries of their deltas, just like tree roots do.
.
Again, those are the rivers in all their rich multiplicities & panoplies of their gravitational, least energy hierarchically efficient organizations. Down the gravitational topologies of each, in its own ways.
.
Thus we KNOW that the hierarchies are very, very energy efficient, and that’s why they exist, too. Stabilities, repeating events, which we observe, describe, create LTM’s of and those pass into our organized bodies of knowledge, according to place, region, continent, ocean, hemisphere and so forth, yet more hierarchies of our understandings, based upon the N, S, W, E plan of a spherical globe. Mapping being efficient hierarchically, a 3 D structure of comprehensions. yet anther hierarchy created by comparisons, massively.
.
This is how it’s done. Efficient at every level, from the hierarchies of events in existence, including the planets, stars and the entire Hertzsprung/Russel diagram of the known stars, to the same of the galaxies, as well. From the tiny atoms, to the largest galactic clusters, all of it hierarchically, efficiently arranged and organized.
.
That is the grand design upon which we can create a unified, almost universal model.
.
But it’s deeper, far, far deeper, as well. Because we group the professionals in the same ways. The ethics, the rules they use in their work, the skills. & we can tell the differences among the professionals versus amateurs. And we use exactly the same hierarchic structures to do this as well. Why? Efficiency and thermodynamically rewarding. We gain energy savings and a profit every time we use them. And that creates growth and a build up of organization. We save a lot of time, and so forth, in all the complex system ways of the 2nd law of least energy, as well.
.
.
Exploring this further gives the whole thrust of our understanding of this new model, and its unlimited capabilities, as well.
.
Because HOW do we tell the difference between, by comparisons of professionals &  amateurs. & here comes the richness again, the endless panoplies & multiplicities of complex systems understanding. The professional has a series of methods, skills, ways of doing things, approaches and techniques to get things done. & each of those are very, very efficient compared to the amateur’s ways. & each professional has his own skill set of doing things as well. And each has their own rich, but very similar word skills & vocabularies to keep track of and use those methods, tools, devices and technologies, to create what they do. Process information and then events in existence create the professional, recognizable outcomes. Those being least cost, least time, best outcomes, best appearance, best life, and enduring, etc. The least energy rules.
.
& that’s the higher point here. It’s largely hierarchical. By the outputs of the legal truths, and methods, the literary methods, the performances of artists and athletes. Those are all optimized by the application of similar methods and skill sets of the professional in ANY field whatsoever!!!
.
And because every one of those methods, techniques or tools has it capabilities and its limits, as the professional knows his craft and best knows his tools, those are each capable of being observed, described, & measured in their own ways. And each can be studied, and improved without limit according to least energy rules, as enumerated above.
.
Therefore, the difference and similarities among the skills of each kind of professionals can be studied, and the delimited in exquisite details. & then studied & improved upon within least energy limits, too. More methods, more devices/tool based upon those rich Techniques/technologies, in fact. Without limit.
.
This method thus offers the ability to create a cultural expansion without limits in EVERY field. But we MUST do the work and that’s the whole point. There is a lot of work to do.
.
And as we delimit the hows and why of using those concepts and idea, those words, which create the methods and devices, we can learn what are best and most of which give the best ways of doing each professional tasks. & then improve them using Least energy criteria without limit
.
The students will then know who the best are, and the teachers will know as well. By their most fruitful outcomes. of the MethodS(plural) of Comparison by Dr. Paul B. Stark, Uni California, Berkeley.
.
& that’s how it’s done. Cultural, scientific, performances expansions in all basic fields without limits. & the teaching of same to those interested and qualified.
.
This is what the Basic Model of the higher brain functions herein can do, practically, workably and richly.
.
Much more to be written about, because nearly the entire universe comes under these nearly universal applications, but that’s a very basic model of how the brain works, learns, grows and develops, and creates the skills and technologies which run our world. & it applies to the plants and animals, and the rest of life, as well. No matter where life might be.
.
And it’s efficient and nearly universal, too.
.
On a final note which shows the power and stability of this model is this:
.
Upon those rocks of repeated events in existence, which are enduring &  appear to be very, very much the most stable we know of. Because Least energy rules and is everywhere observable for billions of light years & in all places and billions of years of times, We know, being the basis of the stars and galaxies which shine from 4 protons fusing the stable He4, that it’s real and eminently and endlessly confirmable  Being the very basis of the light and its emission lines, also stable, which create the Hubble observations of the very size and stabilities in our universe. That least energy rules.
.
The same is true of the structure/function relationships in brain, in molecules, and most all else, besides. A universal.The same for complex systems, comparison processing. And upon those enduring, stable events in existence we can build  far more unifying, stable, nearly universal models.
.
The very stability of events in the universe stabilized & continues to stabilize them; those methods, and thus supports them without limit. But not quite!!! There is NO perfect heat engine in TD.
.
We found our beliefs, behaviors and knowledge upon THOSE rocks of the seasons, the rising and setting of the sun, and much else besides. Because those are always there and stable. & so that stability is thus built into our concepts and models, as well. & we can be assured THOSE foundations on the rocks of events, will endure.

 

The Etymologies & Creativity

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
Many have been interested in etymologies, that is, the derivations and meanings and roots of words for quite some time. And how we figure out where those words and meanings came from. And the enormous potential for understanding & creativities latently lying within the fields
.
It’s a result of massive comparison of similar words. The same word comparisons we commonly and very widely use to figure out how each language is related to others. It also shows how vowels, consonants and words can change over time. It’s in short a sum total of how we compare words, massively to create the relationships among the languages, to create the hierarchies of those relationships; such as the romance languages from Latin, the Teutonic languages, such as French (Gaulic), German, English, Dutch, etc.; or the Ungaro-Altaic language groups (Magyar, Estonian, Suomi, Sami, etc), the Semitic languages of ancient Egyptian, ancient and modern Hebrew, Arabic, Ethiopian Amharic, and Aramaic, for instance.
.
All of those are found to be related, esp., but for the central Asian examples, and are Indo-European languages, to boot.
.
So the comparison processes are shown to be working without limit, as well because in most every case massive comparisons are being done cortically in the language centers of the brain to detect those similiarities and their relationships. And here are some of the interesting events found over the last 40 years.
.
The first real idea was that many words are very under-defined, and not very precise. in IT terms, they have less information content. But in fact this is an advantage, because it creates the hierarchies of our understanding, the levels of which are populated by the elements within the categories of Aristoteles, which create the hierarchies, as well.
.
For instance, “tree” is not very precise, and can refer to a very, very large number of 10K’s of species, both living and extinct, as well..By comparing each tree to those known we at once ascertain where they fit in: in the oaks, the conifers, the cypressacae, the hardwoods, the apple tree family ( that is, the roses  ), and so forth.
.
These relationships and associations of the trees are not only visual, but genetic as well. Thus the visual comparisons can translate to genetic relationships and details,too, being structure/function (S/F) relationships. So while the general category of tree, which can include hardwoods, flowering trees, the palms, even to stretch it, the tree ferns and the Calamites, Lepidodendrons, and Lepidophlois of the extinct tree families.
.
So the word tree allows this, by being not specific and not but generally defined. The more specific they are, the more IT info they contain, until we get down the specific variations of the species of trees, esp. those of the cultivated varieties, which can be vast, indeed, esp. with the apples.
.
Thus, we can take the apple, and see the apfel,and the apfalon (Avalon Isle) relationships. In French it’s Pomme and the Pomme de terre is the potato in English. & Kartoffel in German. But in Arabiya it’s Batatis, because there is NO “p” in Arabiya.
.
&  we find out first examples of how the B and P can be interchangeable, in some languages. Meaning when we find Boutros in Arabiya we are looking at the Greek Petros.
.
Taking this further, listening to Espagnol we hear the diphthong consonant, of the B/V when Havana is stated. It’s not the B OR the V, but a mix of the two. And this shows again how pronunciations and spelling and how those consonant changes can create new, but similar words.
.
The same is seen with V and W in German versus English. We are talking comparative linquistics here, to put it another way. Vee in English is Fau in Deutsch. So that Vee, & double U (VW) is Fau Vay in Deutsch. But those are the same letters!!!
.
This is how language works, by the individual variations on the complex system themes of the sounds corresponding to letters. & why etymologies are so damned interesting. Because it shows linguistic “processes” at work, which are both least energy and efficient, as well. & thus stable.
.
In the ancient Egyptian there was a vowel shift from the 17th dynasty of the Tchehuti to the Ramessid. Moses, as in Aahmose (Amos, the first Pharaoh of the dynasty) became Ramesses from Ramose. This is a very slight change in mouth shape which goes from “o” to short “e”. And it’s easy then to see the shift and how it occurs.  Thus we have Moses of the Old Testament out of the 17th dynasty NOT the Ramessid which is a clear & archaeologically proven to be mistake.
.
And then using that same word of Moses, we see the softening of the “s” to the “sh” of Moshe in modern Hebrew, compared to the old. This also is seen with Mas in Espagnol, being Mas (Mash) in Portuguese; & is also seen in English when we say Special, in American English (Inglish) it comes out “speshul”;  where as in proper, accepted English in London it’s Spessial. The same for Appreshiate in American versus Apresiate in English.
.
Or as Churchil  so descriptively once said, The English and Americans, a common people separated by a common ocean and a common language.
.
There are many other examples of these vowels and consonantal shifts. For instance the “th”, in the unvoiced versus the voiced “th”, as in Those versus “thin”. And then the D, or DH, sounds in Old English, as well. & in today’s German speakers who can’t say “th” either, but is always as my g’pa said, his mother being full blood Penn Deutsch, Dis and dat Tink! for “this and that thing”.
.
Those are some  interesting aspects of our language, seen by comparison processing by our language centers, and indeed the rest of the cortical cell columns of Mountcastle systems.
.
So we soon see that gift in English means a present such as given at special occ. of X-mas & birthdays, while it means in German, a Poison.
.
On the other hand we see Tur, meaning Door in English, the same consonantal shift. The T being not voiced, the D being voiced. A simple connection of the positions of the tongue being the same, but the D requires a vocal cord activation while “tee” does not.
.
So we find at once that we cannot be too dogmatic in our standards, or we miss the subtle points. Nor can we be too loose or we begin to admit too many loose associations, but not clearly related words. Those usually found by substantial, different word origins.
.
Thus our findings in linguistics, esp. for the etymologies of words, not only established pronunciations, but NOT absolutely,  & only cpmparatively, which is in fact relativity description. How words are related to other words, clearly. & we learn as in the use of the tree, not to get too dogmatic about it, either.
.
This is the sophrosyne, the “golden mean ” of creativity. It must make least energy sense, as in the positions of the tongue, mouth, and vocal cords use. But it can sometimes be otherwise.
.
Sadly, information decays in time and we do NOT know what kinds of accents our ancestors used to state the same words as we do, let alone all those obsolete words and pronunciations, too. Given the vast numbers of English accents extant & used world wide, and even in the UK alone, from Manchester, to Liverpudlian, to Glasgow brogues, English in London and to Yorkshire. Or from Boston to NYC, to the southern accents of many kinds, to the standard English of the Midwest American. (which is not actually Midwest any more, but a hold over for when it was. It’s North Central US now!). Or the Philly or Chi City accents, either. Not to mention the racial groups in the US, which can have dialects which are simplifications of English, thus least energy, the so called Pigeon English seen in many ways, world wide, from the Pacific to the Caribbean, & markedly so.
.
Thus the Etymologies AND the dialects give us much more information about language than we have had before, by this vast comparison processing of spelling, meaning and the dialectical forms of the same, at first, earliest, modern English.
.
Old English offers a great many examples of this, but sadly we do NOT have accurate recordings of OE, & we cannot therefore be very sure about how those words were pronounced, exactly, 700 years ago. We now know dialects change, and can change markedly over time. Even the Thee & Thou of early Stuart times  and earlier Elizabethan English changed.  As seen in the earliest folios of Shakespeare and his associates.
.
But the interesting point here is the “-gh and -ght” English word endings, with Ought, aught, eight, -ight, and others. We find so many forms of how “ought” is pronounced, that’s it’s really interesting, fully SIX different, confusing ways!!! Separated only by comparison usage, and thus the context of the surrounding words. For example, Awt,is said Ought, or Aught; then -ough as in cough, or hiccup as in Hiccough; then Ruff as in rough; then tuff as in tough, and so forth.
.
That’s also found in words derived very clearly from the older Knecht, pronouncing the -echt as eckt. We see this in the German (& Scandinavian), Lands Knecht, which is very closely connected to the Knight as in “nite” in English, and indeed is the same word. And the OE gave it as Knight. and Night as opposed to Day the same way, too.  So the etymologies give not only the meanings of words and their origins, but doubly reinforce HOW those were likely spoken, even “though” we should not, wisely, be too dogmatic about it
.
Because thermodynamically information decays in time. and thus the dialects spoken by our ancestors are largely lost to us, even as many whole languages have also been lost to us, as well. But comparison process thinking can partly, using the known rules re-constructed relatively speaking, give us some idea of what happened before.
.
But, again, there is NO certain information, no absolute space, time& thus no total understanding possible of the languages, either. But we can apply the epistemology of Einstein to language as well as to physics, and description and mathematics. This substantially extends Einsteinian epistemology, largely, to most everything going on between our ears, for that matter.
.
Therefore the Relativity of the Cortex in our language centers, as well as global, cerebrally,l very likely.
.
.
And this:
.
.
It’s very clear then that the CP creates creativity and understanding by creating by comparison processing of events in existence. Being the wellspring of creativity of most types, this simple system shows its value.
.
Because when we need understanding how languages and their various forms are created, by using comparative linguistic methods, we can do so, clearly. But with the absolutes firmly forbidden & likelihoods being predominant. Thus preponderance of evidence, rather than dogmatic intolerance of differing views. There are no absolutes in linguistic analyses any more than there are in space/time physics or much else. It’s like QM, stochastic, probabilities & possibilities, rather than cut and dried, final certainties or deterministic to the end.
.
Thus we begin to understand better how events come about within us and outside of us, by using the same, nearly (but not quite) universal principles of CP, S/F methods, LE, and Complex systems, process thinking, and the unlimited methods those create. Eschewing all the while, the idealistic fallacies that mental outputs are any kind of final or ultimate standard. Empirical events are the standards. Not what WE think merely, but what’s more likely going on by using our relativistic standards and our instruments; and photographic and related electronic imaging and recordings to confirm, improve & amplify our perceptions of events.
.
And thus do the etymologies show us not only how our minds work, but how we create the organizations of our understanding. The creation of the Hierarchies of our knowledge, the indices, the dictionaries, the telephone and city directories. The hierarchies of the mathematics, starting with arithmetic and rising up thru algebras, which are also comparison processes, largely. and created, populated & processed and those hierarchies navigated by CP, as well.
.
Our standards and conventions should be both loose enough to accommodate our understanding and explanations and to generate events, but tight enough to have real meanings, too.
.
Thus studying etymologies, not only shows us how we group, categorize and hierarchically organize the known languages, dialects & tongues, but how we understand most everything else, using the same, common cortical column functions, the comparison processes active there in every normally thinking human beings. Regardless of cultural origins, we have this all in common. We speak and can understand all of the languages because they are all processed in our cortices by the same systems, virtually.
.
& This is why the child can learn any language.. Because there is NO universal grammar. That’s looking for the black cat in pitch dark areas of vast size. When the cat is not there!!!
.
It’s the common brain processes of the cortex which create the comparison methods we use, a la Dr. Paul B. Stark’s “Method of Comparison” at UC Berkeley. More accurately & less linearly, the MethodS (plural) of comparison.
.
That’s what’s going on. and math cannot yet follow, nor can linear methods, nor deductive logics, either. But the higher logics of the CP can create these, can navigate these landmarks, the hierarchies which it creates, and organize them, as well, into verbal, visual and other kinds of maps. Those are the keys to understanding.
.
The lowly, simple words we use hold that much meaning when studied etymologically, by comparison processing, clearly. & the way is now open to improvements in our creativities, our standards/conventions and in every field, as well. This is the promise of the new CP, LE, S/F, complex system and all the unlimited methods, techniques, skills, and devices, tools & technologies those can create. Without effective limit.  It’s a much more universal system than seen before, and we are on the cusp of that major epistemological, paradigmatic shift. the early part of yet another S-curve of exponential growth.
.
S/F (structuralism) creates the details. And Eschewing idealisms creates the nearly unlimited possibilities, as well.

 

Table of Contents

1. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-introduction/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=22&relatedposts_position=0

2. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-2/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=3&relatedposts_position=1

3. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=7&relatedposts_position=0

3A.. Extensions & Applications, parts 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

4. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-1/

5. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-2/

6. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/comparison-process-explananda-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=17&relatedposts_position=1

7. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 4
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-4/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=38&relatedposts_position=0

8. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 5: Cosmology
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/cosmology-and-the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-5/

9. AI and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-the-comparison-process-comp/

10. Optical and Sensory Illusions, Creativity and the Comparison Process (COMP)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/opticalsensory-illusions-creativity-the-comp/

11. The Emotional Continuum: Exploring Emotions with the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

12. Depths within Depths: the Nested Great Mysteries
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

13. Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

14. The Continua, Yin/Yang, Dualities; Creativity and Prediction
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

15. Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/81/

16. The Spark of Life and the Soul of Wit
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/

17. The Praxis: Use of Cortical Evoked Responses (CER), functional MRI (fMRI), Magnetic Electroencephalography (MEG), and Magnetic Stimulation of brain (MagStim) to investigate recognition, creativity and the Comparison Process

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-praxis/

18. A Field Trip into the Mind

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/106/

19. Complex Systems, Boundary Events and Hierarchies

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/complex-systems-boundary-events-and-hierarchies/

20. The Relativity of the Cortex: The Mind/Brain Interface

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-relativity-of-the-cortex-the-mindbrain-interface/

21. How to Cure Diabetes (AODM type 2)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/how-to-cure-diabetes-aodm-2/

22. Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/dealing-with-sociopaths-terrorists-and-riots/

23. Beyond the Absolute: The Limits to Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/beyond-the-absolute-limits-to-knowledge/

24  Imaging the Conscience.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/imaging-the-conscience/

25. The Comparison Process: Creativity, and Linguistics. Analyzing a Movie

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/comparison-process-creativity-and-linguistics-analyzing-a-movie/

26. A Mother’s Wisdom

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/a-mothers-wisdom/

27. The Fox and the Hedgehog

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/the-fox-the-hedgehog/

28. Sequoias, Parkinson’s and Space Sickness.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/sequoias-parkinsons-and-space-sickness/

29. Evolution, growth, & Development: A Deeper Understanding.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/evolution-growth-development-a-deeper-understanding/

30. Explanandum 6: Understanding Complex Systems

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/explandum-6-understanding-complex-systems/

31. The Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country: Towards Universal Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-promised-land-of-the-undiscovered-country-towards-universal-understanding-2/

32. The Power of Proliferation

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/the-power-of-proliferation/

33. A Field Trip into our Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/a-field-trip-into-our-understanding/

34.  Extensions & applications: Pts. 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

(35. A Hierarchical Turing Test for General AI, this was deleted after being posted, and it’s not known how it occurred.)

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

35. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/the-structure-of-color-vision/

36. La Chanson Sans Fin:   Table of Contents

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/le-chanson-sans-fin-table-of-contents-2/

37. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/the-structure-of-color-vision-2/

38. Stabilities, Repetitions, and Confirmability

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/stabilities-repetitions-confirmability/

39. The Balanced Brain

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-balanced-brain/

40. The Limits to Linear Thinking & Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/the-limits-to-linear-thinking-methods/

.

41. Melding Cognitive Neuroscience & Behaviorism

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/melding-cognitive-neuroscience-behaviorism/

42. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai/

43.  Do Neutron Stars develop into White Dwarfs by Mass Loss?https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/do-neutron-stars-develop-into-white-dwarfs-by-mass-loss/

44. An Infinity of Flavors ?                             https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/an-infinity-of-flavors/

45. The Origin of Infomration & Understanding; and the Wellsprings of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/origins-of-information-understanding/

46. The Complex System of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/the-complex-system-of-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

47. How Physicians Create New Information

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/how-physicians-create-new-information/

48. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai-2/

49. The Neuroscience of Problem Solving

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/the-neuroscience-of-problem-solving/

50. A Standard Method to Understand Neurochemistry’s Complexities

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/a-standard-method-to-understand-neurochemistrys-complexities/

51. Problem Solving for Self Driving Cars: a Model.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/problem-solving-for-self-driving-cars-a-model/

52. A Trio of Relationships and Connections

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/a-trio-of-relationships-connections/

53: Einstein’s Great Subtleties:  Einstein’s Edge

https://wordpress.com/post/jochesh00.wordpress.com/583

54. The Problem of Solving P not Equal to NP

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/04/28/the-problem-of-solving-p-not-equal-to-np/

55. How to Create a Blue Rose

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/how-to-create-a-blue-rose/

56. The Etymologies of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/the-etymologies-creativity/

57.  A Basic Model of a Unifying System of Most All Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/a-basic-model-of-a-unifying-system-of-most-all-knowledge/

58. Understanding Psych with S/F Brain Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/understanding-psychology-with-s-f-methods/

 

 

How to Create a Blue Rose

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
.
There was recently a finalized attempt to make a blue rose and as usual came out with a purple one which was not honestly marketed, either. Plenty of those so called blue roses which are mostly purple, as well. But a true Blue Rose is not seen. & as the “Blue Rose” would make a LOT of money esp., and in the very least, at the Rose Bowl Parade every year, intense interest for 100’s of years has been made to find one.
.
The problem is that the researchers are micromanaging and ignoring complex systems. Which is why the unintended purple rose came about, after years of work and $12 Millions invested, and failed. Simply by trying to put in a delphinidin gene into the rose genome, and then a modification, which didn’t work, either. The system is complex system, and cannot be reliably manipulated linearly, either. Everything has an effect on lots of other systems. So a single change is unlikely, like most linear thinking, to affect the whole and give the expected output.
.
As usual, there was a disparity between what was expected and what was found. Festinger’s “cognitive dissonance” often seen with complex systems, struck again. OR as Asimov wrote about a leader in “The Foundation” series, “A direct man to the end!!!”
.
.
This is how to do it and why it will work. There is a little known fact, yet it’s critical to understanding WHY and how things work between our ears. We know penicillin works. & we know did NOT at first know WHY 90 years ago, but THAT it did work to kill the bugs. We knew by its outcomes, by “its fruits”. IOW, our knowledge was incomplete, but we knew it worked, none the less. About 50 years later it was found out how it worked by blocking cell wall synthesis in susceptible bacteria. & with the appearance of PCN resistance, various new PCN’s have been created, including finding the cephalosporins, which were beta lactam rings, as well.
.
But the antibiotic resistances occurred, again, unintended effects, unexpected. The universe of events doesn’t always work like our mental models do. There is a great difference between our models of events and how those actually work, as we are reminded nearly daily. The word is not the thing. The fallacy of the idealistic beliefs is that our brain outputs are NOT final truths, but stand only when those are compared to real events. The logical fallacy of idealisms is that brain outputs are somehow superior to events in existence. That’s what empiricism has taught us, and many don’t realize that fallacy even today, although Galileo knew it 400 years ago, very likely.
.
This is how to block most all bacterial resistances; For the foreseeable future:
.
.
Please peruse down to the paragraph beginning: ” Thus pharmacology is essentially massive trial and error….” That’s the beginning of the solution but takes one more, highly critical step to make it work without limits.
.
We do NOT have to know how something works to know that it does. Paul B. Stark’s comparison methods show this occurring, as well.
.
.
The Method of Comparison
.
To get a deeper idea of what’s going on, let’s simply compare Luther Burbank’s methods of breeding plants he wanted, which was overwhelmingly successful compared to micromanaging and trying to insert genes into complex system genomes, which is highly unlikely to work, unless very, very lucky.
.
What he did was to observe  & select the plants that he wanted in terms of taste, sizes and if they bred true or not. And then picked the ones he wanted by making a VERY great many of them, thus allowing genetic’s fullest diversity to present itself. In short, he let the natural systems do the genetics for him and didn’t have to delve into the genetics or manipulations of such complex systems such as 1000’s, even 10K’s of genes interacting, which cannot be solved logically nor mathematically, either. It’d take huge amounts of time. He Saw the larger picture, the forest for the trees.
.
And that was basically how Burbank was so successful. He let natural systems show him the possibilities &  then chose the ones he wanted, and was wildly successful with this means. And why he succeeded whereas blue roses remain elusive.
.
Thus we must use more complex system methods & let the natural systems do the sorting, looking NOT for the genetic manipulationa to work, but to let natural systems do the work of sorting for us.
.
There are other blue pigments than delphinidine, for instance. Blue forget me nots have those, but expressing those in flowers is not easy. There is putunidin, also There are many kinds of flowers with blue pigments in them, but putting that gene into a rose plant, which has red pigments in the stems, and leaves, can be the problem. It will create a purple flower. So any kind of rose, which makes white flowers but does Not have the red pigments will work, possibly.
.
The other point is making a blue flower plant cell fuse with a white flower rose. That’s the way to do it. Then choose those which have true blue rose outputs, that is, make a lot of plant fused cells, and then successively fuse with roses to make a blue rose, where the plant looks like a rose. That way, making sure at each stage, the flowers are blue. Let the natural systems select FOR a blue rose, against 100’s of trials. It will take some time but solves the sorting problem neatly, just as Burbank did.
.
And that’s how to make a blue rose, very likely.

The Problem of Solving P NOT Equal to NP

By Herb Wiggins, MD, Clinical Neurosciences; creator/discoverer of the Comparison Process/Methods, Mar. 2014.
.
Descriptions are changed into mathematical forms in this way. Each step takes a description to a form of polynomial math solutions, and each step ADDS information, sequentially to the fullest solution. It Translates verbal descriptions into mathematical expressions, throughout. And thus solves the problem, taking NP to P. There are unlimited numbers of such examples, but these are the simplest which show the richest panoplies of what’s possible, much like taking the sensations of vision, feelings, touch, heat, position, etc., including hardness and softnesses to linear, math measuring scales, of same.
.
The size of the trial and error sorting problem is also a huge bar to solving many problems. It takes lots of time, as it does evolution, to sort through all the complexisties to find answers to problems. And often, there is not just a single answer, but in complex systems, unlimited numbers of answers. That also can add to the time taken to w/o a solution which is growth capable and useful as well as practical, too.
.
The P not equal to NP problem rests upon a very critical juncture of understanding problem solving, essentially math problem solving. There is a $1 M prize for the mathematical proof of this problem, the Millennial Prize.
.
Here’s how to solve this problem.  First of all, the structure of the question, P not equal to NP is a significant part of the problem itself.
.
Problems not solved go to problems solved. The P not equal to NP is NOT in the proper order to be solved, either, chronologically nor sequentially. It’s, in short, bass/ackwards!!!  Problems not solved go to Problems solved. This is the first major point to be made. The sequence MUST be cast into normal time flow of natural, logical processing..
.
Thus all/most all NP is Not equal to P. & Is more properly the question asked.
.
The other basic, structural problem is that many solutions to problems cannot be found within logic nor math. Those insights must be supplied from the outside, then incorporated within. Thus the consequences of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem are once again in the fore. We cannot understand, describe or apply many systems from “within’, but must venture outside & see the problem as more a critical kind of “larger problem” of creativity and its origins. We must take off the blindfolds and see the entire elephant, not just a too small piece of it. We must see the larger, visualized picture, the forest for the trees. Thus to solve such a problem we must figure out how creativity works and how the brain creates information, data, organizes those into knowledge, and further, creates creativities. That being done, the thing is more simply solved.
.
Once those are realized then we can take a simple cameo series of solutions and then elucidate HOW the brain solves such problems, i.e., converts NP to P. Here it is.
.
We are trying to get from Dallas  to Houston. How do we go about this, verbally and mathematically?  Innate in this question are the multiple solutions to that problem, or HOW we mathematize a verbally descriptive problem to solve it, and WHY, the much deeper question is why we use math at all, compared to verbal descriptions? IOW, we are taking the verbal description which is NP to a polynomial math description equivalent. This is how we create mathematical equivalences to verbal descriptions and in short, how experimental maths are created.
.
When Friston, in “Consciousness” shows how the least energy events are mathematical treated reasonably well by Lyupanov numbers, he’s doing the same thing. The repeating stabilities are stable due to least energy. and those are very largely expressed & handled by using Lyupanov math and methods.
.
 https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-not-a-thing-but-a-process-of-inference
.
When Whitehead writes that “Any society (or group in a society) which cannot break out of its current abstractions, after a limited period of time, stagnates, he can be seen to be describing a series of S-curves, the cubic equations which describe development, growth, market growth, changes, emergence/embryologies, as well as evolution, most all of which are S curves. It also describes an avalanche, the falling of the avalanche growing exponentially & then at last tapering off at the bottom of the hill, the inversions of the S-curve. So there it is again.
.
First, from Dallas must find the directions to go to Houston. We can go many different ways to get there, but first the best way is?  That means we have in an IT, Shannon Bandwagon sense, created a sorting of the 360 degrees of direction and found we go about SE. The shortest most direct, least energy and efficient direction. Our solutions then MUST have least energy built into them. this is essential to solving problems and creativity. Also, That adds information to the solution, does it not?  We head roughly in the 75 degrees heading, which is SE. This at once adds information to P.
.
Then we must find out how FAR Dallas is from Houston. Well, a friend tells us, it’s about 4 hours’ drive. So we know roundly, it will take us that time, more or less. But we have a car, and we must go that way. Now how FAR is it, we descriptively ask?
.
It’s about 250 miles, generally we find out by those who have compared the distance to a set standard, that is measured the distance. That is created the data of about 250 miles in distance
.
So, now what? How much gasoline do we need to get there?  There’s a verbal description. We convert that to mathematics by running our car to about 1/2 full on the gas tank dial. Then we go to the nearest gas station and top out the tank. And we find it takes about 7.5 gallons to do that. So we know by a simple algebraic method, it will be 1/2X = 7.5 gals, & thus our tank holds 15 gallons!!!
.
Now what do we do with that? We create a proportion, a ratio, a Comparison of the miles driven per gallon of gasoline used. This is like creating Pi, a standard, a constant from comparing the circumference to the diameter of a circle, to create Pi, which we can use to elucidate the truths of spherical geometries, mathematically. Creating that new standard, a comparison, ratio, proportion (the basis of much algebra, so it turns out), allows us to compute the areas, volumes, etc., of roundish objects, to some degree of accuracy. Information has been created and that added to create a solution of spherical algebras, themselves. Comparison processes are algebras.
.
So we take the miles/gallon standard, convention, and try to solve that one. Well, we just happened to note, the last time we filled the tank to full, we’d gone about 25,517 odometer miles, and we compare that to the odometer at the gas station we just filled up at, & it was 25,742. So, we compare the two, find a 225 miles difference, by subtraction, another comparison process.
.
So we do another algebraic equation,  Miles/gallon = 225/7.5 and that is about 30. Again, comparison processes which drives most all algebras. We, once again, have added information to create a solution.
.
We know that Houston is about 240 miles away, and so that means we need about 8 and a fraction gals. to get there, and about 17 gallons for a round trip, plus or minus how much we drive around in Houston.
.
So tanking up, will get us there, but not back. At each stage, we are using comparisons to create new information which we can mathematically process by algebra to find answers. This is how we solve not polynomial problems by converting them into polynomial, algebraic solutions, is not?
.
At each stage we create relationships, numerical, between real existing events, to treat them. We cannot do this by description, but only partly. The math allows us, in each case, to more accurately treat and understand how to solve the problem. Each relationship gives us answers, creates data from Einsteinian measuring epistemology of a relatively fixed, stable standard/conventions, by which we compare to create data. In these cases, miles to Houston, gallons in our tank. Miles/gallon, and at last, Speeds, which are ratios again, comparing distance over time. Yet another ratio!!!
.
How do we use that, then? We know that it takes about 4 hours to get to Houston. We know by asking we use I-45 to get there going roughly SE, because that’s the direction, roughly, I-45 goes.  So there we have it, but for the last, how long will it take to get there?
.
IF we travel a fixed speed, say 65 miles/hour, then it will take just under 4 hours to get to Houston. So if to make the 11 AM appointment we have to be on the road by no later than 6:30 to get there 1/2 hour earlier, for getting ready to get to the place, where the appointment is. Again we create and find new information to solve the problem, taking NP to P, adding new information at each point to create a solution.
.
Now, how do we find the place we are getting to? We have an address for a place in Houston. & we compare that to a map, showing the alphabetical street name plus the numerical address. We compare the two and find the street by trial and error, relatively by comparison, again on the map. We find the off ramp from the I-45 road to the nearest street that will take us there. Some extra time, going slower than 65 mph, too.
.
So THAT is why we use mathematics. It allows us to find, predict and travel more efficiently than merely verbal, not numerical methods of math. It’s precise within some practical limits, and we can plan better with it, than just going SW for 4 hours at about 65 miles an hour. Math is least energy efficient when used in such ways. Words, descriptions cannot do that. That’s why math’s used. It efficiently allows us to solve problems which verbal descriptions alone, cannot.
.
The efficiencies of prediction, planning ahead and so forth are what’s going on here. NP becomes P. We convert a verbal problem to a polynomial solution by using these already proven methods.  But note that the map reading is NOT mathematical, at all, though it is comparison processing against the standards of N, S, W, E and so forth!!  So we are still using verbal descriptions with some counting of the street numbers, however.
.
And at EACH spot in the problem solving, we are ADDING information, in an Information Theory, Shannon’s Bandwagon sense, where we can solve the problem, confine the data, & thus more completely describe what we are doing!!  Information rises, entropy goes down, and the description using math is far, far more complete than if we used merely words.
But note that we can write and type all words to describe, teach, speak express and use the math, but that math cannot be used to describe much at all of Shakespeare, or written words. It goes one way, words to math, some a limited extent, math to words, but the latter is very limited. This reflects the origins and neuroanatomy of maths in the L Post. Temp. speech centers, where it’s developed, interdigitates with the language processing centers of Wernicke’s area.  when we damage language processing we also damage math, as well. It’s a pure relationship, comparing structure of the brain to the functions which are damaged when the cortex there is significantly damaged or impaired due to various causes. Structure/functions comparisons universally show us how the brain works. As well as for chemical, building, and much other  engineering approaches. Structures of atoms, molecules and even polypeptides and proteins are closely related to their functions. And thus S/F relationships by comparison create information about how events work.
.
It’s also how we convert the senses of hot, cold, motion, hard/soft (Moh’s scale and GPA’;s) to maths as well. Most all of our linear scales are NP converted to P, therefore & information is inevitably created as well as added.
.
Now compare when we translate a bit of French into English, or vice versa. Are we adding information? Not really in a semantic sense, altho we are showing the information of equivalence of the French sentences to the English. But new information is NOT being added. Translations are thus comparison processes as well. The closest efficiently expressed phrase in each language compared to the other phrases in another language is exactly what translation is.
.
Je suis ici.
Ich bin hier
Estoy aqui.
Hic Sum.
I am here.
.
& this shows that very, very well, in fact.
.
How this applies to the upsetting finding that if Gravity and relativity are quantized, we don’t get anything new is easy. Simply, for the obvious reason, that we are NOT adding any new info, but simply “Quantizing”, read “translating ” into QM. Thus not much info is going to be added. If we want more understanding then we must find more equivalencies, or more relationships in an Einsteinian sense, such that ER is related (but not equal) to EPR. ER bridges are related intrinsically to quantum entanglements. That’s how we learn and create new understanding.
.
In order to ADD information we must, as Einstein stated, find new relationships among events (Physics & Reality, 1936). This adds to our understanding, and converts when mathematized, NP to P. Adding info, IOW. But more of that, later. In short we solve the problems first using descriptive, visual models; and then we mathematize the expressions, in order to measure them. This requires some creativity as well, but information is then being added again, creating P from NP.  Einsteinian Relativity was first formulates & THEN Minkowski & he mathematized it. Trying to solve a problem using math only when new relationships are to be found is simply not the way it works. Math follows recognition/relationship creative thinking, but it does NOT create it. Math is not recognition of new relationships, associations, connections, causality, etc.
.
This is largely what’s going on here. Have shown how we create the relatively fixed, standard conventions & scales to measure volumes, temps, hardnesses and so forth. how we convert warm, warmer warmest to Hot hotter hottest, or cool, cooler coolest, and cold, colder coldest, as well. It’s a verbal form, linearizing of the temp scale.
.
Briefly, we use the freezing point of water, 32 deg. F. versus the boiling point of water, 212 degrees, 180 difference between the two, and find a standard temp, pressure, and conditions to create that measuring standard. The epistemology of Einstein applies. These are NOT absolute, standards, but relative standards. The same for time and space. They have arbitrary units, as well, Km./m. or Miles/gallon, instead of Km./liter, is not?
.
& why do we use such standards? They are efficient. But why metric, versus English system of weights and measures?
.
Efficiency. It’s easier to use 10 times ten times 10 than 4 quarts to a gallon. 32 oz. to the quart, 2 pints to the quart. It’s least energy efficient, we see. Just as math is least energy efficient to describe better than some verbal terms, how far something is from another, is not?
.
Least energy rules.
.
 So this is how using our senses of hardness  creates Moh’s scale & is then mathematized to GPA’s.  In degrees it’s 32 F. & deg. C., zero , and  212 boiling point of water, 100 C.  & water is readily available, easy to use and find, as well. It’s an efficient comparison standard,, therefore. And fixed, stable, however arbitrary the units we use, tho in this case, efficient.
.
The same is true for the feet, hands, distances and length measures we have adopted, as well.
.
.
This is how we convert NP to P. Creativity using comparison processes of descriptions to maths. NOT the other way round. The distances, in feet, hands, and so forth, became numericized, mathematically using relatively fixed, comparison standards, which are efficient.
.
In the same way, we solve mathematical problems by comparison processing. We take NP to P, by ADDING information. and thus all NP is NOT equal to all P, because P contains More information in an IT sense, than NP. In each case this can be shown by comparing the info content of the NP side to the solved, P, side.
.
Thus the first person who can use this, clear, descriptive method, to prove, mathematically and logically, that NP is Not equal to P because their information Contents are not the same, will get $1 Million and a lot of interesting outcomes for same. Information Theory is the basic key to this proof.
.
We cannot conclude, however, that in some cases NP is equal to P, because that might be possible. With tautologies, and translations it’s likely. But there are most cases in which NP is NOT equal to P because P contains more information.
.
But there is this critical point. Each statement be it NP, or P contains information. If more information in an IT sense is found in the solution as seems likely, compared to NP, then it’s very likely that solutions to NP going to P mean that in each Case, NP is NOT equal to P. This simple IT test of info content is sufficient to establish NP is Not equal to P.  And creating the above descriptions which are then translated into polynomial math forms shows this, repeatedly as above.
.
Problems can be solved in this way, taking verbal descriptions which create information to math forms which create mathematical measuring forms, which contain more information than the NP side. Thus in most cases, NP is NOT equal to P. Because at each stage we are creating descriptive information changing that into mathematical forms, which measurements (amount of gas in the tank, distance and direction to Houston; how long it will take to drive there, how much gas will be needed) create information to solve the problems, very clearly, and plainly. & in most cases, this occurs, and can be found simply by testing the information content descriptively and mathematically, too.
.
In trivial cases of the tautologies in logic, NP is equal to P, is the rule. However, where creativity is required to convert NP into a polynomial form, it’s very likely  the added Info needed to create P makes them not equal.
.
Taking the problem of finding out how to solve Archimedes’ problem also shows those unique and critical insights of the comparison process “Ratios”, which the mileage, speed, & in miles/gal., miles/hour, and show how speed is related to travel time, as well. Creating those polynomic ratios does this.
.
So for Mass/volume, or in more real terms, gms./cc. we have this. When Archimedes was trying to figure out how to determine if the gold given by the Syracusan king to his goldsmith was completely used, or he stole some, he realized, again, a deep relationship, which could be expressed descriptively. Gold weighs more than silver volume for volume. It’s palpably, by our senses, heavier. (note also how we convert this heaviness sense to a math scale by using comparing of an unknown mass against a known mass in the other balance arm pan!) But when he put his feet, then legs into the water, he realized that he could measure the ratio of mass/volumes, which we call density, to create a standard measurement, that is to create a density measure to more accurately describe this.
.
So he could measure both volumes of water, and weights of gold very accurately. And when he compared the mass to the volume, the ratio which also creates like distance to time creates speed/velocity, he created a ratio which followed his verbally descriptive impression that gold is heavier than water as well as to the other base metals. That ratio he could not measures descriptively and it became named in English, density, of mass in gram/cc.  That insight created the solution to the problem, taking NP to P, by adding understanding that a relationship could be created. & with that creative insight, we find the “Eureka” hallmark in most all cases, rom the insights of Darwin and Wallace that led to evolution. From the insight by Kepler that led to elliptical orbits. To the insights by Newton that falling could be mathematized for N=2, and produce a least energy solution, once again, as does the travel description, to the planetary orbits.
.
Realizing that the above massive use of and creation of ratios such as miles/hour, or per gallon, or such, create the means to solve these. & those are ALL comparison processes or math ratios, in short.
.
Thus, creative activities create information of how, as Einstein states in his “Physics and Reality”, 1936, that understanding is the finding of relationships among events in existence; which are found verbally and descriptively & then if mathematized create greater and more precise measurements, while arbitrary in some sense, are yet efficient, fixed and stable standards. & NOT by in any real way, absolute, but relational, relative and thus most all comparison processing, as ratios, proportions, etc. are. & thus, we find the relativity of the Cortex and that how mathematics of our measuring scales are all created, because NP is NOT equal to P.
.
This is the Neuroscience & relativity of problem solving, in a nutshell.
.
That’s how it’s done.