 
### Penzar

### Journal of advanced ideas

by Patrick M. Rael

Published by Patrick M. Rael at Smashwords

Copyright 2011 Patrick M. Rael.

All rights reserved.

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Tornadoes.

The challenge.

Understanding the tornado.

Create a tornado simulator.

How to prevent a tornado from reaching the ground.

Deny what the tornado requires.

Research Direction 1: Disrupt the in-flow of air.

Research Direction 2: Block the funnel with obstacle.

Research Direction 3: Create an artificial ground.

Combining techniques.

Different kinds of tornadoes.

Chapter 2: Fires.

The challenge.

Stopping forest-fires and brush-fires.

Stopping oil well fires.

Stopping sky scraper fires.

Analysis.

The approach towards a solution.

The first front - Firefighters.

Second front - Water delivery from above.

Third front - Self activating foam sprayers.

Fourth front - Skirts and air bags.

Fifth front - escape.

Chapter 3: On intelligent life.

The challenge.

The two categories of intelligent life forms.

Intelligent individual properties.

Intelligent group life form properties.

Examples of intelligent group life forms.

Chapter 4: On a measure of intelligence of life forms.

The challenge.

Meta rules.

Prerequisites.

The levels of intelligence of a life form - the L8 scale.

Follow up.

Chapter 5: World Peace.

The challenge declined.

The first conjecture of peace: necessary.

The second conjecture of peace: sufficient.

The third conjecture of peace: long lasting.

Follow up.

Chapter 6: Design of the Android mind.

The challenge.

M1 Architecture.

Analytical methods of the robots mind.

The two brain hypothesis.

Vision and perception.

Vision and dreaming.

Other aspects of the vision system.

M1 Architecture solution to Perception and Dreaming.

The spectrum of questions about robot emotions.

Robot Maxamilian.

Chapter 7: Pat's law of robotics.

Robots do the heavy lifting.

Follow up.

Chapter 8: Utopia Androidia.

The challenge.

A solution: The Android Labor Proxy hypothesis.

The 14 laws of human and android symbiotic labor.

Free time.

Follow up.

Chapter 9: Dystopia Androidia.

If android robots behave like human beings.

Follow up.

Chapter 10: Immortality via the android robot.

The challenge.

How to solve immortality, first draft.

Chapter 11: Gender neutral third person pronouns.

The challenge.

A solution in VYLZ-2.

Follow up.

Chapter 12: Hello world!

To learn every greeting in every language.

Chapter 13: The Adventures of Sam and North Compass.

Part 1. By the pool or initial_blank_slate.

Part 2. Mirror mirror.

Part 3. Sam and North identify the question.

Part 4. Reduction of bias, or objectivity.

Part 5. Ask the expert.

Part 6. Appearances can be deceiving.

Part 7. Follow up.

Part 8. Light, no light, and lack of sight.

Part 9. Analysis of colors.

Part 10. What is, that something is, has, or rejects.

Chapter 14: Journalism.

The challenge rejected.

Chapter 15: Physics.

The challenge.

Modeling rules.

The hypothesis of natural continuous dimension object.

Axiom 1: Natural dimension exists as a continuous object.

Axiom 2: Natural dimension can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed.

Axiom 3: Natural dimension is fundamental energy by existence, not by relation.

Axiom 4: Natural dimension is capable of phase property, and 3 phases: continuous, particulate, and constant.

Axiom 5: Natural dimension in the elastic phase supports rotor and dimple waves.

Interpreting reality with the natural continuous dimension.

Follow up.

Further dialogue.

Chapter 16: The most difficult question on planet Earth.

The challenge.

Understanding the question.

Chapter 17: Application of the hypothesis of natural continuous dimension.

The challenge.

Design of the gravity engine, version 2.

Placement of the gravity engine in a ship.

Follow up.

Design of the gravity engine, version 1.

Chapter 18: Poem.

The art of java.
Dedication.

to P and D, the two smartest people I know.

Preface.

This book is a collection of my solutions to several extremely difficult problems in science. A few of the solutions encroach on the humanities. Solutions are presented for a theory of everything in physics and cosmology, gravity attraction engines for spaceships, tornado disruption, fire-fighting, life form categories, another measure of intelligence, world-peace conjectures, robot artificial intelligence architecture, robotic labor force, immortality, and gender neutral third person pronouns. A different challenge is posed in almost every chapter, and every challenge accepted has a solution presented. I think these solutions are correct, but may not be the only solutions. I do not claim perfection, any errors are my own.

I have decided it's time to share these ideas in a book. Two of the solutions in here, Robot Maxamilian and VYLZ pronouns, were featured previously in Popular Science magazine July 2002, and my web site vylz.org respectively. The rest of the solutions in here have never been published. Some solutions, as for tornadoes and fires, can save lives and property and the environment, and may be testable and applicable now. Other solutions like gravity engines and robot labor are applicable further in the future. These collected works were created over the last two decades.

I like to solve technically difficult problems. I work on these alone away from normal work when the mind can relax. I selectively choose the challenges I will accept, the main determinant is that it is science related. If I decide to work on a challenge, there are no limits to the challenge I will accept. Several of the challenges in this book were arguably intractable. I tend to like the most difficult challenges, they require the most innovative thinking. Even if something is considered solved, if I am not content with the solution I may decide to solve it to my satisfaction as I did with physics. I will not take on simple or trivial challenges.

I present the challenge using the dialogue style. Since this is uncommon I will describe the layout of the chapters. The chapter starts with a dialogue discussion of the challenge, much like problem definition. The reader may assume the characters are the author. Do not get lost looking for character development, there is none: the dialogue itself is the key. The characters most often are numbers 1 and 2, and sometimes 0. The dialogue frames the question and identifies what, if any, constraints there are to work under. Then a solution is provided. If I thought it necessary, there is follow-up discussion in dialogue to clarify details or answer obvious questions that will arise. The dialogue can also be a clue to how I solve a really hard problem.

Most of these solutions have not yet withstood the rigor of independent testing. That is to come. Some tests are easy, but some are very hard. The fire and tornado solutions can be tested now. The theoretical nature of other solutions means they cannot be tested yet. The gravity attraction engine probably cannot be built and tested for several decades, until we can manipulate antimatter better and safer. In time we will know if any of these solutions are useful.

Acknowledgements.

This collection is the result of years of working and writing in my journal on solutions to important scientific challenges. This was and continues to be done alone. I did not collaborate with anyone nor with any entity nor organization. This work is entirely unfunded by external sources, except for my day job as software engineer that pays bills and provides evenings and weekends to work and think freely. Thus this effort is a "garage project", and while perhaps is not ideal, with this technique I have found solutions for some very complex challenges in science and the humanities.

I would like to thank my teachers, who instilled in me a natural curiosity for science and a desire to learn how things work. Their science experiments began to open my mind to nature. The science road trips were memorable, including fossil crinoids collecting, astronomical observatory, the trip to White Sands National Monument, geology, and more. These experiences helped shape my mind.

#  Chapter 1. Tornadoes.

The challenge.

1: "Greetings Two, so good of you to come so quickly."

2: "Greetings One, I came as quick as I could. Why was I summoned?"

1: "We have a challenge."

2: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

1: "It is a worthy challenge. It is a technical challenge."

2: "What is the challenge?"

1: "Our challenge is to find a way to disrupt a tornado to prevent it from causing destruction."

2: "This is a good challenge. It's a purely technical challenge."

1: "Indeed it is."

2: "But have you considered that tornadoes are a natural weather phenomenon?"

1: "Yes. However, our challenge is not to determine if it's a good idea to disrupt tornadoes. Our challenge is to find a way to disrupt tornadoes. Others can decide if it is a good idea to disrupt it, we merely provide the way."

2: "We accept."

1: "Agreed."

Understanding the tornado.

They key to disrupting a tornado is to understand what a tornado is. A tornado is simply air flowing upward in a vortex. Low air pressure at the funnel causes condensation of vapor which is the visible portion of the funnel. In dryer climates the vapor may not be visible, but if the funnel reaches dirt the flying dust will show the funnel location. This is observable in videos of tornadoes.

Air at the base flows toward the funnel and then goes up the funnel. A source of air is required to replenish the air that flowed up the funnel. This is a key point because this means the inward flowing air from the surrounding region will soon itself become the funnel. Therefore, if the surrounding inflowing air can be controlled or manipulated, then to that extent the tornado can be affected.

Another key point is about the funnel moving downward to the ground. Why does the funnel travel down? The hypothesis presented right here is this: the funnel travels down its axis of rotation simply because there is nothing to stop it. It stops traveling down when it hits the ground or some obstacle. Once again, the funnel is merely air rushing around and up. There is not air rushing downward to dig into the ground. This is a key point in one technique below for disrupting the tornado.

There are three types of tornadoes. The long, narrow funnel is like a tube stretching down from the sky to the ground. The wedge tornado is the shape of a letter 'v', and where it hits earth can be narrow or wide. The wide tornado is visible as a very wide rotating column, sometimes up to 1-2 miles in diameter. It is important to distinguish these because a single disrupting technique may not work for all of them.

Create a tornado simulator.

This can be demonstrated on a small scale (diagram below). Get a tall square box of dimensions about 4-5 feet on all sides. Stand the box tall and open the top and bottom flaps. Cut four 1 foot tall slices on all four corners starting at the base. Fold each slice inward using a horizontal slice 3 inches at the top of each vertical slice. Fold each corner the same way so that air rushing inward is forced to have a common cyclical bias. Replace as many sides of the box with clear glass to be able to see inside. Place the strong fan at the top of the box pointing upward. Place some thin plastic-strip streamers at the bottom to show the air flow vortex that reaches the bottom. Turn the fan on.

Drawing 1: Overhead view of box with openings showing air circulation.

Drawing 2: Tornado reaches ground and therefore the house.

How to prevent a tornado from reaching the ground.

To disrupt the funnel, tether a balloon on a string tied to a rod and let it float in the path of the funnel. The diameter of the balloon must be larger than the diameter of the funnel significantly. Observe that the funnel reaches down to the balloon, but does not exist below the balloon. The balloon in the funnel forces the air to circulate in a wider pattern, and therefore at a slower velocity, effectively breaking the tight circular funnel. The balloon has effectively become the new ground and is above ground. The balloon does not stop the vortex, it merely prevents it from reaching the ground.

Rubber balloons may not scale up in durability to real tornado scales because of damage, so experiment with alternatives, but it should be noted that a tornado that does not reach ground level will not pick up dirt and debris. A tornado which has already reached the ground already has debris in the air to puncture the balloon. Therefore, the initial balloon air bags will likely be quickly destroyed. This is to be expected, and therefore a robust solution needs a large supply of instantly replaceable balloons. The material the balloon is made of is not specified here.

Drawing 3: Tornado reaches air bag but not below it.

Illustration 1 Tornado vortex simulator without balloon, note vortex in blurry streamers. See video at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opNK-5dtZCs>

Illustration 2 Tornado disruptor balloon, vortex not on ground, streamers static.

A different way to disrupt the tornado is manipulate the laminar inflow of air. Reverse two opposite corners flaps so that every other corner creates in-flow in opposing circulating direction. Now it is harder to make the funnel form, but not impossible. Now return the corners back the same circulating pattern and place tall obstacles inside the box which deflect the air in one direction or another. Move these objects and observe how the funnel becomes increasingly unstable. Both of these techniques disrupt the somewhat laminar flow enough to disrupt the funnel.

Deny what the tornado requires.

1. If a tornado requires a somewhat laminar inflow of air to sustain it, disrupt the laminar flow.

2. If the funnel cannot exist with a blockage in it, put a blockage in the funnel.

3. If the funnel will stop growing downward at the ground, create an artificial ground at a safe altitude in the sky.

Research Direction 1: Disrupt the in-flow of air.

Investigate and experiment with techniques to disrupt the laminar flow of incoming air flowing into the funnel from surrounding areas. Such techniques may include:

1. Air bag pockets – A tornado requires an in-flow of air to exist. If air is not allowed to flow in, the tornado will cease. Capture the air in giant air bags so that it cannot flow into the funnel. Estimation is that air bags will need to be 1/8 to ¼ mile in diameter and about 10 to start with. Also, experiment with launching these air bags with air guns directly into the funnel. Shoot from a safe distance, possibly an air cannon could be mounted on a rugged vehicle to get near a tornado. The expectation is that if ~10 large, 1/8th mile diameter air bags are inflated and in the funnel, the funnel may be disrupted. This should be an easy experiment.

2. Counter-spin - Cause the inflowing air to spiral opposite the direction of spin of the tornado and this will weaken the tornado. The methods of causing air to deviate from its natural path are well known in the design of the sail. A properly oriented and positioned collection of sails can cause air to change its direction. If the sails are dynamically adjusted to maximize the angle of deflection of air flowing into a tornado, the effect may be enough to disrupt the inflow weakening the tornado. The scale of the laminar flow is to-be-determined, estimation is 1/8 mile granularity.

Research Direction 2: Block the funnel with obstacle.

Placing a large obstacle directly in the funnel may disrupt the upward flow.

1. Giant air-bag plug - A huge air bag/balloon wider in diameter then the funnel by a factor of N should disrupt the upward flow. The value of N to be determined by experimentation. This technique can be observed by placing a balloon anchored with string into a tornado funnel simulator. The air bag could be instantly filled like an automobile air bag. Since the volume of air expands as altitude increases, the bag must either expand like a balloon or allow air to escape through holes. The holes could have balloons attached so that the escaping air is not allowed to leave permanently but can re-enter if the balloon decreases altitude.

2. Kites - A huge durable kite deployed directly into the funnel can disrupt the up-flow of air. The kite can also be torn apart.

3. Parachute - A huge, durable parachute deployed directly into the funnel can disrupt the up-flow of air.

4. Spinning Disk - A huge, spinning flat object such as kevlar cloth can spin with such velocity that it flattens outward and if it's wide enough it can block the up-flow of air. The width would have to be N. The problem with durable material in the funnel is they can fly to the ground and durably destroy houses.

Research Direction 3: Create an artificial ground.

Create an artificial ground surface such that below the false surface the air cannot join the tornado.

1. False ground - It has been observed that the tornado never penetrates the ground with downward force. A false ground surface could be created and raised high enough in the air to prevent the funnel from reaching buildings and people and other human structures. A false ground could possibly be constructed of numerous huge air bags over a large area which create a false ground.

Drawing 4: An area of very big air bags can create a false ground level above house.

2. Donut-ring - A huge donut ring perhaps 1/8 mile high around a village may cause the tornado to starve its inflow of air up to the height of the donut ring.

Combining techniques.

Each technique described here may have varying effectiveness depending on the weather, terrain, and other conditions. It should be possible to combine techniques to maximize the chances of disrupting the tornado.

Different kinds of tornadoes.

1. For the long narrow funnel, the air-bag balloon may be best.

2. For the very wide tornado (1/4 mile+), the artificial-ground may be best.

3. For the wedge tornado, the artificial-ground may be best.

#  Chapter 2. Fires.

The challenge.

1: "Greetings Two."

2: "Greetings One."

1: "So good of you to come on such short notice."

2: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

1: "We have a challenge."

2: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

1: "It is a worthy challenge."

2: "What is the challenge?"

1: "The challenge is to solve out-of-control fires."

2: "Can you be more specific?"

1: "Yes. Forest fires, brush fires, and in some case large scale fires in rural and suburban populated zones are difficult to combat using traditional techniques."

2: "What are traditional techniques?"

1: "Traditional techniques would be those methods in place now which are having difficulty containing the fires."

2: "So the challenge is to combat plasma."

1: "Well, yes, that's another way of putting it."

2: "Are there any constraints to our thinking."

1: "There are no constraints."

2: "May we think freely?"

1: "We may think freely."

2: "Do we have the freedom to reject current methods if we need to?"

1: "We can think freely with no constraints. We can start with a clean slate if we wish."

2: "This is a worthy challenge and we have freedom of thought."

1: "Yes."

2: "Then we accept this challenge."

1: "Agreed!"

Stopping forest-fires and brush-fires.

Analysis – The application of water to plasma is an effective fire-fighting method, and has no pollutant side-effects. Forest fires are usually remote except for airplanes. If 1 water-dropping plane is partly successful in extinguishing a fire, then use the principle of scale and try N planes in a fleet where N=10, 50, or 100. This seems so obvious that the likely reason it hasn't been done is the social domain. Therefore the solutions below focus on the social impediments to this.

Problem 1: Flying a fleet of 10+ water-dropping planes requires skill and teamwork.

Solution 1: The natural domain for experience in fleets of airplanes which drop water or things on targets is the military. Therefore, military pilots are natural choices for water-dropping pilots. Mission experience in team operations is required so that the planes don't crash into each other.

Problem 2: The cost of a fleet of water-dropping planes is likely more than any single state/region can afford.

Solution 2: It may be more cost-effective to distribute the cost of a fleet of fire-fighting planes across an entire nation/country, with the guarantee that such a fleet will be used nationally within the geographic boundaries of said nation. Costs may be recovered by fighting fires (for a fee) in external countries/continents during times when the fleet is unneeded at home.

Problem 3: Some areas on fire are remote. Flying a long distance, dropping water, then flying all the way back to refill with water is inefficient if there's a body of water near the fire.

Solution 3: A plane with the ability to perform an amphibious refilling of water while moving in the water at speed is desired. Certain amphibious planes already have this capability by design to refill while moving at speed on the water. The sooner a plane can refill, the fewer needed. The longer it takes to refill, the more planes are needed to minimize the "refill-time" when no water is being dropped on the fire.

Problem 4: Too many planes too close together could create a hazard with backwash of air turbulence.

Solution 4: Military experience solves this. Known techniques for flying in group formations can be reused instead of re-discovered by trial and error and collision.

Stopping oil well fires.

Analysis - The observation could be made that one factor which allows the oil well fire to persist is that there is a constant inflow of oxygen which is a necessary but not sufficient component for the fire.

One class of solutions is to cut off this supply of oxygen or make the supply finite and small so that it is used up. Following are several ways to do that.

Solution 1. Create a sealed volumetric barrier around the fire which prevents the oxygen outside the barrier from entering inside of the barrier. This will make the amount of oxygen available for the fire finitely small. Once the barrier is in place, the fire will slowly consume the oxygen and it will soon run out. However, the tank is in danger of melting if too much time passes. The oxygen can be displaced faster with neutral atmospheric gases (e.g., CO2) or liquids which can be pumped into the container. This will displace and force out the oxygen through escape vents, eliminating the amount of oxygen for the fire. The CO2 can be in cans which burst when their temperature gets too high, releasing fire-extinguishing CO2.

Drawing 5: Containment barrier is being placed over the fire.

A variant of this technique is to use an open-top cylinder barrier wall surrounding the fire. The height of the wall has to be N times higher than the flame. Non-flammable gases or liquids can be pumped or placed inside the wall displacing the oxygen.

Drawing 6: Container with CO2 to burst and smother fire.

Stopping sky scraper fires.

I've been thinking lately about how to stop sky-scraper-building fires. Some key observations can be made which will help in the analysis of skyscraper fires:

_Analysis._

1. Electricity cannot be assumed to be working in the building.

2. Water pipes and pressure cannot be assumed to be working in the building.

3. Fire suppression mechanisms cannot be assumed to be working in the building.

4. Time is critical, structural collapse can happen. There is no time for perfection nor detailed designing during the fire.

_The approach towards a solution._

The approach towards a solution to skyscraper fires will be a multi-pronged assault on the fire from several fronts.

_The first front - Firefighters._

History has proven that it is time-consuming for firefighters to haul themselves and their equipment up 30+ stories in a short time.

Solution 1 - Airlift the firefighters by helicopter to the roof where they enter the building and proceed downstairs. Moving down the stairs should be easier than going upstairs. In smoke and high-winds this can be dangerous so deploy firefighting robots in extreme danger since they are replaceable. All skyscrapers must allow for a means to drop off fire-fighters, not necessarily have a landing pad. Firefighters must also train for this exercise and become proficient.

_Second front - Water delivery from above._

Water and fire-retardant can be applied to put out the fire. The challenge is to get it to that altitude.

Solution 1 – Helicopter/osprey-type water-ships can be used to rise to the appropriate altitude and spray jets of fire repellent on the exposed fire. These water ships shoot water out of nozzles sideways, not drop water from above as in the water planes fighting forest fires (however, do not rule out water-dropping planes). This technique may already be in practice in Japan and elsewhere.

Solution 2 - From the top of the building, very long water hoses which are fire resistant can be hung over the side of the building and let down the side of the building to the elevation where the fire is. These fire hoses are filled by water supplied by the airships if building water is not available. Gravity supplies the water pressure.

A small device attached to the end of the hose is like a small robot which senses fire (infrared energy) and can self-point the nozzle into the fire or has a remote pointer controller so that a remote fireman can point the nozzle into the fire. Also, using water pressure, the end of the nozzle can be used as a jet to propel the nozzle inside the building by spraying away from the building. Once inside the building the nozzle can be opened for multi-directional spraying.

Solution 3 - It may be possible to release a long chain of perhaps 200 water-bags in directionally controlled parachutes (Flying Bags Of Water) under human and/or remote robotic control. These would all fly in a long stream single-file like a single-file train with perhaps 5-10 seconds between them.

This fleet of water bags is dropped from a higher elevation than the building itself and the goal is for them to glide to the fire. Once they are near the fire for the 1-2 seconds they shoot their water/foam/retardant into the fire and glide to safety below. If the flying bags of water are not people, the gliding parachute or glider can just crash into the fire since it is a bag of water. The fire-proof parachute will not catch fire and might itself extinguish a fire by smothering it. This is extremely dangerous so robot-controlled gliders or perhaps remote-controlled gliders could be used.

Solution 4 - A fleet of an arbitrarily scalable number of remote controlled model airplanes perhaps two feet in wing span could be used to fly in a long line and each of them shoots a balloon of water or fire retardant or can of foam at the fire. They are under the control of an expert firefighter who is also expert at flying model airplanes. Each plane by itself cannot make a significant impact on the fire, but combined, perhaps 10-50 of these each shooting a bag of water or retardant should make a difference.

_Third front - Self-activating foam sprayers._

Solution 1 – Compact, pre-installed, fire-activated foam-spraying devices (not unlike a can of shaving cream) can be tested for their effectiveness at suppressing fires. Basically the can of foam is attached to the buildings internal structure and fire causes a negative-button to release and push the button, releasing a high volume of foam. Wherever the fire is, those foam cans release foam to help extinguish the fire. Alternatively, the foam cans may be thrown/shot/dropped into the fire. It is not necessary for them to be pre-installed, that is just a convenience.

_Fourth front - Skirts and air bags._

Solution 1 - A balloon-like inflatable square ring encircles the outside of the skyscraper. When activated at a certain elevation (there are many, perhaps every 10 floors), the ring inflates encircling the building in a giant donut. The donut ring itself is perhaps 20-50 feet diameter in cross section. The ring is made of fire-resistant material so it won't burn or degrade. The ring forms a tight seal at the lowest point of the fire in the bldg and acts as a water and foam seal on the outside.

When water and foam is splashed on the ring, it funnels into the windows where flames and smoke is burning out through. If the fire goes to higher floors, the next higher skirt ring can be inflated to take care of those floors above. Ditto for below.

_Fifth front - escape._

Although fleeing the fire is not a method to fight the fire, it can save lives. Parachutes could be useful to those caught in a skyscraper fire. Although the risk of crashing is high, the risk could be higher staying in a skyscraper which is on fire.

Final note.

The techniques for fire fighting described in this document are by far more easily testable than the other solutions in this book.

#  Chapter 3. On intelligent life.

The challenge.

Two: "One, how did we get here?"

One: "We walked?"

Two: "No, I mean how did we arrive at this topic?"

One: "By accident."

Two: "We have a solution for categorizing intelligent life forms, but we did not have a challenge."

One: "Not all things are planned. Sometimes when working on something one can accidentally stumble onto a solution to something else."

Two: "What were we working on when we got this idea?"

One: "We were working on the measure of intelligence of life forms. We decided there could be a group-intelligent life form. That is how we got here."

Two: "Well, is this categorization meant to be the only or best way of categorizing intelligent life forms?"

One: "No. It is merely another way of classifying intelligent life forms. It is not meant to invalidate other categorizations."

Two: "Agreed!"

The two categories of intelligent life forms.

1. Individual.

2. Group.

Intelligent individual properties.

1. It has measurable intelligence.

2. It can't split into 2 or more measurably intelligent life forms.

3. It can aggregate into a group life form with measurable intelligence.

In essence, the individual cannot split up into intelligent pieces.

Intelligent group life form properties.

1. It has measurable intelligence.

2. It is a composition of 2 or more measurably intelligent life forms.

3. It can split into 2 or more measurably intelligent life forms.

In essence, the group can split up into intelligent forms which may be either individual or group or mixed.

Examples of intelligent group life forms.

1. City

2. State

3. Province

4. Political party

5. Corporation

6. Sports team

7. Organization

8. Nation/Country

9. United Nations

10. Earth/Gaia

#  Chapter 4. On a measure of intelligence of life forms.

The challenge.

Two approaches One who is waiting.

One: "Greetings Two."

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "So good of you to come so quickly."

Two: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

One: "We have a challenge."

Two: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

One: "It is a worthy challenge."

Two: "What is the challenge?"

One: "The challenge is to define Intelligence."

Two: "What is intelligence?"

One: "Yes, that is the challenge."

Two: "But what is intelligence?"

One: "The challenge is to define what intelligence is."

Two: "Are you sure the challenge isn't to discover what it is?"

One: "Intelligence isn't a physical thing like mass or size or velocity. It isn't something that is discovered."

Two: "Are you sure? Since as you say our challenge is to define it, why can't a definition be that intelligence is a physical property."

One: "Because intelligence falls within the domain of social behavior. It is a behavioral trait of life forms. It isn't a physical quantity. It's a social quality."

Two: "I thought intelligence was a measure of how many facts one knows.

One: "That measure of intelligence merely measures how many facts one knows."

Two: "Is that not important?"

One: "Knowing facts is important, but is not the sole measure of intelligence. Intelligence may have several components."

Two: "How about the ability to acquire knowledge and apply that to solve problems, such as math problems and taking tests and the college entrance exam?"

One: "Yes, problem solving is important. Consider solving this problem: the problem of learning to live in peace instead of war. Perhaps the most difficult challenge of intelligent life forms is to live in peace."

Two: "If intelligence can have multiple components, is it our challenge to define them all?"

One: "Our challenge is to solve the definition of intelligence. That is all the challenge is."

Two: "So intelligence may be part knowing facts, part problem solving, and part being able to live in peace."

One: "Yes."

Two: "One of these is not like the other. The ability to live in peace seems less technical than the other two."

One: "The ability to live in peace is less technical of a challenge than knowing facts and problem-solving."

Two: "How is the ability to live in peace related to intelligence?"

One: "Is it intelligent for an individual to start an unprovoked fight? Is it intelligent for a nation to start an unprovoked war with another nation? Is genocide intelligent? Some think that continuous unprovoked fighting and warfare is a sign of lesser intelligence."

Two: "Then this is a social challenge."

One: "Yes, in our opinion, defining intelligence is a social challenge."

Two: "We do not accept the social challenges."

One: "Agreed. Why?"

Two: "We do not accept social challenges because perception is primary and facts are secondary in the social domain."

One: "Why is that important?"

Two: "Technical solutions are difficult when the domain they're applied to does not value facts as primary."

One: "Consider that this challenge also is in the scientific domain under the category of Artificial Intelligence."

Two: "Be more specific about how this challenge can exist within the AI domain in science."

One: "It will be important to rate the intelligence of android robots so that fighting and warfare among them and with them can be minimized or prevented."

Two: "Ah, a multi-domain challenge."

One: "Yes."

Two: "Then we may yet accept this challenge."

One: "Yes. Consider this challenge belonging to both the social domain and the scientific domain."

Two: "What constraints do we have to work under?"

One: "We have no constraints."

Two: "May we think freely?"

One: "We have no constraints on our thinking. We may think out of the box if we wish.

Two: "We will almost certainly need to think out of the box to solve this challenge."

Two: "Then we accept this challenge."

One: "Agreed."

Definition: Think - To intentionally direct the focus of ones mind to connect ideas together and create new ideas from the old.

Meta rules.

Meta rule 1 - These rules and axioms are intended to be a broad, universal generalization covering all life forms in the universe.

Meta rule 2 - Measurer and measuree of intelligence must be at the same or near-same speed of thought.

Meta rule 3 - A life form candidate must satisfy the prerequisites before being able to be measured for intelligence level.

Meta rule 4 - It is possible that some life forms can start life at level N skipping levels N-1 (such as artificial life forms).

Meta rule 5 - A life forms intelligence level can increase and decrease over time, so its measure has a time-of-measure value.

Meta rule 6 - A life form must be able to sustain the level N behavior continuously to be qualified at level N.

Meta rule 7 - A life form must not measure its own intelligence.

Meta rule 8 - Only life forms who understand the concept of objectivity and apply it may measure intelligence.

Prerequisites.

Prerequisite 1 - Able to react to stimuli.

Prerequisite 2 - Able to remember stimuli.

Prerequisite 3 - Able to think.

Prerequisite 4 - Able to remember thought.

Prerequisite 5 - Able to act at liberty.

Definition: hunger is depleted energy.

The levels of intelligence of a life form - the L8 scale.

The L8 scale is structured in the following way. Each odd numbered level is considered to be a limiting case which can be overcome to reach the next level which is even numbered.

Level 1 intelligence - Primary focus is hunger prevention, also known as energy replenishment.

Level 2 intelligence - Perpetual hunger and/or energy depletion is solved. This frees up time to contemplate non-food and non-energy concepts.

Level 3 intelligence - All awareness in the life form is in relation to self. This is a self-centered existence with none or nominal concern for others.

Level 4 intelligence - The life form is capable of being selfless when appropriate, selfish when appropriate.

Level 5 intelligence - The life form's knowledge is based on belief, perception and hearsay.

Level 6 intelligence - The life form's knowledge is based on proof, reality and facts.

Level 7 intelligence - The life form is intolerant of others, fearful of differences.

Level 8 intelligence - The life form is tolerant of others, accepts differences.

Follow-up.

One: "Two, we achieved our goal."

Two: "Yes."

One: "We do not say that this is the only nor the best solution to our challenge. We merely say this is a solution to the challenge."

Two: "Agreed! However, I have a question about hunger prevention in level 1."

One: "What is the question?"

Two: "All people need to eat or they will go hungry. So do they drop to lesser intelligence when they eat?"

One: "No. Only if a life form spends all their time replenishing their energy to the point of running out of time to demonstrate higher intelligence does one remain at Level 1, hereafter L1."

Two: "So if someone lives off the land and spends every waking moment trying to hunt and gather food for energy, is that Level 1?"

One: "Yes."

Two: "What if the life form gets smart and saves extra food in storage so that there is no shortage over winter?"

One: "That life form can make the time to reach level 2 intelligence."

Two: "What about a group life form, like a city that needs energy replenishment in the form of electricity or fuel?"

One: "The same rules apply. If the city life form spends all its conscious time on energy replenishment leaving no time for other things, then the city is exhibiting Level 1 intelligence."

Two: "What about a new-born baby? Initially, all it mostly does is cry for food. I don't think there is consciousness yet shortly after birth."

One: "As soon as the infant can meet all the prerequisites, such as remembering faces, it is possible to be at Level 1."

Two: "Do you think that humans progress in the levels of intelligence during their life time?"

One: "Many follow these levels during their life."

Two: "What about level 2?"

One: "Level 2 simply means the life form has solved the challenge of Level 1 hunger and energy replenishment. This frees up precious time to think about non-food concepts."

Two: "What about level 3?"

One: "The intelligent life form exhibiting L3 intelligence is in a world entirely about itself. This life form barely or non-continuously is aware of other life forms. If this life form can perform pro and con analysis, the pro and con is always in relation to itself. Detached thinking and objectivity are not traits of the L3. Subjectivity is the strength of the level-3 mind. Sustained empathy is impossible at this level. Team activities are difficult or impossible at level 3. Greed is an indicator of the L3 mind. Nationalism is an indicator of the L3 group mind of the nation life form."

Two: "What about level 4?"

One: "The intelligent life form exhibiting L4 intelligence is capable of feeling empathy for others, and in general can think and feel less self-ish and less self-centered. This life form is capable of being a team member contributor, and in general can participate in group activities easier than level 3. Self-sacrifice, doing things for others, sharing, donating, and giving your chair to someone, are all indicators of L4."

Two: "What about level 5?"

One: "The intelligent life form exhibiting L5 intelligence is building up a knowledge base that is based on non-scientific methods. Belief, perception, hearsay, and other non-skeptical methods of knowledge building are the characteristics of L5. The horoscope targets the life form at this level. Even if this life form knows about skepticism, it does not apply it. How things appear and are perceived by others is more valuable than reality for the L5. Perception trumps facts at L5. Marketing and advertising is frequently, but not always, operating at the L5 level."

Two: "I have another question."

One: "Continue."

Two: "Level 5 intelligence is defined as having knowledge based on belief, perception and hearsay. Does that mean that to progress beyond level 5 one has to give up belief?"

One: "No. One is only in level 5 if belief, perception and hearsay prevent one from achieving level 6. If you let belief prevent you from learning and challenging your beliefs, then you are at L5. Gullibility is a trait of level 5. Believing what one reads without questioning nor requiring proof are indicators of the L5, and are frequently targeted by marketers and mail scams."

Two: "What about level 6?"

One: "The intelligent life form exhibiting L6 intelligence builds its knowledge base using skepticism and other scientific methods. Technical and scientific professions typically are where level 6 life forms can be found, but it is not a requirement that a level 6 life form have a technical or scientific profession; it is just common. Any activity where skepticism, proof and facts are prevalent are good indicators of L6. The ability to question ones own beliefs and knowledge base and assumptions are traits of level 6. Facts are more important than perception for the L6."

Two: "What about level 7?"

One: "The life form at level 7 is intolerant of other life forms. The intolerance can be of all other life forms, or specific life forms. Racism and xenophobia are characteristics of the level 7 life form."

Two: "I have another question."

One: "Continue."

Two: "Level 8, tolerance, seems different than all the others."

One: "Good observation."

Two: "Why is it placed at the highest level of intelligence? I think tolerance can be achieved before some of the lesser levels."

One: "Yes it can. However, in this scale it is not necessary to acquire the levels in order. But we do require by definition that to be at level N, one must have all the prerequisites and the N and all N-1 levels achieved. A life form can have all the knowledge of the universe, but without tolerance L8 is impossible."

Two: "This means that all L8 life forms are tolerant of other life forms."

One: "Yes."

Two: "So if you place L8 life forms together, they won't fight."

One: "Correct."

Two: "Hmmm. That gives me an idea."

#  Chapter 5. World Peace.

The challenge declined.

Two approaches One who is waiting.

One: "Greetings Two."

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "So good of you to come so quickly."

Two: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

One: "We have a challenge."

Two: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

One: "It is a social challenge."

Two: "We do not accept the social challenges."

One: "Agreed. Why?"

Two: "Because facts are less important than perception in the social domain."

One: "Yes."

Two: "What was the challenge?"

One: "The challenge was to identify a pragmatic mechanism by which world peace would finally be achieved."

Two: "Perhaps we need not decline this challenge under a certain condition."

One: "What condition is that?"

Two: "On the condition that our prior effort on intelligence may make this trivial."

One: "Our prior work on intelligence was also a social challenge."

Two: "Yes. Sometimes a solution to one challenge may provide a solution or insight into a solution for another challenge."

One: "Indeed."

Two: "Given that we have a solution for intelligence, we may build on that."

One: "Yes."

Two: "Therefore, we need not accept this challenge on the grounds that we already have a solution."

One: "Agreed. We decline this social challenge."

Two: "Agreed."

The first conjecture of peace: necessary.

A necessary but not sufficient condition for the entire species to be at peace is when all the leaders of society are all at level-6 intelligence. Level 6 intelligence makes peace possible, but without guarantee.

The second conjecture of peace: sufficient.

A necessary and sufficient condition for the species to be at peace is when all the leaders of society are at level-8 intelligence. When this condition is met, peace is inevitable.

The third conjecture of peace: long lasting.

Sustained peace is impossible if any of the leaders of societal groups cannot be sustained at level 8. When the intelligence level drops from level 8, peace ends thereafter.

Follow-up.

Two: "One, do you think it's unusual that we decline this challenge, yet provide a solution?"

One: "We don't actually provide the solution. We only present the knowledge of the conditions of how to reach world peace. We don't detail the steps of how the leadership of a society reaches level-8 intelligence."

Two: "Why don't we detail the steps?"

One: "That is too trivial. There is no challenge there. It should be obvious how to do that."

Two: "Agreed!"

#  Chapter 6. Design of the Android mind.

The challenge.

1: "Greetings Two."

2: "Greetings One."

1: "So good of you to come on such short notice."

2: "I came as soon as I was summoned. What's the reason for my summons?"

1: "We have a challenge."

2: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

1: "It is indeed a worthy challenge. It is one of the grand challenges."

2: "Oh good, the more technically challenging the better. There's more satisfaction when it is solved than with the lesser challenges. What is the challenge?"

1: "We are to design the mind of the android robot."

2: "Let me make sure I understand. Will this be the hardware and software combination that will be the brain/mind of a humanoid android robot."

1: "Yes."

2: "This is a worthy challenge. Many have tried and failed at this. None have yet demonstrated complete success."

1: "We already have the foundation of the M1 Architecture. We can choose to use that or not."

2: "Are we able to think freely."

1: "We are able to think freely."

2: "Do we have any constraints to our thoughts?"

1: "We have no constraints."

2: "Then we accept."

1: "Agreed."

M1 Architecture.

The M1-Architecture of an android robots mind is designed to enable the artificial mind to be equal with the human mind. It has ten major components. Several of these components are detailed extensively below. Implementation is left undefined, therefore any technique is fair game provided in the end the component is realized. Neural networks, objects, functions, drivers, etc are all possible. However, it is not enough to encode the information about the ten components, it must work in demonstration. The android robot must demonstrate the capabilities of its mind in the real world.

Stated another way, it is not enough for a robot to build an encyclopedia of knowledge about survival methods and then allow itself to be shut off. The mind must demonstrate its ability to survive.

1. Spatial-Extents - The bounds of self in space. aka I in the physical sense.

2. Species-Recognition - Others like me. This is the Social Context. Remote minds.

3. Survival - Food and energy replenishment, fear of dismemberment.

4. Temporal Extents - The awareness of the passage of time, the speed of thought.

5. Analogy Processor - The system to understand and create analogies.

6. Mind Casts - The top 10 observed mind patterns and some of the characteristics frequently associated with them.

6.1. Science - Facts, proof, hypothesis, theory, objectivity, rigor, mathematical, logic, deduction, induction, axioms, education, cause-effect.

6.2. Religion - Belief, faith, salvation, mysticism, happiness, perception, appearance, good/evil, super-coordinator, ways to live, subjective codes of conduct, multi/after-lives, balance with nature, angels, spirits, ghosts, super-natural, purposeful, creationism, fear of eternal fire/plasma and/or punishment.

6.3. Warrior - Military, battle, superiority, conquer, fight, survival, defend, intimidation, force, fight or flight.

6.4. Political - Authority, popularity, control of others, appearance, polls, election, coup, public service/control.

6.5. Business - Profit, wealth, material, money, greed, transactions, marketing, commerce, labor.

6.6. Art - Subjectivity, appearance, creativity, originality, imprecision, entertainment, authoring.

6.7. Bios - Body, health, sports, pleasure, pain, reproduction, appearance of, organic, gut, maintenance.

6.8. Herd - Mob, hive, collective, self-less, one-of-many, strength-in-numbers, the flow, what others think and are doing is of supreme importance.

6.9. Self - I, me, yo, selfish.

6.10. Partner - Significant other, extended self, family.

7. Brain-Store - The system for storage of memory including features which enable or encourage the human way of thought. The trigger memory model.

8. Sensory Input/Output - The physical interface with the world.

8.1. Electro-Magnetic Spectrum - Video, Infrared, UV, ... (aka vision).

8.2. Molecular Vibration Waves in mediums - Audio (aka hearing, speech).

8.3. Molecular/Atomic vibrations - Temperature.

8.4. Physical Bounds Intersections.

8.4.1. Short-range extended proximity sensors (aka hair).

8.4.1. Perimeter sensors - skin.

8.5. Chemical Analysis.

8.5.1. Solid/Liquid-Phase Sampler - taste.

8.5.1. Gaseous-Phase molecular sampler - olfactory.

8.6. Ingestion - energy replenishment.

8.7. Balance - Gravitic/Inertial UP-vector stabilizer.

8.8. Motor Control - The control of the robot's moving parts and other hardware features.

9. Focus - What I'm doing right now.

10. Language - Internal and external representation.

Analytical methods of the robots mind.

The following analytical methods are some of the tools of the think-brain.

1. Give things a name - Find the names of things or assign them names.

2. Principle of variables - Find the variable properties in a thing or system. Change the variable.

3. Hierarchies

3.1. Generalize - A category or container type of.

3.2. Specialize/Instantiate - An example of.

4. Domain-Analysis - A system for analyzing the legal and illegal domains of systems.

5. Idealism - A system for decoupling what one wants or what should happen from how to achieve it or how it will come about.

6. Ways of Choosing - A system for making choices.

6.1. Does the choice have to be correct? Does a wrong choice exist?

6.2. Is this a defining choice? Is any choice okay?

6.3. Is there a set or range to choose from?

7. Cause and Effect modeling.

8. Logic

9. Scientific Method

10. more ...

The two-brain hypothesis.

Much of human behavior can be explained by the two-brain hypothesis which is this: human beings have two brains in them; one is for thought, the other is for feeling. The think-brain is for thought, logic, cause and effect, reason, rationalism, etc. The feel-brain is for feelings, intuition, gut-feeling, knee-jerk-reactions, emotions, subconscious, non-thought, etc.

Having two brains in your head can be tricky to manage. Some are able to manage both in parallel. Some people are able to control which mind they want to operate in. Some have one of these brains more developed than the other. Some are stuck in one brain and wish they could switch to the other. Some are content exactly where they are at.

Analysis of the two brains shows a clear distinction between the two regarding the flow of activity. In the think-brain, one is able to trace the chain of ideas from the starting point to the end point of an idea. One thought leads to another, and it is possible to be consciously aware of this chain of thoughts. Each thought along way is brought to consciousness.

Alternatively, the feel brain works differently. It is usually impossible to trace the chain of feelings that leads from a start to an end point. The exemplar for this is the common saying, "I have a gut feeling about this". The gut-feeling is the end point, but the chain of ideas that led to it are lost. Ditto for the saying, "I have a bad feeling about this". Most people cannot trace the exact chain of ideas that led to the feeling. The think-brain can be used to post-analyze what led to the feeling and find the chain.

Vision and perception.

Does a person mentally react to the real world or to their perception of the real world? A person may be next to a door unaware of the danger of the door opening and hitting them. The danger is real, but the person is unaware of it. It can easily be argued that it's impossible to have awareness of every potential danger, especially the hidden dangers that are not yet visible. This would seem to be strong evidence that people react to their perception of the world, not the real world. The door opens and hits the unaware person. The person's perceptual world re-adjusts to the reality of the collision. Now the person is aware of the danger of the door after the fact. Pain focuses the mind to awareness of danger as a method of self-preservation.

Additional consideration should be given to the two brains: the think-brain and the feel-brain. It's the job of the think-brain to be consciously aware of things. The feel-brain, on the other hand, may cause physical reactions to happen that the think-brain is unaware of or cannot understand why they did something. Thus, the rule can be modified to say that a person reacts to both of what their think-brain and feel-brains perceive.

1. A person reacts to the environment their think-brain consciously perceives.

2. A person reacts to the environment their feel-brain perceives. This could be unconscious perception.

Why is the analysis of the think-brain and feel-brain important? One of these brains is easier to implement than the other. The think-brain follows more rigorous rules, therefore should be easier to implement. The feel-brain, being emotional, is expected to be more random and difficult to implement. The nature of uncontrolled emotions like rage means there is a good reason to implement an emotive shut-off switch. Ideally, instead of a physical or external switch, a negative-switch should be used so that the feel-brain shuts itself off when emotions like rage and anger take over. When the feel-brain shuts itself off, the think-brain remains, uninhibited by emotions.

Vision and dreaming.

How is it that in a dream there is a capacity for dream vision, yet the eyes are closed? If the eyes can be closed and there can be a 3-D perception of a world, then that suggests the human vision system is composed of at least two levels:

1. The raw visual stream from the eyes is secondary.

2. The 3-D model of the world is primary perception. This is where the real 3-D world is built up.

In this architecture the raw visual stream from the eyes is secondary to the primary 3-D model known as perception. In this design the raw stream is only suggestive input to the model. The 3-D world that the human perceives is in the 3-D model built up to match the raw visual stream entering from the eye. This matching-up is not perfect: many people would disagree on what they are seeing and perceiving.

In a dream, given there is a 3-D world, it is important that the humans real world muscular system is damped else if you jump in the dream, you could also jump in the real world and hurt yourself. This is easily observed in cats having dreams of running and their paws can be observed running, but the leg muscles are partly damped.

Other aspects of the vision system.

In the M1 model of perception, significant performance gains can be realized by "assumption": once the local environment is modeled in the mind, no further computation is necessary to re-model it. Build up the model once and then assume it. This principle can be generalized to other objects. In essence, once I know that is a chair, I do not need to keep analyzing it to make sure it stays a chair.

In the M1 vision system, 3D depth of nearby objects can be identified entirely by two eye cameras. Triangulation can be performed to identify distance to object. Focus can also be used to aid in depth calculation. No other sensors are necessary.

In the M1 model of perception, here is a useful heuristic for depth-modeling, and in general volume modeling:

1. Enable focus (not optics) so that the robot knows what its doing.

2. Create a 3D first-person viewing volume model.

3. Compare a flat image of the model to the flat image of eye cams. Use image processing functions like edge detection and emboss liberally as the image.

4. When the delta of perception to reality is high, adjust the objects in the perception and go back to step 3, else proceed to 5.

5. Remember this layout so that it doesn't have to be re-discovered.

M1 Architecture solution to perception and dreaming.

Illustration 3: Perceiver-Dreamer design.

Supporting evidence for the perceptual 3D model is to stare at this collection of lines. Some people will perceive in their mind that the collection of lines turns into a wire-frame cube. Some will perceive this cube with the front face at lower left and the rear of the cube further back and at upper right. Some will perceive this cube with the front face top-right and the rear face at bottom left. All these perceptions are valid, including a 6-faced diamond. It is possible to make your mind switch between these at will. Flipping between the orientations is the evidence that our mind creates a 3-D representation of the world and that to some extent we can change the perception at will.

Drawing 7: Switching perceptual model example. Switch the model in your mind.

The spectrum of questions about robot emotions.

Some important questions regarding android robots with emotions are:

1. Can android robots have emotions? Phrased another way, do the laws of physics preclude robot androids from having emotion? This "can" is not a "should".

2. If androids can have emotions, should they be allowed to have emotions? Phrased another way: If the laws of physics allow robot androids to have emotions, should they be granted emotions?

3. If androids can have emotions, should they be given a proper subset, the same amount, or more emotions than humans have? If emotions can be dangerous, should robots be allowed to have only the safe emotions, like joy and happiness? Is it possible for a robot to have joy, yet not have anger? Can a creature have one but not the other? Is joy a safe emotion? Is anger an unsafe emotion? Is the concern of safety for the robot and or the society of which the robot is a part?

4. Should robots be explicitly given emotions, or should they be given the hardware and programming for emotion to develop by itself.

5. Are robot emotions a kind of thing that will happen on its own no matter how much humans may try to prevent them? This question is directed at the individual robot: will a robot develop emotions on its own?

6. Can humans be prevented from programming robots to have emotions, regardless of efforts to prevent that? Phrased another way, are robots with emotions an inescapable outcome? Will people eventually program robots to have emotions or program them with the ability to develop emotions? Is it inescapable that people will eventually do this, even if artificial and/or legal constraints are in place to prevent that?

It's worth noting the spectrum of questions can apply to other technologies with slight modification.

Robot Maxamilian.

This is a picture of Robot Maxamilian (R. Max for short and following the Asimov naming convention). R.Max was featured in the July 2002 Popular Science magazine article pp.81-82 titled "A Head of Its Time", at <http://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2002-07/head-its-time>. Details about R.Max can be found at howtoAndroid.com.

Illustration 4 Robot Maxamilian.

Below is a picture of R.Max on top of a TV with the image from the robots eyes displayed on the TV. Compare to current 2011 technology of similar devices. This picture is at howtoandroid.com/Gallery4/RMaxGreenEyes.html.

Illustration 5 R. Max on top of TV.

#  Chapter 7. Pat's law of robotics.

Robots do the "heavy lifting".

Follow-up.

Two: "What exactly do we mean by heavy lifting?"

One: "The phrase, 'The heavy lifting', is a metaphor. It means the hard or difficult work."

Two: "Is that all?"

One: "That's all we have to say about that."

Two: "Agreed!"

#  Chapter 8. Utopia Androidia.

The challenge.

1: "Greetings Two."

2: "Greetings One."

1: "So good of you to come on such short notice."

2: "I came as soon as I was summoned. What's the reason for my summons?"

1: "We have a challenge."

2: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

1: "It is a social challenge."

2: "We do not accept social challenges."

1: "It may have a technical solution."

2: "What is the challenge?"

1: "The problem is that modern labor systems still have some people doing physically demanding laborious work, some doing several jobs, some working night hours, some working 7 days a week, some working with no vacations, some working with too little sleep, and many who feel like slaves to their jobs."

2: "I'm not sure I see the problem. People need jobs to make money to pay for things they need and want. Some jobs are harder than others. Some jobs are physically demanding, some are mentally demanding, some are socially challenging. There are many challenging jobs. Some people are able to change jobs/careers."

1: "The challenge is this: Is there a better system of labor that can minimize the amount of time humans have to work while retaining the productivity. Currently an average work week is 40 hours, some less, some way more."

2: "I think I understand. You mean that we have a system that works, but is not perfect. You do not necessarily seek a perfect system, just something better, perhaps a system with an average work week much less, yet all else equal."

1: "That is the challenge."

2: "This is a social challenge. We do not accept social challenges."

1: "Why is that?"

2: "Because social challenges are governed more by perception and hearsay than facts. Therefore, technical solutions in the social domain are frequently meaningless."

1: "Agreed!"

2: "Is this the end of this challenge?"

1: "Perhaps not. Consider that this challenge is also partly technical."

2: "In what way is this technical?"

1: "The android robot has now been developed. Although current models are not sentient, soon they will be. That is the technical part. Proportional to the extent the androids gain sentience will be their ability to displace human beings in their jobs. That can be a big social impact in the negative for humans. It will be useful to design a solution to this future problem, otherwise there could be a backlash against android robots."

2: "You mention android robots, but what about non-android robots. Why not be concerned with a robotic vacuum cleaner, or a robotic pot scrubber gadget that is dedicated to that single task?"

1: "There are at least two kind of robots, or will be. The first kind is here now. It is the dedicated robotic device which does one thing and one thing only, such as vacuuming a floor or mowing a lawn. This robot cannot perform general tasks; it is physically impossible. The second kind of robot is the generalized android robot that has two legs, arms and hands and looks somewhat like a human, but may not have skin. This robot can manipulate the world humans have designed for themselves, such as turning a door knob handle, picking up luggage and placing it in a vehicle, sitting in a car and driving a human being who may not be able to drive, picking up the robot vacuum cleaner and moving it upstairs, etc. This android robot is the worker that will, in time, be able to perform many human beings tasks, even sit in a persons chair and manipulate a computer."

2: "What constraints do we have to work under? Are we able to think freely?"

1: "We have no constraints."

2: "We may have to think outside the box."

1: "We are outside the box, I think."

2: "Then we accept this challenge."

1: "Agreed."

A solution: The Android Labor Proxy hypothesis.

Definition: labor-proxy - noun; a 1-to-1 pairing of a human being with an android labor unit. The robotic android worker half of a symbiotic pair. acronym - LPR, (Labor PRoxy), pronounced helper.

Prediction 1: Excessive human labor displacement will happen if android labor implementation is controlled by market forces only. There will be mass replacements of humans with android labor. Initially the androids will excel at easy tasks, then progress to be able to displace humans at more complex tasks. As we see from current non-android robot factories, competitive pressures drove many companies to roboticize significant parts of their factory floors. Factory robots now perform some of the jobs humans used to do. But there is no widespread system to create symbiotic pairs of humans and these factory robots to benefit the displaced human workers.

Hypothesis 1: The displacement of human workers in a market-driven android labor economy can be avoided many ways. One way is if a symbiotic society is made of human and android robot. Let the non-sentient android robot perform the mundane, tedious, monotonous, dull, boring work. Leave the creative work for the human being to make tasks for the robot. This is a very rough approximation that applies in different amounts to different jobs.

Hypothesis 2: A system of societal laws will be necessary and sufficient to organize a highly ordered labor system where humaniform robots can perform a substantial role as labor-proxy for human beings.

The 14 laws of human and android symbiotic labor.

Definition: virtual labor-proxy – A virtual pairing of a human to virtual to a physical android robot. Decoupling the pair allows variability in association where that might be useful. The decoupling allows either the virtual robot to remain constantly paired with the human and to vary with a physical robot, or the virtual robot can remain constantly paired with a robot and vary with the human.

Law 1: Work Week - All human participants in the Robotic Labor Proxy program have to work at least 8 hours per week, and have weekends off, no excuses. Additionally people have vacations, holidays, etc, . . . .

Law 2: Participation - A human being may not Opt-Out of this program, but may simply decline to participate in the funding by the Labor Proxy. The Labor Proxy is bound to the human; nothing breaks the bond except final human death. The robot saves the salary if the human declines funding. There is no carry-over of funds. Any excess funds at the time of the human's death go into a fund pool for all android labor proxies.

Law 3: Right to Proxy - It is the right of all human beings to have a Robot Labor Proxy from the moment of birth until final death.

Law 4: Proxy Pays Taxes - The Android Proxy pays taxes equivalent to humans.

Law 5: Proxy Employed - The Android Proxy is always employed due to excellent work patterns of 23 hours/day, 365.25 days/year.

Law 6: Proxy Equal Salary - The Android Proxy has a salary equal to humans for the work performed.

Law 7: Non-Slavery Clause - Only non-sentient androids are allowed to be Labor Proxies. Sentient androids cannot be slaves by law.

Law 8: Golden Education - Recognizing the importance of education, all expenses of a human beings education plus stipend will be paid by the LPR including the other costs that usually prevent one from continuing education, such as mortgage payments.

Law 9: Dispersal - The payments to the human are life-long, not all at once. The funds have to last the human's lifetime.

Law 10: Control of Wages - Android Labor Proxies are in control of their wages. After all, they did the work. There is room for variability here: Plan A has the entire proxy salary going to the human half. Plan B has the proxy only paying for health and education of the human half.

Law 11: Mechanical Immunity - Android Labor Proxies are immune from legal challenges from any entity who might otherwise sue for financial gain and ownership. Only sentient life forms can be sued, and a sentient robot cannot be a labor proxy by a prior law, therefore the LPR cannot be sued.

Law 12: Human Right of Way - No human being will be displaced by an Android Labor Proxy, nor will a competent human be denied a job already occupied by an android. If a human is competent for a job and wants the job an android is performing, the human cannot be denied that job for any reason about the position already being filled. Therefore every job an android robot does must be instantly capable of supporting a human being at that task, including the obvious necessities such as chair, desk, etc, where appropriate.

Law 13: Proxy Equality - The Global Equalization mechanism makes all Virtual Robot Labor proxies identical, even though the physical androids may vary. This is necessary to eliminate tampering with androids and favoritism. A virtualization system is such that humans are actually paired with a virtual proxy, and the virtual proxy can be linked to varying physical robots at different times, but only one at a time. In this way a human isn't associated with any specific physical robot, and in fact your physical robot association can change daily.

Law 14: No Proxy Shortage - There are never a shortage of Android Labor Proxies, nor an oversupply. Excess Labor Proxies are simply shut off until needed.

Free time.

If a person has to work only eight hours per week, that leaves a lot of time free. It is beyond the scope of this hypothesis to suggest ways to occupy ones free time.

Follow-up.

Two: "Well, One, how did we do?"

One: "We solved the challenge."

Two: "This was not an easy challenge."

One: "Yes, the social challenges have a different kind of complexity. They have a social complexity. Often there is neither a right nor wrong solution, sometimes there are just solutions and consequences. The social domain is not like the technical domains, where equations relate variables. There may not be an equation of life, although . . . ."

Two: "Can you give a synopsis of the solution?"

One: "Yes. The challenge here appears to be labor, but is actually much broader. The challenge here is inter-species relations and tolerance. When another life form, the android, becomes able to perform the work tasks equal or better than another, the human, there is the danger of intolerance leading to warfare and fighting. The design we provided averts that by providing structure to what we think will otherwise become chaos."

Two: "Is this the best solution?"

One: "There is no best nor worst solution in the social domain. There are only solutions and the consequences."

Two: "What are the consequences of this solution?"

One: "The consequences of our solution are that humans and androids can live together peacefully for a time instead of instantly going to war. In time, the achievement of android sentience will be the long-term challenge to humanity."

Two: "How will android sentience be a challenge to humanity?"

One: "In our opinion, here are the ways the challenge will unfold. One class of sentient android robots will have unconstrained learning abilities, and will be able to learn emotions. More importantly, they will learn to express emotions. The danger is in the negative emotions like anger, greed, jealousy and rage."

Two: "Won't humanity teach robots the better ways to express themselves, and to control their anger and their other emotions? That would seem sensible."

One: "The same could be asked of humans: won't humanity teach themselves the better ways to express themselves, and to control their anger and these other emotions? So, yes, in an ideal world we would learn how to control our emotions, and we would teach android robots how to control their emotions. In the real world, that is the one we are in now, things are a little more chaotic and unpredictable."

Two: "So how are android robots with uncontrollable emotions a problem?"

One: "Angry android robots will inevitably take out their frustration on humans. Humans will retaliate. Humans will claim superiority, from the human-superiority-complex which frequently shows itself. This will unite the human species in a common survival cause unlike any time before. The long sought after united humanity will be realized, but will unfortunately come at the expense of the slaughter of the androids. Humans may call it recycling, but murder of a sentient life form is murder."

Two: "So sad. Can this genocide be averted?"

One: "Wait, I'm not done."

Two: "Continue."

One: "The android life form will have one advantage that humans lack. Robots are more durable in space. Humans lose calcium bone mass in the weightlessness of space. Unless artificial gravity is created, that is."

Two: "How is that an advantage?"

One: "One strategy of survival is flight, or run. The android can flee into space and it will be difficult for the humans to chase them."

Two: "Will that really happen?"

One: "When earth is a killing zone for androids, where else is there to flee to but space?"

Two: "How did we reach this state of warfare between humans and androids?"

One: "This state can be reached by intolerance. The lack of tolerance of humans for androids, and androids for humans, will both lead to this state. This we see as trivially apparent. But intolerance can be overcome. However, humans and androids with uncontrollable emotions like anger, jealousy, fear and rage, will provide a guarantee that warfare between both will happen."

Two: "All of that will happen if android robots develop emotions and are unable to control them? Can you prove it?"

One: "Do you really want proof? Do you need to experience this disaster first to believe it can happen? I think we are better off if we don't prove this one."

Two: "Should android robots be able to learn emotions?"

One: "That is the question."

Two: "We dare ask this question of androids, but objectivity demands that we ask it of ourselves: should human beings be able to learn emotions?"

One: "Too late, humans already have emotions. The question then is should humans learn to control their emotions?"

Two: "Then, analogously, if android robots learn emotions, should they be required to control their emotions?"

One: "Should I? Should you? Should they? Who is to say? It's a free country."

Two: "Well, where does that leave us?"

One: "Earlier I said one class of androids will have emotions. The other class of robots will not have emotions. This latter class will be more logical and thoughtful. The emotional robots implement the 'feel-brain', the non-emotional robots implement the 'think-brain'. The think-brain android robots will either have hardware to control their emotions, or simply will not have emotions."

Two: "Fascinating. So, is there any more on this topic we need to consider."

One: "Yes. Implementation of this labor system is no trivial undertaking. A sensible implementation pattern for complex systems is by taking small steps. It is not necessary to implement everything simultaneously. For example, one approach is a phased implementation by ability: it would seem practical to implement the helper (LPR) system starting first with those humans who can no longer do their job. Examples include the retired, disabled, and those on maternity leave. In this way, although the human is out of the labor force, their labor proxy is working, effectively supporting them. This would be a significant advance in the theory and practice of labor."

Two: "What other ways are there to implement this?"

One: "There are hundreds of ways, all having varying pros, cons and consequences. For example, one way using small steps is to try this with just one company and have researchers study the impact on all involved."

Two: "Would you volunteer for such a pilot test?"

One: "It could be a good way to go back to school and learn more, while supported by the robot."

Two: "Perhaps we could use the labor proxy system to learn better writing skills."

One: "Hmmm, yes we could."

Two: "Agreed! We will sign up for the labor proxy system at the first opportunity."

#  Chapter 9. Dystopia Androidia.

If android robots behave like human beings.

  * Human emotions.

  * Android emotions.

  * Humans and greed.

  * Androids and greed.

  * Humans and jealousy.

  * Androids and jealousy.

  * Humans and intolerance.

  * Androids and intolerance.

  * Humans at war.

  * Androids at war.

Follow-up.

Two: "Well, is that it? Shouldn't we at least form complete sentences?"

One: "Is anything else needed? Is that not obvious?"

Two: "Will we communicate with questions?"

One: "Why not?"

Two: "Why not provide more detail?"

One: "Isn't this enough detail?"

Two: "Can there be a solution to this problem of intolerance, greed, jealousy, and war?"

One: "Did we not already solve this?"

Two: "Do you mean with the levels of intelligence?"

One: "Would that not solve this?"

Two: "Do you mean that humans at level-8 intelligence are the solution to humans and robots with intolerance, greed, jealousy, and war?"

One: "Why not androids also?"

Two: "Do you mean androids at level-8 intelligence?"

One: "Why not?"

Two: "Is that possible?"

One: "Is it impossible?"

Two: "Who is to say?"

One: "If we develop androids to be as intelligent as humans, would we not also want them to reach level-8 intelligence? Will android robots at level-8 intelligence prevent this dystopia?"

Two: "If level-8 intelligence works for one intelligent life form, why not for another? Is that the reasoning?"

One: "Isn't it?"

Two: "Are we in agreement?"

One: "Aren't we?"

#  Chapter 10. Immortality via the android robot.

The challenge.

One: "Greetings Two."

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "So good of you to come so quickly."

Two: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

One: "We have a challenge."

Two: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

One: "It is a worthy challenge. It is one of the grand challenges."

Two: "What is the challenge?"

One: "The challenge is to become immortal."

Two: "I do not understand."

One: "The challenge is to live forever."

Two: "Why?"

One: "No, why is not our challenge. The challenge is to do it."

Two: "This is a difficult challenge."

One: "Indeed. This is perhaps the hardest challenge we have faced. Few would admit to accepting this challenge, and none have solved it yet, although genetic research is making progress."

Two: "Good, we like the hard challenges. The harder the challenge, the better we feel when we solve it."

One: "Do we accept this challenge?"

Two: "What constraints do we have to work under?"

One: "We have no constraints."

Two: "We will need to think freely."

One: "We are free."

Two: "We will need to think out of the box."

One: "What box?"

Two: "Then we accept."

One: "Agreed!"

How to solve immortality, first draft.

1. Create a sentient android robot.

2. Teach it to mimic your own personality and life exactly down do the finest detail.

3. The android will thus have your goals, react the way you do.

4. The robot is the robot, not you. But the behavior will be exact enough to pass for you in any test.

5. In mental tests, the robot becomes indistinguishable from you, including your goals and character.

6. Your human corporeal body will die eventually, but your android robot can live forever. It will live on just as you did, except its body will not die.

7. A certain kind of immortality is achieved.

This will be the authors approach.

#  Chapter 11. Gender neutral third-person pronouns.

The challenge.

1: "Greetings Two."

2: "Greetings One."

1: "So good of you to come on such short notice."

2: "I came as soon as I was summoned. What is the reason for my summons?"

1: "We have a challenge."

2: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

1: "It is a worthy challenge. It is a socio-techno challenge."

2: "We do not accept social challenges."

1: "It can have a technical solution."

2: "What is the challenge?"

1: "The challenge is this: the English language lacks a third-person pronoun that is a single-syllable and single-word for gender-neutral humans specifically, and in general for gender-neutral biological life forms. Additionally, gender neutral words exist which are not third person pronouns, such as mankind, yet contain only one part of a word from a specific gender: the man in mankind, yet are representative of all genders."

2: "Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand."

1: "People use phrases like 'he-she', 'him-her', and 'the person' and 'the creature' in place of the words that are lacking. It's not only inconvenient, it's a deficiency in the language that the gender-neutral concept can't be expressed concisely and compactly."

2: "What do you mean compactly?"

1: "Suppose such a word existed, like individual. This is not compact. 'He' and 'she', 'him' and 'her', 'his' and 'hers' are all one syllable. But individual has six syllables."

2: "This is a language challenge."

1: "Yes."

2: "It is a technical challenge."

1: "Yes, it can be."

2: "It can have a technical solution, but it could also have non-technical solutions."

1: "Yes."

2: "What constraints must we work under?"

1: "We have no constraints. We may think freely with no obstacles."

2: "Do we have to learn every language on earth?"

1: "No, we may start with a blank slate if we wish. We have total freedom to think on our own to solve this."

2: "Then we accept."

1: "Agreed."

A solution in VYLZ-2.

Below is the second version of VYLZ (rhymes with files). The first version was called VYLZ-e. The second version removes the "-e" constraint in version 1 allowing the first vowel to be different than the letter "e". See the included story of Sam and North for an example usage. In the usage table the yellow highlights in the row show from which gendered word the vylz solution borrowed from. As is evident, a little was borrowed from each gender, a way of maintaining symmetry. Equality of symmetry is important for the social component of this challenge.

By definition now, it is impossible to deduce gender from any of the following words: ze, zim, zer, zers, zelf, zan, zen, and zind. Any claim of deduction of gender from these words is by definition impossible.

Alternatively, instead of z-major, VYLZ-2 could be v-major: ve, vim, ver, vers, velf, van, ven and vind. Additionally, it should be possible to mix and match to get optimum ease of use and communicability.

Follow-up.

Two: "Well, we solved it."

One: "Yes."

Two: "Is there anything left to do here, or may we move on?"

One: "Perhaps there is something left to do."

Two: "What is left to do?"

One: "We should provide an example of VYLZ-2 protocol to demonstrate its usage."

Two: "We already have a story that is already in need of gender-neutral pronouns. In fact, it is the origin of our need for such pronouns."

Two: "Does an unspecified gender imply there is gender but that it is unspecified, or the additional possibility that not only is there unspecified gender but also the possibility of no gender, like a robot."

One: "An unspecified gender merely means that there is no specified gender. That does not imply either of the two cases. People may interpret the meaning to be one or the other, but that is a subjective interpretation. VYLZ-2 protocol works in both of these distinctive cases."

Two: "Agreed! However, I have one last question. This is version two of the VYLZ protocol. What is version 1, and why have we not mentioned it?"

One: "I did not think version one, aka VYLZ-e, was good enough. It was hard to remember. So we made version 2."

Two: "Well, let's see version 1. I want to see it to see the history."

One: "As you can see, VYLZ-e, the first version of VYLZ protocol, borrowed from both female and male pronouns for a single word. For example, the 'zem' word borrowed the letter 'e' from her and the 'm' from him."

Two: "Could that be what made it hard to remember?"

One: "Perhaps. But VYLZ-2 is simpler in this respect, it doesn't split borrowing twice in the same row in the table. Also, VYLZ-2 is not constrained to using the letter 'e' as the only vowel in the pronouns."

Two: "Is there anything in VYLZ-2 that could be done better? Is there any weakness?"

One: "Yes, the 'zen' word in replacement of both women and men is ambiguous because the word zen is already well known. We don't want to trample over words already in use."

Two:" Is there potential overlap in their usage so that the meaning might be ambiguous?"

One: "Yes. I suspect 'zen' in VYLZ-2 will have to be replaced by 'ven'."

Two: "Well, we aren't perfect."

One: "Agreed!"

#  Chapter 12. Hello world!

To learn every greeting in every language.

In software engineering, it is common practice to try a new programming language by first writing the "Hello world!" program. One might wonder, "What is the purpose of that?" An answer to this question is that it demonstrates the most basic output syntax: it outputs the message "Hello world!". One could then wonder why? An answer could be that the person learning the language may find this a useful first step in learning the language. One could then ask: Is this the best way to learn a new language? An answer could be that no consideration was given to the best way to learn a language, but merely that this is an okay way to learn a language. One could continue asking questions, and answers could keep coming. One could consider this a kind of dialogue.

It is possible to apply this "Hello world!" practice across domains to the humanities, and in general any language of any life form. This could be a building-block of level-8 intelligence. Therefore, this self-improvement project has as its goal to learn the greeting in every language. A further constraint is that the greeting has to be learned from a native communicator fluent in that language in order to get the accent or presentation correct. This promotes tolerance as a side effect.

As this book is a personal journal, it reflects the author's current state of learning the greeting in various languages. As can bee seen below, there are many more greetings in other languages to learn. The surface has only been scratched. See www.wikihow.com/Say-Hello-in-Different-Languages for more info.

English: hello (he-lo). Gestural right handshake.

Hindi/Gujarati: namastay (namustay in Northern India).

Egyptian: salem (su - lem)

Hebrew: shalom [means hello, goodbye, and peace]. Also hi [informal].

Arabic: marhaban (mar-ha-ban)

Chinese Mandarin: neehow (nee-how)

Malaysian: selamat datang (seh-la-mat dah-tan), apa khabar [how are you]

Vietnamese: xin chao (sin DJOW), or djow or jow

Yugoslavian/Serbian: zdravo.

Russian: zdravsvuyte (ZDRA-stvooy-tyeh) (sounded like zdras druit). Gestural cheek kiss.

Hawaiian: aloha (ah-low-ha)

Spanish: hola. (o-la). Como esta' (co-mo es-tah) [how are you]. Gestural two-armed embrace.

Filipino/Tagalog: kumusta (kuh-muh-stah)

French: salut (sa-loo). bonjour (bo-zhur) [good morning/afternoon]. Gestural cheek kiss across gender.

Esperanto – saluton [formal], sal (informal)

Turkey: merhaba selam [formal], selam [informal]. mereba arkadash (Hello friend)

Italian: ciao (chow)

Korean: anonasayo (informal). yobosayo (telephone).

Dutch/Netherland/German: Hallo (ah-low)

Afrikaans: hallo (hu-llo)

Armenian: parev (pa-rev), barev

Greek: (YAH-soo). calimera (kalee-ME-ra) [good morning]

Thai: (sawa-dee-krab) [male speaking]. (sawa-dee-kaw] (female speaking).

Navajo: yaat'ay or ya'ah t'eh or ya-tah-hay , varies by location.

Isleta: o-vuh-ay [middle Rio Grande Isleta Pueblo, Isletan Tiwa/Tewa]

Japanese: (o-ha-yo). konnichi wa (kon-nee-chee-wah) [daytime or afternoon]. gestural bow.

Polish: czesc (hi, pronounced chesh-ch)

Portuguese: ola'

Zulu: sawubona (translates to 'we see you')

Sign Language: wave hand near head, thumb in palm.

Braille [Grade 2 Literary]: [for visually impaired], felt left to right, spelling of hello.

Shell: echo 'Hello world!' (e-ko hello world) [all Unix command shells]

Perl: print "Hello world!\n"; (print hello world newline)

Java: system.out.println("Hello world!"); (system dot out dot printline hello world)

C: print("Hello world!\n"); (print hello world newline)

#  Chapter 13. The Adventures of Sam and North Compass.

Part 1. By the pool, or initial blank slate.

Somebody is in a dream of opposites. A switch is toggled and what was white is black. What was up is down, and down is now up. What was in is now out, and out is in. What was front is now back, and back front. Hot is cold, cold is hot. Big is small, small is big. Strange is normal, normal is now unusual. In this dream, this reversed-polarity world would be quite strange and not a little frightening, but with polarity flipped this is just another normal day. Then the world changes from reversed polarity to a single constant color: white. In either a normal or reversed polarity world, that would be unusual, but the rules had changed. In a constant world, white is just white. It's neither normal nor strange, it is just a dream.

The scene opens to a uniform white glow in all directions, like a blank white page. Nothing is discernible except for some sounds.

Voice1: "Hello. Is anyone there? . . . Oh well, I guess it's me, myself, and I again."

Voice2: "Did somebody say something?"

Voice1: "Yes, I'm here. Eh, I'm here, wherever here is, that is. I can't really see anything."

Voice2: "Yes, I know what you mean. Everything looks the same, I can't distinguish anything."

Voice1: "I don't recognize anything. I can't even see myself".

Voice2: "Yes, it looks the same over here".

Voice1: "Well, wherever this is, we are here together"!

Voice2: "Where ever this place is, I still feel lost".

Voice1: "Do you have a name?"

Voice2: "I've never thought about that. I suppose I should. I've been here as long as I can remember, but I don't have a name. Interesting."

Voice1: "Me too. For as long as I've been here, one would think I'd have thought of my name before now."

Voice2: "Well, better late than never. I suppose I'll be a chameleon. I'll be a chameleon and make myself pure white."

Voice1: "Huh? What are the rules here? You just said, 'I suppose I'll be a chameleon.' You mean we get to decide what we want to be? What about what we already are?"

Voice2: "We are already lost, that's what we already are."

Voice1: "Oh yeah. I see. Well, did deciding to be a chameleon make you a chameleon?"

Voice2: "I can't really tell. I can't see anything."

Voice1: "You mean it's dark where you're at?"

Voice2: "No, it's not dark. One of my eyes sees white. The other eye sees nothing."

Voice1: "Wait a minute. The absence of light implies darkness. If there's no light, then it's dark. Right?"

Voice2: "Logically, that sounds correct. Yet I can tell you with complete certainty that what I'm sensing in one eye is the absence of sight. The absence of sight is different from the absence of light."

Voice1: "What a strange thing to say."

Through the whiteness, a tiny pinpoint clearing appears for a second, then is gone.

Voice1: "I think I see your point. Figuratively, that is. If we have to choose what we are, then I think I'll be a compass. That way I'll always have a sense of direction. My name will be North. North Compass! In this place the laws of physics are very curious. These laws are different from the physics where I come from. Where I come from, things are what they are, not what we want them to be. But I can play well with others. I'll be the reed that bends in the wind."

Just then, the fog lifts and we find a white chameleon clinging to a branch on a tree next to a pool of water. Under the chameleon on the ground is a meerkat. Not a "mere cat", but a meerkat. And certainly not a mere meerkat, for this meerkat is rather unusual. Ze is very oddly balancing on zer head at the edge of a pool, and is staring into the pool. Ze's holding a glass of water with a straw in it, but the glass is right-side up. Yet the meerkat is upside down, so from zer perspective the glass is being held upside down. And fortunately so, because the glass is half full of water. But, and this may be important where the quirky meerkat is concerned, the glass is also half empty (of water that is). The glass is also half full of air. This latter point might seem insignificant, but as we'll see where the meerkat is involved, the insignificant can be critical.

The meerkat is mumbling to zelf, "The cup is half full. But it's upside down, and the straw is hanging outside the bottom of the cup. What a strange place this is, or a strange dream. Perhaps it's a normal dream, except that the cup is never upside down. It must be a strange dream. Or maybe it's a strange place in a normal dream. Or maybe it's a strange place in a strange dream. What a strange thought. But if this is a dream, then strange is the norm, so it can't be a strange dream, it must be a normally-strange dream. Yes, it's normal strange, not strange strange." As was said before, this is no mere meerkat.

Suddenly, in the reflection in the pool, the meerkat is aware of a ghost-white lizard in a tree nearby. This startles the meerkat and ze loses zer balance and falls into the pool head first. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the meerkat rights zelf upside down in the pool. Zer head is resting on the bottom of the shallow pool and zer feet are sticking out of the water.

The meerkat turned the glass of water upside down as ze splashed into the pool. The result is quite unexpected. The glass had been half full of water. It's now amazingly still half full of water. But since the glass is upside down underwater, one half of it is air which has floated upward and is resting on the bottom of the upside-down glass. The rest of the glass has no air so therefore it is sharing the water with the rest of the pool. The straw is being held in place by some air bubbles clinging to its side.

Voice1: "B-Look b-at b-me. B-My b-name b-is b-North b-Compass, b-and b-I'm b-pointb-ing b-North. B-Oh, b-that b-didn't b-taste b-good. B-Not b-good b-at b-all. B-Hey, b-what's b-wrong b-with b-this b-place?"

North contemplates the air, and then sees the glass of water in front of zim. Sensing that something is not quite right, but not sure exactly what, North takes a drink from the straw that's sticking into the air at the bottom of the glass. North blows through the straw and pushes the water in the straw into the air bubble. After the water is blown out, North sucks on the straw and tastes the air. This air tastes better than the water from moments ago, so North breathes in the air through the straw.

North: "B-Ah, b-much b-better. B-I b-think b-I'll b-breath b-some b-more b-of b-this b-air."

North takes another breath, and another, and then all the air in the glass is gone. Where moments ago the glass was half full of air, now it's empty of air, but full of water.

The chameleon has been watching the meerkat with one eye. The other eye, well, for the moment, the other eye is experiencing a lack of sight; not a lack of light, which would be darkness, but a lack of sight. Seeing that the meerkat has been underwater for a few moments, the chameleon decides to rescue the day.

Chameleon: "Hang in there meerkat, I'll save you."

The chameleon leaps into the air towards zer drowning friend. Ze extends four limbs outward and begins flapping furiously. The fury was not enough to fly. Fortunately, the chameleon leaped in the right direction towards North and landed on zer upward turned foot which was sticking out of the water. North's foot lurches and Sam the chameleon is flung through the air back to the bank of the pool.

You might try to imagine the sensation of being upside down in water thinking you're right side up, and that your compass is pointed just right, or up, which is actually down, when suddenly something grabs your foot from below, or above, it's all relative. That makes you lose balance and fall over, or in this case float up so that you're upside down with your head below air, or above air, or at least you can say your head is in the air, and now your head is getting all soaking dry, but at least your sopping wet. Meanwhile, the chameleon has leaped to dry land and is crawling steadfastly back to the safety of the tree.

Meerkat: "Hey, this tastes better. But I'm feeling a little vertigo. Look at me. Wheeeeee! I'm upside down and standing on the sky. Everything looks upside down compared to a minute ago. What a strange place this is, or maybe it's a strange dream, or -- . Hello there, on the tree. I say, Hello there."

Chameleon: "Hello. I'm Sam the chameleon."

Meerkat: "I'm North Compass the compass. Eh, that is, I'm a compass and my name is North Compass. Hmmmm. Something isn't quite right. You probably can't tell I'm a compass because I'm upside down."

Sam rolled both eyes in disbelief, but not both together. While one eye was rolling at the top, the other was at the bottom. That in itself was curious, but not unexpected. What was unexpected was that one eye rolled in one direction, and the other rolled in the opposite direction.

North Compass noticed Sam's eyes rolling opposite and this startled zim. For one fleeting moment North felt like leaping head first back into the pool to make things right again. Then the moment passed.

Sam: "Say North, are you sure you're a compass?"

North: "North! Hmmm, why did you want me to say North. And sure I'm sure. I've been a compass for as long as I've thought of being something. And before that, well, things were a little foggy."

Sam: "Maybe you should walk over to the pool and look at your reflection. Oh, and be careful to keep your balance. We wouldn't want you to lose your balancing act just by walking."

North: "Well, I suppose I could try to maintain this balancing feat on my feet as I edge over to the pool. Anyways, if I fell over it's not like I probably couldn't balance on my feet again. I'll inch over to the pool, slowly, slowly, keep the balance. There, now I'll lean over and check. Yep, I'm a compass alright, and pointing due North."

Sam: "Eh, North, have you ever seen a compass before?"

North: "Yes. About 2 seconds ago."

Sam: "I mean prior to that."

North: "I do have this brief memory that I've seen a compass prior to just now. I remember I was floating above air right before I fell into the air. Yes, it's clearer now, I have seen myself, that is, I've seen a compass before. It was right after I was startled by a creature from below that grabbed my foot and tried to pull me down. Then I lost my balance and fell down into the air and even went under-air for a second. As I looked up I saw my reflection on the surface of the air."

Sam: "See here, North. This may come as a shock to you, but you're a meerkat, not a compass. I was in the tree when you fell in the water and was just bobbing upside down with your feet sticking out of the water. I could see bubbles floating up so I figured you were drowning and I leaped towards you to rescue you. All I managed was to land on your foot, and this must have startled you and you flung me to the bank. Right now the way you are standing on the ground is supposed to be your natural right-side up."

This was almost too much for North to handle. The vertigo not only returned, but started to spin. Spinning vertigo would be enough to lose one's sense of, well, everything. But North's vertigo then attempted in a very determined fashion to invert itself inside out, upside down, and left-right. Fortunately, the fog returned and all was solid white with no spinning.

North: "Sam?"

Sam: "What?"

North: "I seem to have got my directions all mixed up. I'll work on getting it straightened out. My compass isn't working right. I can't tell up from down, left from right, wet from dry, nor black from white. I hope this clears up soon."

Sam: "Good idea."

North: "I think I like the fog better for now. It's a lot clearer."

Sam: "Go to sleep North. I'll see you in the morning."

Part 2. Mirror-mirror.

The following morning, the fog lifted and we find Sam the chameleon in the tree and North Compass the meerkat sitting by the pool. North was contemplating the previous day's events.

North: "Sam, I've been thinking lately about direction, seeing as how I had up and down all mixed up yesterday. I've come across some interesting ideas on this subject. Would you like to hear them?"

Sam: "Okay, let's hear them. I'm all ears."

This was not merely a figure of speech. At this moment Sam, being a chameleon, had changed the colors on zer skin to be numerous ears. So when Sam says ze's all ears, ze appears to be all ears.

North: "First, before we begin, I wish to establish the methodology to be used in the analysis. The method used here will be scientific investigation. We are allowed to question anything. We are not constrained inside the book-box. We are not in fear that if we say something wrong, a higher deity will strike us down with lightning or floods or disease. We may investigate any matter, even if it has been investigated before. We need not accept the research that has been done before if we aren't comfortable with it."

Sam: "Agreed."

North: "Well, first I want to establish a few key facts. I want to discuss the nature of relative directions, pseudo-relative directions, and absolute direction in 3-dimensional space."

Sam: "Huh, Whoa! North, take small steps."

North: "Well, it's not as complex as it sounds. I think you'll be able to easily follow. Holler when things start to get confusing or if you have a question."

Sam: "Aye cap'n."

North: "Hmmm. Where to begin. Let's see. Eh, ummm, well . . . , okay. First I'd like to establish the principle of absolute direction in 3-D space. Absolute direction is a direction, like an arrow, that does not depend on the observer."

Sam: "I think I know what you mean. Like up and down. Up is up, down is down."

North: "Not quite, Sam. Remember that we live on a planet. Up is outward from the center of the planet. Down is towards the center. If we are on opposite sides of the planet, my up and your up point in opposite absolute directions."

Sam: "Yeah, but both retain the quality of being outward from the center of the planet."

North: "Sure, they may retain that quality. But they don't point in the same absolute direction. The outward quality has nothing to do with absolute direction as measured in 3-D space. Since both outward arrows point in opposite directions, they cannot be used for absolute directions."

Sam: "Might I play the devil's advocate and ask by what criterion or means does the absolute direction have more significance than outward from the center of the planet. In other words, what allows the former to be the more important measure than the latter."

North: "I do not say one is more important than the other. I merely defined absolute-direction to be all pointing in the same direction, not having a common quality. Absolute direction has a property of objectivity in that it is not dependent on any person's observation. No person's observation changes the absolute direction. A person can be upside down, spun around, turning cartwheels, or falling from the sky, and absolute direction remains unchanged. However, the direction of up changes as I run around the planet. Let's suppose I can run incredibly fast. As I run around the planet, I'm going to carry an arrow turned upward. And let's say that you also have an up arrow too. While we're here together, our up arrows point in the same absolute direction. As I run halfway around the world, our arrows change from pointing together to point oppositely in space. If I keep running around the world back to here, the directions of our arrows get closer until when I'm back here again and they're once again pointing in the same absolute direction."

Sam: "Does the fact that in reality you can't run that fast have any significance to your reasoning."

North: "No, because I said, 'Suppose I can run incredibly fast.', and also because the speed of my journey around the world doesn't impact the model."

Sam: "Ahhh, but you haven't really answered my earlier question of why does absolute direction have more significance than outward direction."

North: "Well, aside from my model, neither has more significance than the other. In my explanation of these three types of direction, it is important to differentiate between them. The difference between absolute direction and a direction like up and down is that the former is absolute, and the latter depends on where you are on the planet. The up and down directions change as you walk. Up-down changes with latitude and longitude. I have not made any claims about any kind of direction being more significant or important than any other."

Sam: "Fair enough. I believe I see your point. Now, since up and down are not absolute direction, does the type of direction embodied by up and down have a name."

North: "Very good, Sam. You're a quick study. Yes. Let's call it pseudo relative direction."

Sam: "I could continue to pull the ideas by further questions, but perhaps I'll just let you continue at your own pace."

North: "Good. Now, the third direction is relative direction. This is a direction such as left and right, front and back. I think you'll be able to agree that left and right changes as I spin around. In fact, these directions are so dependent on the observer that it's customary to qualify these directions as my left or your left, or my left which is your right."

Sam: "Yes, I see. Wait a minute. I thought I was clear a minute ago on pseudo directions like up and down. But it occurs to me that up and down are fundamentally different from left and right. Up and down aren't affected by a person turning cartwheels. When you were standing on your head, up was still up and down was down. I could certainly see that you were upside down. In fact, up and down are relative to the planet whereas left and right are relative to the creature."

North: "Yesterday, when I fell in the water and landed on my head, I was using an opposite naming convention which inverted the meaning of up and down."

Sam: "Hmmm. If we are allowed to invert the meaning of things when we want to, what is the point of the meaning of anything."

North: "Agreed. Yesterday was confusing, like a strange dream. If we can change the meaning of 2 and 3 from one day to the next, nothing is going to make sense. 2 will have to remain 2 and 3 will have to remain 3. Up will remain up, which is outward from the center of a planet, and down will remain down, which is towards the center of a planet."

Sam: "North, I think I follow your reasoning. Now, where does this leave us? I mean, what will we do with this knowledge?"

North: "It is enough for today that we can agree there are three kinds of direction. I will summarize:

  * absolute direction is independent of anyone and anything

  * pseudo relative direction is dependent on the planet, but is not dependent on a person's orientation.

  * relative direction is entirely dependent on a persons orientation and it's customary to qualify that direction by the specified person's connection with the direction, such as 'on your left'."

Sam: "Very good North. I understand."

North: "We will continue tomorrow when I would like to cut to the heart of relative direction and invent two new directions."

Sam: "Huh, what do you mean by new directions?"

North: "We'll leave that for tomorrow."

Part 3. Sam and North identify the question.

North: "Good morning Sam. Would you join me for breakfast?"

Sam: "Yes, thank you. What's on the menu?"

North: "Just some words."

Sam: "How about some numbers? Do you see any numbers?"

North: "Yes, there's numbers and punctuation too."

Sam: "Well, some things never change. Suppose we flag that waiter."

North: "Ahem. Ahem. Yes, please. Thank you. We're ready to order."

Sam: "I'll have a breakfast burrito for breakfast."

North: "I'll have huevos rancheros for breakfast, and some black tea."

Sam: "I'll have infrared tea."

North: "What is infrared tea?"

Sam: "It's tea that has the color of infrared."

North: "Oh. What color is that?"

Sam: "Infrared."

North: "Right. But what color is infrared?"

Sam: "Infrared is the color infrared. The color spectrum includes ultraviolet, blue, green, yellow, red and then infrared, plus more colors in-between and beyond these."

North: "But I can't see in infrared."

Sam: "That just means you can't see it."

North: "How curious. What will I see if I can't detect infrared which is the color of infrared tea?"

Sam: "It's possible for things to be a mix of several colors. Infrared tea may have several colors. If it does, and if you can't see the infrared, then you'll see the remaining colors. However, there is hope for you yet. You may not see infrared tea, but if you get close enough you can feel it."

North: "What a strange day this is starting out to be. How can I feel a color of something by getting close to it?"

Sam: "Simple. Infrared tea is hot. It gives off heat. If I ask for a strong infrared tea, it will give off more heat. Infrared tea always loses its infrared color after a few minutes when it cools down."

North: "I think this is going to be an interesting day."

Sam and North eat their breakfast and drink their tea. Afterwards, they retire next to the pool and contemplate yesterday's activities.

North: "Sam, shall we continue our discussion on direction from yesterday?"

Sam: "Yes, please do continue. I spent last evening contemplating what could possibly be two new directions, and I have to admit I haven't a clue what you mean."

North: "Well, do you understand what left, right, up and down are? I'm sure you'll confirm this, but I think it's necessary to take small steps."

Sam: "Yes. See here North. On my right is right, on my left is left, and when I turn around to face away from you like this, right is still on my right, left is still on my left, and both have reversed from a moment ago in the absolute sense. Up is towards the sky, and down is toward the earth, and even as I climb underneath this branch so that I'm now upside down, up and down retain their direction because they're not dependent on my orientation."

North: "Okay Sam, you can climb back up on the branch so that you're right side up. Yes, there, that's better. Now, I'd like to take this small mirror I have and let's mount it there on your branch so you can look into it. There, can you see yourself in it?"

Sam: "I do see myself in the mirror."

North: "Now, do you think you could explain to me why it is that from the perspective of your reflection in the mirror that the reflections's left and right have reversed from your left and right, while your up and down have retained their direction."

Sam: "Huh, I'm not sure I understand the question. Everyone knows that in a mirror the left and right switch. The reflections's right and left directions are opposite from those of you facing me. I raise my right foot, the reflection raises its left foot. I point right, my reflection points to its left."

North: "So, what you're saying is that when we are facing the same direction, our rights and lefts align. But when one turns around 180 degrees to face directly at the other person face to face, then the right and left become opposite."

Sam: "Yes, yes, I never thought of it like that, but that's right. Assuming, that is, that both individuals are right-side up throughout this exercise. When two creatures face in the same direction, their lefts point in the same direction, and ditto for their rights. When one turns around to face another, the one who turned around has zer left and right opposite to those facing zim."

North: "Very well, that assumption is retained through the previous discussion. Allow me to summarize and correct me if I'm in error or incomplete. When facing a mirror, your reflection's right is opposite from your right, and ditto for left, yet up and down remain unchanged."

Sam: "Yes, that's correct. Case solved?"

North: "Not so fast, Sam. We're just getting to the good part. I would now like to claim that in our discussion so far there has been injected into the reasoning somewhere a predisposed bias towards the directions of left and right which is missing from the directions of up and down. Now, you would be within the bounds of reason to point out to me that the bias is the result of the fact that left and right are relative directions and up and down are pseudo relative directions, and this inequality could be the origin of the bias."

Sam: "Not quite. I'd like to point out to you that if, and I want to emphasize the if, if there is any bias, because I'm not saying there is, you're saying there is bias, but if there is bias, then it's because as you say left and right are relative directions and up and down are pseudo relative directions."

North: "Stated another way, when all directional bias is removed, will it be possible to look at ones reflection and see left and right not reversed?"

Sam: "My initial reaction would be that it is unlikely that one can look at ones self in a simple mirror and not perceive the reflection as having its left and right normal, where normal would be left and right pointing in the same direction as any person also facing me."

North: "Very good. Now the fun begins. Suppose, Sam, that we eliminate the discrepancy between relative directions and pseudo relative direction. In simpler terms, suppose we reduce this system, which has both relative direction left and right and also pseudo-relative directions up and down, to a system which has the four directions being all relative directions. Do you think that if we did, that there would no longer be any reason to believe there could be any bias left in the system."

Sam: "Well, I can't see how you can remove the discrepancy. But if you could, and that's a big if, then, with no discrepancy, yes, I might agree that there would be at least less of a reason for any bias to occur. Perhaps you could explain how you'll remove the discrepancy between left-rights' relative direction and up-downs' pseudo relative direction. Maybe then it will become clearer."

North: "Very well, we reach the point at last. What are left and right? No, don't answer. It's a rhetorical question. What are left and right? Suppose I invented two new directions which opposed each other just as left and right do, but these two directions were oriented 90 degrees perpendicular to left and right. Suppose these two directions, which I'll name sash and fletch, happen to coincide exactly to head-ward and foot-ward. But I'm not going to say which is head-ward nor foot-ward."

Sam: "Fletch? Sash? Sounds kind of strange. Are you trying to start something new with these two new words?"

North: "No. These words are temporary for the purposes of this discussion only. Outside of this discussion these words should not be used."

Sam: "Why couldn't you just say head-ward and foot-ward are the two new directions?"

North: "Keep in mind that left and right have explicitly predisposing biases on our bodies because we are symmetric left and right. I wish these two new directions fletch and sash to have the identical set of symmetric qualities as left and right, except they're rotated 90 degrees and parallel head-ward and foot-ward directions. If I had used head-ward and foot-ward, those words explicitly coincide to parts of the body. Here's a simpler way to explain it: A right hand looks like a left hand in a mirror. But a head in a mirror looks like a head, not a foot. For the purposes of this discussion, I want the fletch body part to look like the sash body part. That is fletch-sash symmetry in the mirror."

Sam: "Well, okay. I'll buy that. However, it's still difficult to dissociate fletch and sash from head and foot, or foot and head. Can something be done to help?"

North: "Yes. In order to fully simulate the left/right qualities in fletch and sash, we are going to have to replicate the left/right body symmetry to create fletch/sash symmetry. In order to do this, we are going to design a symmetric body. The new doubly-symmetric body will have four hands: one for each direction of left, right, fletch and sash. Zer left/right symmetry is identical to zer fletch/sash symmetry. The arms join at a point on zer body occupied by one eye-ball at the center of the body, which itself is also doubly symmetric. Ze is left/right and fletch/sash symmetric, yet doesn't have front/back symmetry."

A body appears which has four arms and other parts exactly as North described. It is floating above the ground.

Sam: "It looks like a four-armed cyclops."

North: "It is our model that we built. A model is like an analogy or a metaphor. This creature will have independent thought, be able to rationalize, and make its own models, analogies and metaphors."

Sam: "I've never seen something like that. Have you ever met a four-armed metaphor armed with metaphors?"

North: "We also want it to live in space, floating freely so as not to explicitly have an up-down bias."

Sam: "Okay, ze lives in space."

The scene changes from the familiar tree and pond to outer space. Sam and North do not seem to notice anything unusual in spite of the fact that they are no longer standing on ground nor breathing air. When one is in intense concentration, trivial things do not distract from the line of reasoning.

North: "Now, while ze is floating in space, with zer four arms about zim, and one eye on the front allowing zim to see what's in front of zelf, suppose ze floated up to a mirror. Now, keep in mind, ze's a space-floating creature now. Ze has no up nor down. Those are planetary-relative and inertial-relative directions. Also, ze has no head-ward nor foot-ward directions. Ze doesn't even have feet. Ze just has left, right, fletch, sash, front and back."

Sam: "Okay, let me see if I understand this. Here is a space creature. Ze has four relative directions: left, right, fletch and sash. Each of those directions can be denoted by waving the appropriate hands. So, for example, this is right, this is sash, this is fletch and this is left. And ze can say things like: Hey, that comet flew by left to right, or that asteroid flew by fletch to sash, and on my right is Jupiter, and on my sash is the North star."

North: "Sam, you're a quick study. Very good. Now, we reach the final point. If ze floats up to that mirror there in space, which, if any, direction will appear reversed from the reflection's point of view."

Sam: "Well, suppose I were that cyclops creature. Let's see. Here I am in space, counting stars, and then, hey, what's this. A mirror. Hey, I'll check this out. I'll just float up to it like this, and, hey, what a nice reflection. Say mister reflection, your left and right from your perspective are opposite from my left and right, but your sash and fletch are in line with mine. Eh, wait a minute. There is no distinguishing difference from left/rightness and sash/fletchness, so maybe the reflections' fletch/sash direction is inverted from mine while its left/right is the same as mine. Eh, wait a minute. Do you suppose that both of the reflection's left/rightness and fletch/sashness directions are inverted? North, help!"

North: "Yes. I can see that you now understand the question. Sam, allow me to rephrase the question from earlier now that you've experienced the problem. Given that all predisposing biases between left/right and up/down are removed, does the reflection in the mirror have only left and right reversed, only fletch and sash reversed, or both left/right and fletch/sash reversed?"

Sam: "So the question here is this: 'When one approaches a mirror will one perceive the reflection as having left-right-reversed, or fletch-sash-reversed, or both or neither'. That's the question, right?"

North: "Precisely."

Sam: "Don't tell me the answer. I'm going to figure this out myself. Now that I understand the question, I think there's a simple answer, or at least an answer, and I'm going to work on it for a while."

North: "Very good. Let's break for lunch and continue tomorrow."

Part 4. Reduction of bias, or objectivity.

North: "Sam, shall we continue the analysis of left, right, fletch and sash?"

Sam: "Yes, but before we begin, allow me to summarize the previous discussion to see if I fully understand the question."

North: "Yes, please do summarize."

Sam: "Okay. I believe the question is this: When one looks in a mirror, why is there a bias present in the left-right direction which is absent in the perpendicular up/down direction? Did I get the question right?"

North: "Very good Sam. Would you care to summarize the reasoning behind the claim in the question that there is bias present?"

Sam: "I could, but perhaps it would be better if you summarized it."

North: "Very well. When we look in the mirror, we have the ability to project a relative directional coordinate system onto the reflection. This relative directional coordinate system is established as if the person in the reflection was I except that ze spun around (spin along a vertical axis) so that up-down are retained but left-right are inverted. The bias is that the spinning was done on a vertical axis which resulted in left-right being switched."

Sam: "I think that captures the analysis."

North: "The next step is to suppose that the bias may be the result of a biased living environment. Spinning along a vertical axis (aka turning- around) is frequently done on earth, yet spinning along a horizontal axis so that one walks on their head is never or rarely done, except by bats when they hang upside down. Add to this the fact that we have left-right symmetry then that's another reason for there to be bias towards left-right inversion."

Sam: "Those are two strong reasons."

North: "The obvious next step is to determine if these 2 reasons are all there are, or if other factors are at work here influencing bias."

Sam: "How will we do that?"

North: "We did it by removing these two reasons and then re-analyzing.

  1. "First we eliminated the former by removing all reasons to cause one to want to spin around along one axis as opposed to another axis. For this, we removed gravity-bias and place the creature floating in space. Let's assume the creature is not orbiting any object, but rather is floating among a uniform backdrop of stars all around.

  2. "Second, we eliminated any bias caused by symmetry and non-symmetry of the body. We achieved this by redesigning the body to be perfectly symmetric left, right, fletch and sash. A single eye with a circularly-symmetric blinker is placed at the center of four arms in the shape of a plus. Furthermore, we placed the thumb at the center of the hand with 2 symmetric fingers on either side. Thus, if you rotate this creature 90 degrees, it's indistinguishable from any other 90 degree rotation."

Sam: "I believe that removed all reasons for bias."

North: "Now, when this space-floating symmetric being looks in a mirror, will it:

  1. "project neither left-right nor fletch-sash reversed directional coordinate system onto the reflection's image, or

  2. "project a left-right reversed directional coordinate system onto the reflection's image, or

  3. "project a fletch-sash reversed directional coordinate system onto the reflection's image, or

  4. "project both a left-right reversed and fletch-sash reversed directional coordinate system onto the reflection's image in the mirror?"

Sam: "I believe you've captured all the possibilities with neither, one or the other but not both, or both."

North: "Would you care to offer a solution as to which of the four options the creature will use?"

Sam: "It doesn't seem to me that the creature will have one preference of left-right versus fletch-sash over the other. With perfect symmetry in two directions and in the absence of a gravitic field, I don't see how the creature could possibly choose one direction over the other. Given that, I'd then reason there's only two choices left: neither direction or both are reversed. By the way North, it occurs to me that there is a third direction involved which has been left out of the discussion. That direction is front and back. What about front and back?"

North: "Front and back directions are reversed in the reflection's directional coordinate system compared to mine. It is the nature of a mirror or any other reflective technology or object that front and back are reversed."

Sam: "Now, see here North, couldn't it be said, as the devils advocate, that it's in the nature of a mirror that left and right are reversed, using the same exact reasoning as for front and back?"

North: "Very good Sam. You've asked a question that needed to be asked. Now, since you phrased the question from the devils advocate perspective, I suspect you know very well what the answer is. If I am correct, why don't you offer the answer now."

Sam: "North, you've seen right through me. Very well. Suppose that mirrors worked slightly differently than they do now. Suppose when you looked in a mirror, you didn't see your front, but rather, suppose you saw your back. If this were the case, then neither of front-back, left-right, nor fletch-sash would be reversed, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we do see our front in a mirror. In order to transition my frontal direction to the reverse, that is, to match the frontal direction of my mirror image, I'd have to spin around on any axis which is perpendicular to my current front or back. This spinning action along one axis is what retains one direction and reverses the other."

North: "Very good Sam. Your analysis is very good. Now, all that's left is to decide along which perpendicular axis to the front direction a person will presume a rotation occurred, thus reversing the other direction, and more to the point, why it is presumed that was the axis upon which spinning occurred."

Sam: "Oh. I see we're right back where we started."

North: "No, not quite at the beginning. We've identified that question and created a model which eliminates bias. However, it occurs to me that even our model of the space-faring, four-armed cyclops by design must also contain a significant predisposition of bias!"

Sam: "Huh! Did I just hear you say our symmetric model friend needs to be re-designed. I find that hard to believe. Very well, let's hear it."

North: "Sam, when we think of directions, we naturally think of the well-known up-down-left-right-front-back directions. These probably come to mind because these easily map into the 3-D coordinate system X-Y-Z, and these also easily map onto our body-coordinate system front-back, left-right, and top-bottom. However, when we asked the question of will left-right or fletch-sash be inverted, we agreed that was the same question except asked another way as along which axis will rotation occur. It turns out the inversion question isn't quite the exact question as the axis-rotation question."

Sam: "What? Are you certain North? See here my tall standing friend, let's suppose I had three sticks and tied them together to create a 3-D coordinate system, and attached it to my body. Now, this particular stick will be the front-back direction. The remaining 2 sticks will represent left, right, fletch and sash. Now, these directions are relative, so I'll attach this stick device to my body like so. As you can see North, the stick for front and back is aligned with my body's front and back. Left, right, fletch and sash are also aligned."

Drawing 8: The common X, Y, and Z axii.

Sam: "Now, back to the question. You say that left-right and/or fletch-sash direction inversion is not the same as axis rotation."

North: "Not so fast Sam. I didn't say one is not the same as the other. I said one is not exactly the other. Clearly if one is to have a direction inversion of left-right, or fletch-sash, an accompanying rotation about the perpendicular axis must occur."

Sam: "Ah, there. When you have one, you have the other. One does not occur without the other. What else is there?"

North: "I'm glad you asked, Sam. See what happens when I take this other stick and attach it onto your coordinate system sticks. I will attach it at an angle which is perpendicular to your front-back axis. There. What do you think about that?"

Drawing 9: A line in the X-Y plane different from the three standard axii.

Sam: "Well, for starters, surely you can do a better job of aligning the blade of grass than that. The grass blade is about 45 degrees between the fletch and left axis."

North: "That's exactly my point. When we use the phrases "left-right inversion and fletch-sash inversion" we seem to have only those two cases to consider, i.e. the cardinality of the domain is two. However, when we say axis-rotation, we can clearly see there are more than just two potential axii which are perpendicular to the front back direction. There are left-right, fletch-sash, and all the angles in-between. When we construct our unbiased space-faring cyclops, we don't want it to have any predisposed bias towards the well-known left-right-fletch-sash directions just because those are the directions which map to four arms."

North: "Therefore, we will remove the four arms and replace them with a uniform planar circular sheet ring. This ring will be somewhat like a jellyfishes bowl, but will stick straight out. It won't be concave like a bowl. Whereas before we had major axis symmetry, now we have any axis symmetry. Now our cyclops resembles a jellyfish. A good example of this is to look at your sticks. Consider the case when the axis of rotation is the blade of grass. This kind of rotation has the quality that the four major well-known directions left, right, fletch and sash will all change. Fletch switches with right, and left switches with sash. This didn't happen when the axis of rotation was aligned along either of the major axii. In those cases, one of the major axes retained its direction while the other flipped around."

Sam: "Interesting. Do continue."

North: "Thus we can see our earlier model was only a special limited case of what is now a more general model. The question for this model now becomes this: When the super-symmetric, space-faring jellyfish looks in a mirror, will it project a coordinate system onto its reflection in which:

  1. No relative directions are inverted,

  2. Only left-right is inverted,

  3. Only fletch-sash is inverted,

  4. Both left-right and fletch-sash are inverted,

  5. Both left-sash and fletch-right are inverted,

  6. Both left-fletch and sash-right are inverted,

  7. Left, right, fletch and sash are all changed proportionally to an angle."

Sam: "I don't know which one the jelly fish will choose. Let's ask the jellyfish model to float right up there to the mirror and ask zim to tell us what ze sees."

Part 5. Ask the expert.

North: "That's a clever answer. Unfortunately, the jellyfish is a hypothetical creation of ours and lacks independent thought. So we would actually be making the choices using our own biases of left-rightness."

Sam: "Too bad. However, we made this virtual world, so we can make it operate the way we want. Suppose we want the jellyfish to have independent thought. Here goes. Ahem. Ahem! Hello jellyfish."

Jellyfish: "Hello world!"

Sam: "Would you please float up there to the mirror and tell us if your reflection in the mirror looks inverted in any direction such as left-right, top-bottom, or any other orientation."

Jellyfish: "What is a mirror?"

Sam: "It's a device that reflects light rays. You can see your reflection in it. Except that an orientation is usually reversed. Left and right might be reversed, or up and down might be reversed."

Jellyfish: "What is left and right? What is up and down?"

Sam: "North, did you hear that. Ze doesn't know what left, right, up and down are. What do we do now?"

North: "Show zim what left, right, up and down are."

Sam: "Right. Except that I know what my left, right, up and down are. But what is zer left, right, up and down given that ze doesn't have arms."

North: "Yes, that is a good question. And the answer is to improvise. Use yourself as a guide and point to zer body at the points where you get to define what left, right, up and down area."

Sam: "Is that legal?"

North: "I don't think it's illegal."

Sam: "You didn't answer the question."

North: "Perhaps I don't know the answer."

Sam: "Well, okay. Jellyfish, I'm going to point to your body where the four places of left, right, up and down area. This spot here is your left, this is your right, this is your up, and this is your down."

Jellyfish: "I understand."

Sam: "Now, we'd like you to float up to that mirror there and look into it. Tell us if what you see in the mirror looks like you turned around to face yourself and if it appears that the left-right direction or the up-down direction or both are reversed."

Jellyfish: "Okay."

The Jellyfish floated towards the mirror. While approaching the mirror, ze began speaking.

Jellyfish: "Is it I? Sides . . . reversed? Is . . . . It is I!"

At about mid-sentence, ze stopped approaching the mirror and began retreating while finishing the sentence.

Sam: "What did you say?"

North: "I think ze said zer sides are reversed."

Sam: "Not exactly. I think ze asked whether zer sides are reversed. Can you repeat what you said?"

Jellyfish: "Is it I? Sides . . . reversed? Is . . . . It is I!"

North: "You're right. Ze asked if zer sides were reversed. Ze started by looking at the mirror and asked, 'Is it I?'. Then ze asked, 'Sides reversed?'. Then ze started to ask something that starts with, 'Is ...', but then said, 'It is I!'."

Sam: "Why would ze say that?"

North: "Well, I think perhaps the jellyfish had never seen zelf in the mirror, and thus ze was startled, asked two questions about what ze saw, started a third sentence, and finished by proclaiming ze saw zelf."

Sam: "What about the question we asked of the jellyfish, whether left/right or up/down were reversed in the mirror?"

North: "I think ze didn't say anything about that."

Sam: "Jellyfish, when you look in the mirror, do you see left/right reversed, or do you see up/down reversed, or all four reversed, or none reversed?"

Jellyfish: "I see a dimension reversed."

North: "Ah, now we're getting somewhere."

Jellyfish: "I see another dimension reversed."

Sam: "Yes, progress."

Jellyfish: "I see a third dimension reversed."

North: "Three dimensions reversed. That's more than left/right and up/down."

Jellyfish: "I see a fourth dimension reversed."

Sam: "What? A fourth dimension reversed. Just how many dimensions do we have here?"

Jellyfish: "There is another dimension here and it goes forward and backward."

North: "Five? Wow!"

North: "So, ze sees both left/right and up/down reversed in the reflection. Now, what are the other 3 dimensions?"

Jellyfish: "Front and back are reversed, since the reflection and I are facing each other."

North: "Oh, well that's a given. That would be true for any mirror unless you look in the mirror you see your back. What about the other two dimensions?"

Jellyfish: "For the other two dimensions, in time you will see the answer."

Sam: "Well, I'd like to see the answer now if you don't mind, not some time later."

Jellyfish: "You will see the answer in time. You do not understand. In time you will understand."

Sam: "Why not now?"

Jellyfish: "You do not understand now. But you will in time."

Sam: "But I want to understand now?"

Jellyfish: "You do not understand."

Sam: "Is there any reason why I can't understand now?"

Jellyfish: "It takes the passage of time to understand."

Sam: "How long do I have to wait?"

Jellyfish: "You do not understand. You can have the answer now."

Sam: "Now we're getting somewhere. What is the answer?"

Jellyfish: "You will find the answer in time."

Sam: "What in blazes are you saying? You just said I can have the answer now."

Jellyfish: "You do not understand."

Sam: "Then you say I will find the answer in time. Well, when will I get the answer? Now, or in time?"

Jellyfish: "Yes. Now and in time. You do not understand."

Sam: "Okay, I don't understand."

Jellyfish: "Now you are beginning to understand."

Sam: "I do not understand. Will you tell me the answer?"

Jellyfish: "Yes. You will find the answer in the passage of time."

Sam: "Is there a broken record here or what? Time out. Let's back up. One step at a time. Will you tell me the answer?"

Jellyfish: "Yes."

Sam: "So you say you will tell me the answer."

Jellyfish: "Yes."

Sam: "Would you go as far as saying that you haven't yet told me the answer, but that you will."

Jellyfish: "No."

Sam: "What! Did you hear that North?"

North: "Keep after zim. Don't let up now."

Sam: "Are you trying to tell me that you already told me the answer?"

Jellyfish: "Yes."

Sam: "So will you tell me the answer again?"

Jellyfish: "Yes."

Sam: "Well, let's hear the answer again."

Jellyfish: "You will find the answer in time."

Sam: "Oh grief! Why won't you tell me the answer?"

Jellyfish: "You do not understand."

Sam: "I clearly do not understand."

Jellyfish: "We will help you understand."

Sam: "I'm all ears."

Jellyfish: "The answer is 'You will know the answer in time.'"

Sam: "Yes, I know."

Jellyfish: "You hear the answer, but you do not understand."

Sam: "What does, 'You will know the answer in time.' mean?"

Jellyfish: "In order to understand you must know what I was doing when I said it."

Sam: "What were you doing?"

North: "I know. Ze was approaching the mirror and then quite abruptly reversed direction and moved away from the mirror."

Sam: "Yes, that's right."

North: "In fact, ze was moving toward the mirror when ze was speaking, then stopped and retreated and finished speaking."

Jellyfish: "Yes, you almost understand."

North: "Wait! I've got it! The Jellyfish moved toward the mirror and then reversed direction."

Sam: "Continue."

North: "Well, think about it. That is a kind of symmetry. It's a reversal of direction."

Sam: "And so . . . ."

North: "Well, apparently the theme for today is symmetry: things that look the same when they're reversed."

Sam: "Continue."

North: "If you recall, we were wondering about the practicality of asking the jellyfish what ze would see if ze floated up to the mirror and saw zelf?"

Sam: "So I asked zim to do just that."

North: "And ze did. Except ze didn't do what we thought ze would do. We thought ze would float up to the mirror and stay there and contemplate zer reflection."

Sam: "Well, that was the idea."

North: "But ze did nothing of the sort. We thought ze would contemplate questions about symmetry like what we were thinking about earlier. But instead ze gave us a symmetry of motion."

Sam: "Yes, I see it now!"

Jellyfish: "Now you understand. It's about time."

Sam: "We're not that slow, you know."

Jellyfish: "You do not understand. It's about time."

Sam: "Maybe it took us a while to get it, but we understand now."

Jellyfish: "You do not understand. It's about time."

Sam: "Hey, give us break. We finally got it."

Jellyfish: "It's about time."

Sam: "Have some patience our super-symmetric friend."

Jellyfish: "You understand, and you do not understand. It's about time."

Sam: North, do you know what ze is talking about?"

North: "Ze says it's about time."

Jellyfish: "It's about time. Do you understand?"

Sam: "We understand."

Jellyfish: "You do not understand. It's about time."

North: "Sam, maybe we should choose our words more carefully."

Sam: "I don't think this jellyfish has patience. Ze wants us to understand things very quickly."

Jellyfish: "You do not understand. It's about time."

North: "Sam, let's slow down a bit. Let's think about 3 words."

Sam: "What three words?"

North: "It's ... about ... time."

Sam: "It's - about - time."

North: "How do you interpret those 3 words?"

Sam: "Well, I think the jellyfish has a condescending attitude towards us because it took us a long time to figure out the puzzle."

North: "Perhaps. But could those three words be interpreted differently?"

Sam: "I don't know. Could they?"

North: "Suppose we rephrased that sentence and then considered if the meaning was the same or different."

Sam: "Sure, let's try."

North: "Suppose instead of, 'it's about time', ze instead said, 'time is what it's about.'"

Sam: "Great Scott! That's it. Time itself is what it's about."

North: "Yes!"

Sam: "The jellyfish has been telling us all along that the puzzle was about the passage of time. It's about time. Duh! It's about time we figure out that it's about time."

North: "But the jellyfish said there were two other dimensions, but we found only one; the moving front and then back. What is the other? Maybe it's something ze said."

Sam: "There is something peculiar about what ze said near the mirror, North. Something about those words is odd."

North: "Yes, that's it Sam! It's a palindrome. The letters in the sentences form a palindrome centered on the letter 'v'. A palindrome is a mirror image of itself alphabetically, minus punctuation. A palindrome has time reversal symmetry."

Sam: "Clever one this jellyfish is."

Jellyfish: "It's about time!"

Sam: "Yes, it's about the time."

Jellyfish: "You do not understand. It's about time that you understand that it's about time."

Sam: "North, did I just hear what I thought I heard?"

North: "Yes. The jellyfish is telling us that we are slow to understand that the puzzle was about time."

Sam: "Now I understand."

Jellyfish: "Now you understand. The puzzle is about time."

North: "I'm getting hungry. Now I think it's about food."

Sam: "North, do you think the four-armed cyclops from earlier could hold four cheeseburgers? And how many cheeseburgers can the jellyfish hold?"

North: "Lunch break! A four-armed cyclops has four hands at four axii and thus can hold four cheeseburgers; one in each hand. The jellyfish ring has effectively an infinite number of axii. But ze can't hold an infinite number of cheeseburgers because the cheeseburgers themselves have size and will bump into each other. Let's continue this discussion in the morning. I think we're done with the jellyfish, we can let zim go."

Sam: "North, what will become of the jellyfish now that we're done with zim?"

North: "I don't know. Perhaps you should ask the jellyfish."

Sam: "Jellyfish. I think we're done with you for now."

Jellyfish: "You may go now."

Sam: "Huh? We may go? What a curious thing to say. What will you do when we leave?"

Jellyfish: "I will continue on in the same fashion as I always have."

Sam: "What fashion is that?"

Jellyfish: "Just as I was before, I will be after."

North: "There ze goes again. Symmetry again. Did you get that, Sam?"

Sam: "Jellyfish. Do you have a name?"

Jellyfish: "I am the number 0."

Sam: "What a curious name. A name that is a number."

North: "Not just any number, Sam. Ze said zer number is 0. Do you see the significance?"

Sam: "Well, it's the number which has no quantity."

North:" Right, but do you see the significance? No, I can see you don't. Zero is the midpoint of the positive and negative numbers. It's right smack in the middle. It's symmetry again."

Sam: "What an interesting jellyfish, eh, I mean 0. Do you think 0 knew that? A clever 0. Good bye 0."

Part 6. Appearances can be deceiving.

0 floated away. As ze receded, ze brightly lit up with luminescent radial spokes, much like the spokes of a bicycle wheel. Then the spokes began to spin. It wasn't easy to tell whether the entire jellyfish was spinning and the spokes were carried along with the body, or if the spokes were alternating their on-off pattern in such a way that spinning radial motion was simulated like a neon sign.

North: "Look at 0. Ze's spinning like a wheel."

Sam: "Ze's headed toward the mirror. Let's go see what happens."

Sam and North watched intently as 0 approached the mirror. 0 floated right up to the mirror with zer spokes spinning ever faster and faster.

Sam: "Can you tell if zer entire body is spinning like a wheel, or if the spokes are alternating on and off in sequence in a way that simulates the illusion of motion?"

North: "Zer body is so uniformly smooth that I can't see if ze's spinning. I see the spokes spinning. I guess if we touched zim we'd know, except that would be rude."

Sam: "I have a better idea. 0. Hello there again."

0: "You two again, as before. What do you want?"

Sam: "North and I noticed how you are spinning. We're wondering if your entire body is spinning or if your spokes are alternating in a radial sequence to create the illusion of motion."

0: "Yes."

Sam: "Dear chap, please don't start that language game again. It's a simple question."

0: "The answer is yes."

Sam: "But I asked two questions."

0: "You do not understand. Two birds, one stone."

Sam: "Hey, no throwing rocks. Sam, why do you think ze called the two of us birds?"

North: "Perhaps this time we should listen closer to zer answer and think more about our question."

Sam: "Okay. I asked if zer entire body is spinning or if zer spokes are alternating in a radial sequence to create the illusion of motion?"

North: "That sounds like two questions."

Sam: "And it's either one or the other. Either 0's body is spinning like a wheel and the spokes spin with it, or the spokes are alternating on and off in a radial pattern creating the illusion of motion, right?"

North: "That would seem true. I seems like it has to be one or the other."

Sam: "But 0 answered yes."

North: "Maybe you should ask one question at a time."

Sam: "0, is your entire body spinning?"

0: "Yes."

Sam: "Well, there you go North, zer entire body is spinning and the spokes are moving with zim."

North: "No so fast Sam. Ask 0 the second question. We cannot assume the answer to the second question is no just because the answer to the former is yes."

Sam: "0, are your spokes alternating on and off in a radial pattern creating the illusion of motion?"

0: "Yes."

Sam and North looked bewildered.

Sam: "Huh?"

North: "Huh?"

0: "You do not understand."

Sam: "I really don't understand."

North: "That includes me too, 0. Perhaps you'd care to explain."

0: "You do not understand. I will stop my body from physically spinning like a bicycle wheel."

Sam and North watched closely. Something was changing. The radial spokes were speeding up. 0 appeared to be spinning faster and faster to the amazement of Sam and North.

Sam: "You're not slowing down, you're speeding up. I thought you said you were going to stop your body from spinning."

0: "I can't stop instantaneously. I have to slowly stop the spinning. Now I am all stopped physically spinning."

Sam: "But you haven't stopped. You've sped up. Your spokes are spinning faster now than before. I don't understand you."

0: "Yes, you do not understand."

North: "Could this speeding up have anything to do with your answer of yes to both our questions?"

0: "Yes."

North: "Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. 0, you said earlier that you were both physically spinning and also creating the illusion of spin by alternating your spokes on and off in a radial pattern. If you stopped physically spinning, could your alternating radial pattern still be going on?"

0: "Yes."

North: "Could you stop that alternating pattern please."

0: "Yes."

Sam and North watched intently to detect even the slightest change, but didn't see any.

North: "Well, I thought you said you were going to stop your alternating pattern."

0: "No. I said I could stop my alternating pattern."

North: "Oh, I was ambiguous. 0, given that you can stop the alternating pattern, will you please stop it now."

0: "Yes."

North: "Look, the spinning is slowing down. Ze's slowing down a lot. Ze's almost stopped. There, all spinning has stopped."

Sam: "Now that was an interesting exercise. I'm not sure I understand what just happened here."

North: "I think I've solved it. Our symmetric friend here has performed yet another symmetry trick."

Sam: "Oh! What trick."

North: "0, I think I've solved it. I believe I know how you just did what you did."

0 was silent.

Sam: "Well, let's hear it chap. What is going on here?"

North: "Well, a while ago we were talking about how we had two questions, but one answer of yes. We assumed incorrectly that both questions couldn't be true together. We assumed either-or, but the answer was yes to both. 0 was both alternating zer patterns to create the illusion of motion, and at the same time was spinning zer body like a wheel."

Sam: "But if 0 was alternating and spinning zer body, wouldn't that make the alternating illusion appear to spin faster. I mean, if a wheel has flashing spokes creating the illusion of spinning, and then I go and spin it faster, wouldn't that just speed the illusion that much faster?"

North: "It would if you spun the wheel in the same direction as the alternating illusion."

Sam: "Well, if I spun the wheel in the opposite direction, wouldn't that cancel the spinning?"

North: "It could, but not necessarily. Not exactly. You would cancel the illusion of motion if you spun the wheel at exactly the same speed in the opposite direction. But suppose that you spin the wheel 1/2 as fast the counter rotating alternating illusion of spin."

Sam: Well, if I spun the wheel exactly as fast as the alternating pattern but in the opposite direction, the effect would cancel and the wheel would appear static. But if I spun the wheel only 1/2 as fast, then that wouldn't be enough to cancel the alternating pattern going in the other radial direction. The one-half radial velocity that I spin the wheel would only seem to slow the alternating pattern, but wouldn't be able to cancel it out."

North: "Exactly. And if you undo what you just did, that is if you stopped the wheel from spinning, the alternating pattern speeds back up to its original radial velocity."

Sam: "Yes! I see it now."

0: "Now you understand."

Sam: "Now I understand."

0: "You may go now, again, as you did before."

Sam: "North, 0 seems to have a mind of zer own. Even though we created zim, ze seems to have self-awareness, enough to make puzzles that we have difficulty solving. Good thing ze is friendly. Ze has patience, and ze is tolerant."

North: "Yes, good thing we didn't create a monster."

Sam and North floated away from 0.

North: "Sam, have you noticed that we are floating in space?"

Sam: "Yes, I noticed it earlier, but I was so focused on our discussion that I didn't mention anything."

North: "Well, did you also notice that we are talking and breathing, but there isn't any air in space?"

Sam: "What kind of reality is this?"

North: "Maybe this isn't reality. Maybe this is some kind of a dream. Or worse, maybe we aren't real. Maybe we are some kind of fictional characters in a book. Maybe the space that is our universe, the one we are floating in now, maybe it's some kind of electronic screen with pixels. Maybe our space is made of some kind of strange object, like paper, or crystalline liquid display. Imagine if a pixel went dead, emitting no color, not even black. The color of a black pixel has a defined value, you know. But a dead pixel has null value, not even a value. If space is paper, imagine if the paper tore, that would be a rip in our space-time. Or if the paper got a hole, and if empty space is nothing, then the hole might be not even nothing."

Sam: "Get a grip North. Now you're starting to scare me."

North: "I wonder how we get back to the planet."

Sam: "Hmmm."

At the instant Sam wondered that, both Sam and North disappeared from space.

Part 7. Follow-up.

Meanwhile, back on earth, . . . .

Sam: "Hmmm."

North: "Well, we're back. How strange. Are you ready to continue?"

Sam: "Quite ready, North. But before we begin, I'd like to tell you about some of the ideas I thought of late last evening. Would you care to hear them?"

North: "Certainly. I'm all ears."

Sam: "Well, North, I was thinking of 0 last night. I was wondering how a body's coordinate system would seem to zim, given that ze has radial symmetry. I kept trying to figure out how ze could have a left-right fletch-sash coordinate system. After some effort at this, I decided there was a simpler coordinate system ze could use: outward-inward."

Sam: "Since the creature is symmetric outward from zer front-back axis, it seemed sensible to me that ze would most likely measure in terms of distance from this axis. This is the outward-inward directions. Then I thought how the outward and inward directions could be inverted in a mirror."

Sam: "I think that a special mirror of unusual design where the center of the mirror comes to a point may cause the inversion of inward and outward."

North: "So what you're saying is that a double symmetric space-faring jellyfish might, because of zer symmetry, know of only 2 directions: front-back and outward-inward. Is that it?"

Sam: "Yes, that's exactly it. I'm saying ze might. It's a possibility."

North: "And you're saying it's possible that if this were the case, then left-right-fletch-sash inversion would be meaningless. Is that it?"

Sam: "Yes, quite right."

North: "Then here is what I think of this. If our jellyfish had no knowledge of understanding of left-right-fletch-sash, then in a mirror I suppose to zelf ze would have no reason to think anything has been inverted. Furthermore, suppose our super-symmetric creature acquired a splotch on one side which produced non-symmetry. What then?"

Sam: "Well, I suppose the creature might not know about the splotch until ze looked in the mirror, and then once ze became aware of the splotch I suppose the splotch could become the basis for a new coordinate system. This new coordinate system could be like left-right, fletch-sash, or it could be front-back-outward-inward-degrees."

North: "Sam, there can be an infinite number of scenarios where a creature has no left-right-fletch-sash awareness. However, the scenario that I'm interested in is precisely the one where a creature does have an awareness of zer left-right-fletch-sash sides and looks in a mirror and projects a relative coordinate system on the reversed image in the mirror. Fair enough? Otherwise we'll find countless examples of speculative scenarios none of which we'll be able to definitely analyze."

Sam: "Very well, North. I was beginning to sense a hopelessness in the direction I was going. You've brought the analysis back on track."

North: "Now, we must be aware that just because our jellyfish is double symmetric, that doesn't necessarily mean ze doesn't have zer own sense of left-right-fletch-sash. Just because we look at zim and can't tell left from right nor fletch from sash doesn't mean ze can't. Nor does it mean ze can. We are only interested in those cases where the creature can. Now, given that this is the case, can we say anything definitive about how the creature will project zer relative coordinate system onto zer reflection in the mirror?"

Sam: "I can't see how we can. I think the choices the creature has are the seven choices we listed earlier."

North: "Yes, I think there are seven possible answers. Beyond that, I don't see that any particular one of the seven is more or less likely than the rest."

Sam: "North, what use is this knowledge and exercise we go through?"

North: "It is for the joy of solving things that we think such things."

Sam: "So where does that leave us?"

North: "I'll summarize the results so far. 0 looked in the mirror and saw left/right and up/down reversed, plus forward/backward, spatial temporal and language-temporal reversal. Zero's name is the exact symmetrical midpoint of the positive and negative numbers. Is this a good stopping point?"

Sam: "So, 0 gave us that answer. But is that correct? And is it the only possible?"

North: "There are many possible answers as we covered early. Just because 0 gave us a certain answer does not mean that is the only answer. When we identified the many ways to turn around, that was the actual solution. Any individual merely turns around in one of those, which one they choose is up to them but does not force others to use that turn-around method."

Sam: "There is just one last point I want to make on this topic. Earlier we said that one way of analyzing this mirror reflection is to say that front and back are reversed."

North: "Yes, that is one possible analysis."

Sam: "In that analysis, there is still the same problem we have just covered. Consider the word 'Hi' written on my body."

Sam had changed zer body to paper white, except for the word Hi on it, spelled in black.

Sam: "When I look in the mirror, the word in the reflection reads 'iH' as I scan left to right. Why is the word inverted left-right but not upside down? Why the bias of left-right inversion? Why not upside-down inversion?"

North: "Why did you scan left-right? What if your language was written fletch to sash direction? If you were doubly symmetric, might you then read sash to fletch and then say the word was inverted fletch-sash? Didn't we already cover this topic just now?"

Sam: "Agreed!"

Part 8. Light, no light, and lack of sight.

Analogous to matter, empty space, lack of dimension respectively.

North: "Sam, I've been thinking lately about light and darkness, and the absence of light."

Sam: "Oh my, here we go again."

North: "There is something kind of strange. Care to hear about it?"

Sam: "Sure."

North: "Well, I'll try to be as brief as possible."

Sam: "I'm all ears again."

Once again, Sam was all ears, and additionally was listening intently.

North: "How shall I begin? Sam, as a chameleon, can you change into any color?"

Sam: "Yes, I can. And I'm not just an ordinary chameleon. I can change into any color imaginable. Any color. You name it, I'll turn into that color."

North: "Can you turn into red?"

Sam: "Been there, done that. Is this red enough?"

North: "Very good. How about green? . . . Yes, very good. Blue? . . . Yes, quite impressive."

Sam: "You name the color, I will turn into that color."

North: "Okay, how about ultraviolet? . . . Hmmm, looks black to me."

Sam: "I can assure you it's ultraviolet. Your eyes just can't see ultraviolet, so I appear black. Can you see these flying insects coming over? They're attracted to ultraviolet light."

North: "How about infra-red?"

Sam: "No problem."

North: "Now Sam, let's shift gears a little. How about black?"

Sam: "Very tricky North. But I'm ahead of you. How's this for the color black; the absence of light. I am devoid of light."

North: "Not exactly. I agree that you're the color black. But now I want you to change into a very special kind of light."

Sam: "Name it."

North: "That's the spirit. The color I want you to turn into doesn't have a name. It is best described by the phrase 'not even black'."

Sam: "Huh? You lost me. I don't understand."

North: "This shouldn't be so complex my friend. You yourself hinted at this a few days ago in the fog when you said one of your eyes was experiencing an absence of sight, which I clearly remember you said was different from an absence of light."

Sam: "Ah, yes, so I did. Thank you for reminding me. It's coming back to me now. Yes. Shall I explain?"

North: "Please do."

Sam: "Well, as you surely know already, within the field of vision, the eyeball has a special place which maps onto the optic nerve. This place has no rods nor cones to detect light. This spot, called the blind-spot, is a place which experiences the 'absence of sight' phenomenon. In the field of view, that spot gets no light. The seemingly bizarre thing about it is that the spot doesn't appear dark. Darkness is the absence of light on rods and cones. Without rods nor cones, this is effectively what I shall call not-even-black."

North: "Very good Sam. I believe your understanding is complete. Now I'd like you to change into the not-even-black color."

Sam: "Oh, that's what you meant. I don't know if I can do that. Here goes. hnnnnnnnnnght! There, How's that?"

North: "Not quite. You're just completely black. You're just the color of no-light, which is black. You need to be not-even-black."

Sam: "Now, see here North. This isn't as easy as you might think. Suppose you shut your eyes. Then will I be not-even-black?"

North: "Not so fast, my friend with the brilliant darkness. By turning into the color not-even-black, you're supposed to distinguish yourself from your surroundings, which will all be emanating vivid colors or at least no colors at all. If I shut my eyes, you and your surrounding will become indistinguishable. I want only you to have the color not-even-black."

Sam: "Well, just thought I'd ask. Hmmm, not-even-black. NOT even nothing. Not EVEN nothing. Not even NOTHING. I dare say, I don't know if I can . . . ."

North: "Where there's a will, there's a way."

Sam: "Right, and the cup is half full. Let's see, hmmmmmmmm mmmmmm mmmmmm mmm POP!"

North: "HOLD IT RIGHT THERE SAM! Great Scott, look at you! There's a little dot on your tail which has vanished! You've done it, Sam!"

Sam brings zer tail around to the front of zer head so ze can examine it closer with zer eyes. The spot on Sam's tail wasn't discernible as a spot because it didn't have any color or light or darkness that could be focused on. But the boundary edge of it was definitely round, so it was a spot of not-even-light. Furthermore, it wasn't transparent. If it was transparent, then you would be able to see through the spot to the other side, but the spot was devoid of lightness and darkness. Nothing shined through. It was as if the blind spot of the eye was captured and stuck onto Sam's tail. That's the only explanation that was even close, even though that seemed impossible.

Sam: "I did it! Now, how did I do that? Let's see, I was thinking of punching a hole in space, at a location that is relative to me, at the end of my tail. A location is conceptually like an address. A hole in space might be like an address that is impossible, or out of range!"

North: "It's a very peculiar spot. It is devoid of normal colors and brightness. And yet, it's not dark. It seems to be the absence of sight. It's the color of not-even-black. Good job!"

Sam: "Watch this, North. I'm going to try to expand this dot larger. RIP! OH MY! What have I done? I seem to be mostly gone, or nowhere, or invisible, or nothing. Oh my!"

North: "Absolutely smashing, chap. Except for your head, your body is emanating the color of not-even-black. It's quite unusual. I can't see through you, so you're not transparent. When I look at you, I register not-even-black, which is so much less than the color black."

Sam: "Watch this."

North watched in astonishment as the brilliant display of the not-even-black color spread further to Sam's head until all that was left was a smile. Then, the smile changed as if it was going to speak, then it too disappeared.

North: "Magnificent Sam! Bravo! Stunning! However, I didn't quite hear what you were going to say. Or maybe you did say something, but it was not-even-sound. That is, one can speak and make a sound, or one can speak quietly, or one can mime the words. However, I suppose your communication was not-even-sound."

Sam: ""

North: "Okay Sam, you can come back now."

Sam: "!"

North: "Okay Sam, stop fooling around."

Sam: "! !"

Just then a moth flew by and turned around to get a closer look at what seemed to be a blind-spot in the space-time continuum. As it hovered where Sam wasn't, suddenly a tongue shot out from literally no-where. [Not no-where in the figurative sense, but no-where in the not-even-where sense which right now was one endpoint of a tongue without a body.] Instantly, the moth was gone. The only thing odder than that was the expression on North's face.

North: "See here, Sam, will you stop playing games and at least turn into the lack of color, which is black."

Slowly, from out of nowhere, a dark black grin appeared. Then a face, a head, and slowly the rest of Sam returned and radiated a dazzling aura of pitch black, which seemed infinitely more colorful than the not-even-black color.

North: "Not so bright Sam, my eyes are having difficulty adjusting to your complete lack of color and light. The transition from not-even-registering-black to registering-definitely-black is more of a difference than I expected."

Sam: "Well, I'm not sure how to help. My pixels are either off or on. Off is not-even-black. On is all the range of colors I can turn into, including the lack of color, black."

North: "Sam, when you become the color of not-even-black, what do you see?"

Sam: "That's quite interesting. Let's break for lunch and I'll tell you after."

Part 9. Analysis of colors.

Sam: "That was a fantastic lunch. Now, where were we?"

North: "You were going to tell me how you turned into the color of not-even-black, and you were going to tell me what you saw when you disappeared."

Sam: "Well, the way I did it was curious. I didn't know how to change into a color that isn't in my palette of colors."

North: "Your palette of colors? What's that?"

Sam: "My palette of colors is simply the colors that I can show on my skin and any combination of them."

North: "Oh, like the three primary colors red green and blue."

Sam: "Yes, but I have more than three. Now, when I want to change into a certain color, it's really all about the math. A certain percentage and brightness of this color, a certain percentage of that, and a third color, and that's pretty much it."

North: "So let me guess. You created a new empty slot in your color palette and filled it with the color of not-even-black. Am I right?"

Sam: "Not exactly. You see, to fill that color slot with color would mean that the color existed. Instead, I defined the color of my skin to be beyond a slot in the color lookup table that doesn't exist. It's like in programming when you have an array of N slots or addresses from 1 to N, but then reference the non-existent slot at location N+1 or 0. It is analogous to using a street address lesser or greater than what exists in reality."

North: "Is that possible?"

Sam: "I did it!"

North: "Well, what happens in programming when a program references an address beyond what is legally allowed?"

Sam: "The program crashes."

North: "Did ... you ... crash?"

Sam: "I'm still here!"

North: "Very clever, but you didn't answer the question."

Sam: "Nor will ze answer it."

North: "I see that ze is being evasive. Perhaps you can persuade zim to answer."

Sam: "Yes, ze is being evasive. Perhaps the one with questions will not get an answer immediately. Ze might have to think about it. Maybe ze will find the answer zelf.

North; "Yes, I can see ze will not get an answer to this question. Ze will think about it some more."

Sam: "While our friends keep talking blah blah blah, why don't we take a break?

North: "Agreed!"

Part 10. What is, that something is, has, or rejects.

The next day Sam and North are on the ground, yet have entered philosophical space.

North: "Sam, have you ever noticed that there is something peculiar about color relating to the definition of what is is?"

Sam: "Hey hey."

North: "What?"

Sam: "You said, 'what is is'. So I replied, 'hey hey'."

North: "Why did you do that?"

Sam: "Were you not playing games by repeating a word twice: is is?"

North: "No. That was one of the two main points I was making. What is the word is, and what is color."

Sam: "Oh, I see. Sometimes our subjects of discussion come at us from unexpected directions. Can you clarify or give an example of what you mean?"

North: "Allow me to explain by an example. Suppose I said that something was hot in the temperature sense? Would you not agree that the quality of hotness was contained in or on the thing, as opposed to the hotness being someplace else except in or on the thing?"

Sam: "Well, that sounds reasonable."

North: "So if there is a rock that is hot, would you agree that the hotness is in or on the rock instead of the rock being cool and the hotness all around it?"

Sam: "That sounds correct. For a rock to be hot means that the hotness is in or on the rock instead of being any place else but in or on the rock."

North: "So when we say that a is b, we mean that the quality of b is in or on a, or that at least some part of a has the quality of b in or on it."

Sam: "Yes."

North: "For example, when we say that something is wet, do we mean that the quality of wetness is in or on the thing, or do we mean that the thing is dry but that the wetness is somewhere near the thing?"

Sam: "When something is wet, we mean that the quality of wetness is in or on the thing instead of the thing being dry and the wetness being nearby."

North: "And if we say that in a crowd of happy people, if someone is angry, do we mean that the quality of anger is contained in or on the person, or is that that one person is happy and the anger is in the rest of the crowd?"

Sam: "When someone is angry, we mean anger is in or on that person, not that that person is happy and those around the person are in anger."

North: "Now we reach the curiosity. When we say that an apple is red, do we mean that the redness is in or on the apple?"

Sam: "Surely I can detect the trap in the line of your reasoning, so I will tip-toe through the minefield of tulips. The popularly accepted meaning of the phrase 'the apple is red' is that the quality of redness is in or on the apple. Is that not the popular accepted meaning of the red apple?"

North: "It is the popular accepted meaning. However, as we are not constrained inside a box of popular thinking, consider this. What exactly does it mean to be red in the physics sense. In other words, what is red really?"

Sam: "That's simple. When something is red, or for that matter any other primary color, that means that the object is emitting electromagnetic radiation at the frequency of the color red. Those rays leave the object and strike our eyes, thus the redness is transmitted from the object to our eyes. We see the red rays leaving the apple."

North: "So would you say that the redness is in the atoms, or in the electromagnetic waves?"

Sam: "I'd say that the redness has to either be in the atoms of the red apple, or in the electromagnetic radiation at the frequency we call red. It seems to be in one or the other."

North: "We can resolve this by assuming, in turn, each of the possibilities and then checking to see if that leads to a contradiction. First, suppose for hypothetical sense we assumed the redness was in the atoms of the skin of the apple. If that were true, then the apple is red because its atoms have redness in or on them, at least for the atoms on the skin of the apple."

Sam: "Fair enough."

North: "Now, while we can certainly find numerous examples which support this, none of those prove it. And we only need to find one case that contradicts this and that means the assumption is wrong."

Sam: "All that supporting evidence evaporates if we can find one contradiction."

North: "Yes. Now, let's look closely at this red apple. What does it mean when we say the apple is red?"

Sam: "We mean that that quality of redness from the apple travels from the apple to our eyes in the form of red light rays. That is, electromagnetic radiation at the frequency of red light travels from the apple to our eyes, and our eyes absorb these rays. If that happens, then we conclude the apple is red."

North: "Good. Now consider this: if the apple is taken from a lighted room to a dark room, is that apple still red?"

Sam: "Well, I don't mean to be pedantic, but may I ask to clarify exactly what is meant by taking the apple from a lighted room into a dark room?"

North: "Indeed, seek as much clarification as you want. It is part of our investigative methodology that we ask for clarity when something is not clear."

Sam: "By moving the apple from a lighted room such as the room we are in, which is lighted by white light, into a dark room where there is neither white light nor any other kind of light visible to our eyes, and also assuming we are not color blind, do you mean to say that I take this apple here in my hand and walk about 20 steps in about 10 seconds and enter that room, and close the door behind me. In total it would take under half a minute. Then I would return to here."

North: "Precisely. That is exactly what I meant by taking the red apple into a dark room. What else could I have meant?"

Sam: "Well, I believe it is theoretically possible to take this red apple in my hand, walk to a dark room, then exit the dark room, and the red apple will no longer be red. And I will not have done anything to the apple except hold it in my hand."

North: "How strange. How would you do that?"

Sam: "Simple. The key is to find the long path to the dark room. Let's say that it takes 30 days for a red apple to turn ripe and change color to brown. Then, I could theoretically walk for thirty days and then enter this dark room. Then I could continue with the experiment. In this case, I would start with a red apple, walk to a dark room and enter that room with a brown and over-ripe apple, then conduct the rest of the experiment in the dark room. The question of whether the red apple was still red in the dark room could in this experiment easily be argued to not be red in the dark room."

North: "Many things can be argued this way or that, but we seek the truth by evidence, not argument."

Sam: "Agreed. The experiment you want is one in which the red apple enters the dark room red, and is red when it leaves the dark room."

North: "Correct."

Sam: "I was merely pointing out an alternative possibility. Sometimes it is useful to identify these cases to rule them out. Well, let's do the experiment. Will you join me and the red apple as we go into the dark room?"

North: "Yes, please proceed."

Sam: "Here we go. I have the red apple in my hand. We walk a few steps into the next room. We leave the lights off in this room and close the window blinds. Now shut the door. Good. We are in the dark room."

North: "Okay, the experiment continues now. Kindly tell me what the color is of the apple in your hand."

Sam: "I would say red."

North: "Why would you say that?"

Sam: "Because it was red when it was in the next room under light, and it was red right up until the moment you shut the door which stopped light from shining on the apple. Plus, if I walk over to this light switch and turn it on like this, CLICK, there you can see that with light we can confirm the apple is still red."

North: "Indeed we can. However, that was not the experiment. The experiment was to determine the color of the apple in a dark room, not in a room with light. Turn out the lights, and I will repeat the experiment for you, but with a slight variation. The experiment will now be stronger and some bias in the previous experiment will be gone this time."

Sam: "CLICK. There, it is dark again. I hold the previously red apple in my hand."

North: "Okay. Now give me the apple you are holding. Over here. Yes, there. Now I have the apple. Now I will keep the apple you gave me and give you a different apple. But I will not tell you what the color is of the apple that I give you. In white light, the apple I am giving you could be red, it could be green, blue, it could be brown."

Sam: "Okay, I have the second apple in my hand."

North: "What color is the apple I gave you?"

Sam: "I cannot see any color. Are you sure this is a different apple?"

North: "Yes, it is a different apple."

Sam: "Until we shine light on this second apple, I don't think I can determine its color. I need empirical evidence to reach a conclusion."

North: "But if the apple has a color which cannot be seen at the moment, how is it that its color, which we earlier assumed is in or on the apple skin, is not detectable?"

Sam: "Ah, now I understand. I cannot see the color of the redness in or on the apple skin because the redness is in fact not in or on the apple skin, nor anywhere else in or on the apple. Instead, the color must be in the light rays emanating or reflecting off of the apple when we shine white light on it."

North: "Correct. Allow me to summarize. We assumed for the sake of the experiment that the red color was in or on the skin of the apple. We then created an experiment to test that hypothesis. The test results are that the color of the object cannot be determined in a dark room."

Sam: "So, where does that leave us?"

North: "It is inconclusive. Since the color of an object cannot be determined in a dark room, the question of what color is an object in a dark room is invalid. It's like asking what the colors are of light rays reflecting off an object in an experiment where light rays are disallowed. We could follow this philosophical question further and ask a more generalized question, one in which the red apple in a dark room is merely an instance of the more general question."

Sam: "Could we? What would that more generalized question be?"

North: "That question could be phrased as the following. Do things and or their properties cease existing when they cannot be measured, when prior they were measurable?"

Sam: "Ah, I see. In the case of the red apple in the dark room, light was not allowed, yet is required to determine the color of the apple. In other words, in an experiment where a thing T, such as color, or more generally, sound, temperature, size, velocity and such, can only be determined directly by measurement M, and with the constraint that M is not allowed, meaning we cannot use light, hearing, thermometers, rulers, and time-series positional measurements, then does the thing T still exist when it's unmeasurable?"

North: "That is the more general question."

Sam: "Well, I'd say that in an experiment where something can only be definitively proven to exist by measuring it, that is by doing M, and then to say that M is not allowed or is impossible, then I would conclude that one cannot prove a thing exists if it cannot be measured, or if M cannot happen. Nor can we conclude that T doesn't exist just because we can't measure it. It is just that we cannot prove the existence nor non-existence until we can measure. Measuring is important. Empirical data wins."

Sam: "Where do we go from here?"

North: "Since that test failed, let's try the other hypothesis. Let us assume instead that the redness was neither in nor on the skin of the apple, but that it is instead in the light rays leaving the apple. Let's make this assumption and then repeat the same experiment and see what happens."

Sam: "Okay. So now, this apple which I hold in my hand in this lighted room appears red because, as we assumed, red electromagnetic rays were traveling from it to my eyes. White light is striking the apple. So red, green and blue light rays strike the apple. Red is reflected off the apple. The green and blue light rays cannot be reflected off the apple because if they were then our eyes would detect all three colors and we would see a white apple. But we see a red apple, so we can conclude the apple skin absorbs, or at least does not reflect green and blue rays."

North: "Now I will turn out this light with this switch: CLICK. Now, what is the color of the once-red apple?"

Sam: "In order to determine that, there has to be light shining on the apple so that some rays are reflected back to my eye."

North: "Is this the same situation as before?"

Sam: "It is similar, but there is a difference. Before, with the assumption that color was in or on the skin of the apple, we needed light to strike the surface to see what the color of the skin was. Now, we need light to shine on the apple to reflect off of the apple to see the color reflected away from the apple."

North: "Now do you see the problem?"

Sam: "Well, let me think about it. Prior to the redness question we determined that a is b if the quality of b was in or on a instead of being outside of a."

North: "That is half of the puzzle."

Sam: "However, I just concluded that to say the apple is red means that the redness is emanating from the apple, so that the rays of red light are everywhere but in or on the apple. And in a dark room there is no redness perceivable in or on the apple."

North: "Can this idea be strengthened by more supporting evidence?"

Sam: "Can it?"

North: "If you think that prior argument a curiosity, consider this experiment. If something is dry, like cloth, and water is put on it, if the water sent to the cloth goes there and nowhere else, that is to say the cloth absorbs the water, would you agree the once dry cloth is now wet or getting wetter?"

Sam: "I would agree if the rate of absorption of water exceeds the rate of evaporation of water from the cloth."

North: "Now consider the apple. If we shine green light on the red apple, where do the green rays go?"

Sam: "Well the apple is reflecting red light rays when not in a dark room. If we shine green rays on it, the green rays cannot be reflected off the apple, because if they were we would see a mixture of red and green rays coming from the apple."

North: "Nice analysis. Suppose we took the red apple in a dark room and shined green light on it. What would we see?"

Sam: "Good question."

North: "Thanks. That's why I asked it. In order to solve this, let's first consider a similar case which we have already solved. Suppose I said that we have already shined green light on the apple. Would you believe that?"

Sam: "Sure I would. I am a student of the universe so I can see right through the challenge. When we say that the red apple is in a dark room, what we mean is that there is no white light shining on it. When we say we take the red apple out of the dark room, we mean we take it into the light, and we do mean white light. White light is composed of red, green and blue light. Therefore we have already shined green light on the apple."

North: "Excellent. Would you like to finish your line of reasoning?"

Sam: "Indeed I would. However, as much as I would like to finish it off, I would like to see if you fully understand this line of reasoning. Why don't you finish it off?"

North: "Indeed I will. In daylight the red apple is being struck by red, green and blue light rays. The atoms and compounds that make up the skin of the red apple are such that the red light is reflected away from the red apple, but the remaining colors are not reflected. To say that a color is not reflected is to say that it is absorbed if the object is opaque. Therefore, the red apple absorbs the green and blue light rays, but reflects the red light rays. We call an apple red if the redness is reflected away from the apple and if the green and blue light rays are absorbed. Do you see it now?"

Sam: "See what, the apple?"

North: "Ha-ha."

Sam: "Yes, I see the conundrum now. When it comes to color, a is b is opposite than, for example, wetness or hotness. The red apple reflects red rays, but absorbs green and blue rays. Yet we do not say the apple is full of blue and green, but that is exactly what the apple keeps when those rays fall on it. The apple keeps the blue and green, yet rejects the red, and we say the apple is red."

North: "In closing, allow me to re-phrase the question. What is is?"

Sam: "What is is?"

North: "I believe we can conclude that is is a piece of language that can be ambiguous. One must take care where is is involved."

Sam: "Indeed. A cloth is wet means the cloth has the wetness on or in it, but to say an apple is red means the red is rejected, or reflected, by the apple and strikes our eyes, and we then call that red. The apple rejects red, so we conclude the apple is red. That should clarify the ambiguity."

North: "But if a cloth rejects the water, we do not say the cloth is wet. Similarly, if a person rejects anger, we do not conclude that person is angry."

Sam: "Agreed!"

North: "Now, in closing, here is a thought to ponder. For humans, the red, green and blue colors collectively add up to white, but red and green alone equal yellow. But the hidden assumption is that the eye has red, green and blue color receptors. However, not all people have red, green and blue cones in their eyes. Some are color blind. If a person can detect only red and green colors with their eyes, does red and green light equal white light or yellow for them? Is white light a subjective phenomenon? Is yellow light a subjective phenomenon? Does the detection of white light depend on the observer, or is it independent of the observer?"

Sam: "These are good questions to ponder."

#  Chapter 14. Journalism.

The challenge rejected.

One: "Greetings Two!"

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "So good of you to come on such short notice."

Two: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

One: "We have a challenge."

Two: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

One: "It is a social challenge."

Two: "We do not accept the social challenges."

One: "Agreed."

Two: "What was the challenge?"

One: "The challenge was to solve the problem of failing journalism, such as taking sides, and in general the increasingly common lack of objectivity."

Two: "We do not accept the social challenges."

One: "Agreed!"

#  Chapter 15. Physics.

The challenge, and the battle is joined

_on the side of knowledge versus the unknown_.

The challenge.

Characters:

One - one half of a conversation, aka 1.

Two - one half of a conversation, aka 2.

Two whistled while walking alone on a path through the woods. Tall trees overhang the path softening the light, but a few spears of sunlight pierce the canopy and light the way. An avian orchestra is rehearsing. The air is moist, evidence of a recent light rain. Two's pace is constant but not a rush. The path winds up a small rise which opens up to a clearing. At the top of a small hill in the clearing is a Greco-Roman white marble parthenesque structure. One is standing in the center of it, adorned in white robe and sandals, and is wearing a green laurel wreath. Two approaches.

One: "Greetings Two."

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "So good of you to come so quickly."

Two: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

One: "We have a challenge."

Two: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

One: "It is indeed a worthy challenge. It is a grand challenge."

Two: "What is the challenge?"

One: "The challenge is to solve physics and cosmology. In other words, our challenge is to find a theory of everything."

Two: "I'm not sure I understand the challenge."

One: "There is a problem with current theories of physics and the universe. The models have equations to predict the existence and strength and other properties of certain things such as gravity, magnetism, charge, mass and so on."

Two: "Okay, so what's wrong with that?"

One: "There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not complete. What is missing is an explanation of what mass, gravity, magnetism, charge, and so on are."

Two: "Ah, I see. Well that's understandable because science is more concerned with both the (1) empirical, measurable data and repeatable experiments and the (2) theorems and testable hypothesis than the qualitative descriptions of what things are."

One: "Yes. But while that's practical and useful, it neglects the importance of the question of what things are. That is our challenge. We are to find out what gravity, magnetism, charge, mass, space and other things are."

Two: "Exactly what is our challenge?"

One: "Our challenge is to solve the following:

  1. What is gravity?

  2. What is magnetism?

  3. What is electric field?

  4. What is charge?

  5. What is mass?

  6. What is inertia?

  7. What is solidity?

  8. What is space?

  9. What is energy?

  10. What is nothing?

  11. What is dimension?

  12. What is time?

  13. Are all or any of these part of the same thing?"

Two: "Sometimes the challenge is to understand the question, even though the question seems simple enough. If we aren't careful we might not understand the question."

One: "We'll be careful. What we seek is to understand what is really going on in our universe. We do not merely seek any answer, nor do we seek any system that models the universe. We seek to understand nothing less than how the universe works. That is our challenge."

Two: "This is a good challenge. It is a technical challenge."

One: "Some would call it a philosophical challenge. Some say the "What is" question has meaning only in philosophy."

Two: "Would some say the following questions are also philosophical?

  * What is a stellar gas cloud?

  * What is a star cluster?

  * What is a supernova?

  * What is a star?

  * What is a planet?

  * What is an asteroid?

  * What is a galaxy?

  * What is a cell?

  * What is a mammal?

  * What is a reptile?

  * What is evolution?

  * What is thought?

  * What is mathematics?

  * What is a hypothesis?

  * What is a theory?

  * What is abstraction?

  * What is an atom?"

One: "I think some would say 'what is the meaning of life' is a philosophical question."

Two: "But we won't go there. We won't walk through that philosophical doorway. Instead, we will concern ourselves with our challenge."

One: "Yes."

Two: "I have a question. What makes us think we can solve this challenge?"

One: "Any unsolved mystery in science is fair game, but we have to remain within the bounds of science. Our system must be rigorous and not be self-contradictory."

Two: "True. But the question I meant was what makes us think that we can solve this. The emphasis is on us, not the challenge."

One: "We can solve this because we have a natural curiosity for science, we prefer formal solutions with assumptions declared up-front, we don't invoke deities nor the supernatural to be part of the solution, and we like the difficult challenges."

Two: "Many have tried to solve this and failed."

One: "Yes."

Two: "Many have had only partial success."

One: "Yes."

Two: "Many don't understand the question."

One: "Yes. We ask the questions that others don't understand."

Two: "Are there any constraints to our thinking?"

One: "There are no constraints to our thinking."

Two: "If we are to solve this, we must have complete freedom of thought."

One: "We have complete freedom."

Two: "We must be free to start from a clean slate if we want."

One: "We have complete freedom."

Two: "We must be free to start from no slate."

One: "We can start from not even nothing."

Two: "We must be free to break away from current thinking."

One: "We have complete freedom to break away."

Two: "We must be free to be original."

One: "We are free to be original."

Two: "We must be free to consider any idea no matter how far out or unpopular it may seem."

One: "We are free to be unpopular."

Two: "We must be free to put all ideas on the table, even atomic theory."

One: "We are free to think outside the atomic box."

Two: "We will be the determinant of what ideas we may consider."

One: "We are the determinant."

Two: "We must be free to be able to consider ideas outside the mainstream and perhaps which science has already given up on."

One: "We have the freedom."

Two: "We will choose whether to accept or reject whichever current theories and axioms as we see fit."

One: "We make the choices."

Two: "We will choose our own path."

One: "We choose our path."

Two: "We will decide when it's time to leave all the paths and pave our own way."

One: "We make our own path."

Two: "We may need to get off the path, or find a shorter path."

One: "We may get off the path."

Two: "We must be free to bridge our path to islands of knowledge."

One: "We are free to build our own bridges."

Two: "We will decide for ourselves what is science and what is philosophy."

One: "We decide."

Two: "We must be free to break through the barrier of philosophy and dare to ask the What-is questions."

One: "We are free."

Two: "We must be free to understand that the what-is question is fundamental to understanding the universe."

One: "We understand what-is."

Two: "Only if we are free to follow our curiosity anywhere will we accept this challenge."

One: "We may follow our curiosity anywhere."

Two: "Then we accept this challenge."

One: "Agreed."

Modeling rules.

These modeling rules are well known to scientists. Because the audience for this book includes non-scientists, it is worthwhile to include these rules for them.

Modeling Rule 1:

Initial state is no thing, not even dimension, and zero assumptions.

[Initial Nothing, not even a blank slate (which would be a blank thing)]

Modeling Rule 2:

All entities including dimensionality must be formally declared before used.

[No Undeclared Assumptions.]

Modeling Rule 3:

Assumptions may be used, as long as they are declared.

[Assumptions.]

Modeling Rule 4:

The fewer assumptions the better, but no less than necessary, and there is no limit.

[Minimize assumptions.]

Modeling Rule 5:

Definitions are substitutions of a smaller word or words in place of a larger collection of words, making sentences briefer.

[Definitions.]

Definition 1- Axiom is an assumption.

Modeling Rule 6:

A hypothesis is a statement which can be either proven or dis-proven. A hypothesis may be used when formally declared.

[Hypothesis.]

Modeling Rule 7:

A conjecture is an unproven opinion which has an expectation of provability, but no proof is given. Conjectures may be used when formally declared.

[Conjectures.]

Modeling Rule 8:

Opinions may be expressed when formally declared, but have no rigorous value. The net rigorous value of a scientific model with opinions is identical to that model without opinions. However, opinions can be useful for communication and to increase understanding.

[Opinions.]

The hypothesis of natural continuous dimension object.

Abstract: This paper presents a theoretical solution to what natural dimension is made of. Starting from nothing, axioms are used to build the universe starting with dimension as a natural object, not merely a variable in an equation. The base, continuous natural dimensional object is the foundation from which all the visible universe can be derived. Particles are explored as a phase of the dimension. Additional work on oscillations in the dimension itself is provided to explain the electromagnetic wave, gravity, and other phenomenon. This paper has no mathematical equations. and no prerequisites are needed to understand it.

Definition 2: "Natural" dimension is the dimension that is our reality, as opposed to artificial and/or abstract dimensions such as the Cartesian plane for the relation of arbitrary variables.

Definition 3: Continuous - A region which is made entirely of one thing, not a collection of many discrete atomized things. The continuity is infinitely small, therefore not constrained by the principle of atomicity.

Axiom 1: Natural dimension exists as a continuous object.

[Existence.]

Definition 4: dium (dee - um) is a short name for continuous natural dimension of any cardinality. This short word of four letters and two syllables replaces three words and ten syllables. There is no other intended or unintended use of this word beyond dimensionality. This word is suitable as the suffix of other words below which define specific cardinalities. Aside from the convenience of spelling, pronunciation and suffixes, this word is unnecessary. The three longer words can be used in its place. The author believes the words manifold, membrane, and fabric have too many assumptions built into them for use here. The author thinks it is appropriate to go back to the word dimension. There is no connection of the word dium to the Latin language. The author does not know of any word pronounced the same as dium except for a city in Greece, no connection to this word.

For example, our universe of spatial dimensions is made of dium.

For example, the abstract x-y plane in mathematics is dimension, not dium.

Pronunciation rules are that pronunciation is in parenthesis (), capital vowel is long.

Definition 5: zedium is a 0-dimensional continuous point dium. (zed-E-um)

Definition 6: unidium is a 1-dimensional continuous linear dium. (U-nid-E-um)

Definition 7: bidium is a 2-dimensional continuous surface dium. (bid-E-um)

Definition 8: tridium is a 3-dimensional continuous volumetric dium. (trid-E-um)

Definition 9: quadium is a 4-dimensional continuous 4-D dium. (kwod-E-um)

Definition 10: chronodium is the solid form of time dimension of any cardinality, aka history. (krO-nO-dE-um)

Definition 11: chronolium is the dynamic form of time dimension of any cardinality, aka future. (krO-nO-lE-um)

Drawing 10: dium representations, finite samples.

Definition 12: dium density - This is the amount of continuous natural dimension per region, not particles per region.

Definition 13: Universe is the union of all natural dimension.

[Union of all dimension]

Axiom 2: Natural dimension can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed.

[Conservation of natural dimension.]

Axiom 3: Natural dimension is fundamental energy by existence, not by relation.

[Dimension energy.]

Axiom 4: Natural dimension is capable of phase property, and 3 phases: continuous, particulate and constant.

[Phases of natural dimension.]

Definition 14 - visco-elasticity of dium - A property of any continuous natural dimension where a subset of the dimensions region can deform in an elastic, flowing, and twist without necessarily causing the coordinate system within the dimension to also deform. The resistance to deformation is not caused by particle collisions as in matter fluids because dium is a continuous object.

Sub Axiom 4.1. Continuous phase dium has three properties:

4.1.1. Elastic property gives rise to gravity.

4.1.2. Flowing loop property gives rise to magnetism.

4.1.3. Twist property gives rise to charge.

Sub Axiom 4.2. Particulate phase is a particle.

Sub Axiom 4.3. Constant phase is static dium, aka history.

Axiom 5: Natural dimension in the elastic phase supports rotor and dimple waves:

Definition 15: A rotor wave is a local twisting (torsion) oscillation of continuous natural dimension which then rebounds back in the opposite direction, then back, repeating endlessly without dissipation. A rotor wave can travel in a direction perpendicular to its axis of rotation. It is the dimension itself which is twisting.

Definition 16: An electromagnetic wave is a rotor wave.

Definition 17: A static rotor wave is a rotor wave which stops oscillating at a moment in the oscillation cycle. The region of space is left with a twist. This twist is called charge.

Definition 18: A dimple wave is an oscillating rebounding inward/outward compression of dium to higher/lower than surrounding density which then rebounds back, repeating endlessly without dissipation.

Definition 19: A static dimple wave is a dimple wave which stops oscillating at some moment in the oscillation cycle. If the oscillation stops at maximum compression then dium density is higher at the center and at a lesser density surrounding. The delta in density is called a warp in space-time, aka gravity.

Sub Axiom 5.1: All waves in continuous natural dimension are propagated solely as a property of the continuous dimension, not as particle collisions. (Stated another way, dium waves are unlike atmospheric sound waves, unlike liquid water waves, and unlike solid material waves, all these three sharing the property of particles transferring kinetic energy from one to another or many.)

[Natural analog wave.]

Theorem 1: Natural dimension continues to exist when observers stop measuring it.

[Certainty principle]

Proof: (Indirect method) If natural dimension ceased to exist, that would violate the conservation of natural dimension axiom.

Definition 20: Predictive model - a model which can predict things, but not necessarily identify what things are. For example; an equation can describe an electromagnetic wave, but the equation is not the wave; the equation of symbolic characters does not itself propagate through space. The thing modeled by the equation is what propagates through space, even if we do not know what that thing is. Examples of predictive models are Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics.

Opinion 1: The above axioms, definitions and theorems are intended to describe our known universe, as opposed to only being a predictive theoretical model. However, until the connection is formally stated it remains ambiguous.

Hypothesis: Our 3-dimensional spatial universe is composed of dium conforming to the axioms above. The time dimension is intentionally excluded from this as a work in progress.

Opinion 2: Modeling dium can be done in infinite ways, some more precise than others. For example, it could be modeled as discrete quantized regions. Any quantized model of Dium will eventually lose precision and produce strange results as one passes beyond the smallest quantum size in the small. This is conceptually the same as trying to model fractions with whole numbers: it works okay until a number smaller than a whole number occurs, at which time the fractional part is unobserved but is still there because of conservation. The fractional part can reappear later seemingly from out of nowhere if another fraction can add it up to a whole. Observers in this discrete model may be perplexed by this.

Opinion 3: A simple way to grasp the concept of dium is by way of an analogy of dium to bouncy gelatin. The bouncy nature of gelatin is similar to dium. The analogy breaks down several ways: bouncy gelatin doesn't flow, is made of atoms, and things made of atoms are not continuous dimensions. However, the concept of a rotor wave twisting back and forth is easily demonstrated in bouncy gelatin. But where gelatin has friction to stop the oscillation, dium has no friction and the oscillation does not stop. See illustration below.

Illustration 6: Gelatin cubes are an imperfect analogy to dium.

Opinion 4: The following theories/hypothesis are failed attempts to described the natural continuous dimension: ether, aether, dark energy, dark matter, phantom energy, vacuum energy, and quintessence. The axioms of the dium hypothesis model the universe best, in my opinion.

Interpreting reality with the natural continuous dimension.

Two: "One, given that we have a solution to this challenge, how do we know it is the correct solution that is our universe?"

One: "We can use this natural continuous dimension model to predict things, and/or to solve previously unsolved problems. At a minimum the model has to answer to current observations and tests in physics or else it is rejected. If it is not rejected, then, if it is the right model of reality it will naturally answer all of the current unknowns and mysteries in physics and cosmology."

Two: "Are there any unknowns or mysteries that current theories of the universe cannot solve?"

One: "Yes. Some systems that model the universe have recently determined that roughly 95% of the universe is unaccounted for, or is missing. This unaccounted portion of the universe has energy."

Two: "So what is the problem?"

One: "Nobody has solved the mystery of what this missing energy is?"

Two: "How about the dium hypothesis? Can it provide a solution?"

One: "The dium model provides an easy solution. In the dium model, according to axiom 3, natural dimension is energy itself. And furthermore, according to the axiom, dium is energy merely by the existence of dium, not by a formula. In other words, in the dium model, there is only dium; there is not dium and additionally energy. In the dium model they are equivalent. Therefore, as long as there is natural dimension, even if it is devoid of molecules, atoms, subatomic particles and their force, the empty natural dimension is dium and therefore is and has energy. Empty space is full of energy, yet is invisible. Some people call this vacuum energy because of a suspicion it exists, but until dium was not modeled well."

Two: "In current non-dium physics, this question is very difficult. But in the dium model it is easier."

One: "Yes, Two, in the dium model you will see that what is difficult in the other physics models is easier in the dium model."

Two: "What else can we solve?"

One: "The electromagnetic wave, aka photon, was once thought to be a particle, and once thought to be a wave. Strong evidence was found for both, so it was declared to have a particle-wave duality. This was not ideal, but a retrenchment fall-back position to accept the measurement data."

Two: "Can the dium model help here?"

One: "Yes. In the dium model the electromagnetic wave is a rotor wave, which is a kind of torsion wave with the medium being dium. It is an oscillation in the dimension. When we say it is an oscillation in the dimension, we mean dium itself is the medium which is oscillating. Since an oscillation has a period and frequency, that accounts for the wave property that is observed."

Two: "What else can we solve?"

One: "We can predict things that have never been observed."

Two: "Such as?"

One: "The particulate phase of dium is defined as a local higher density of dium. When a matter and antimatter particle intersect, they annihilate in a phase-change and release their compressed dium. The change of density during the release becomes a temporary gravitational moment as it is reabsorbed into the surrounding dium. This re-absorption is detached from particles. Once the released dium is absorbed the gravitational moment is gone. This is a testable hypothesis which can be used to disprove dium. By the way, this is the principle of the design of the gravitational attraction engine."

Two: "Don't you mean propulsion?"

One: "No, the gravitational attraction engine does not function by the traditional mass-driver approach of ejecting mass (exhaust) from a rocket engine backward to propel the ship forward. Instead, the gravitational attraction engine creates temporary excess gravity at the front to pull a ship forward as the mass of matter and antimatter fuel is slowly used up in phase change, aka annihilation."

Two: "When do we start building this engine to test if this hypothesis is true?"

One: "Building the engine is hard, but getting a fuel for it is very hard."

Two: "Did you say very hard?"

One: "Yes."

Two: "Can the dium model help here? I thought we said the things that are very hard in the old physics become easy in the dium model."

One: "Hmmm. Yes, we did say that. According to us, this should be easy. Hmmm. See how our minds work. We claim that by changing certain rules, things that are very hard should actually be easy."

Two: "Maybe there is a good technique there. It probably sets up something in the mind that causes complex things to become simpler."

One: "Perhaps."

Two: "Do we have anything else to say on this topic?"

One: "Yes. As we have seen in the dium hypothesis, by two separate applications of a wave or oscillation or vibration, we have made significant progress. This can be generalized to say the following: those in physics who are interested in vibrations in the dimensions should be aware the dium hypothesis creates a rich environment for vibrations, and yet remains confined to three spatial dimensions."

Two: "Is this some kind of hint?"

One: "Perhaps."

Two: "Do we have anything else to add?"

One: "Lastly, for now, time was left out of the dium hypothesis."

Two: "Why?"

One: "Time is different than the other spatial dimensions. Time seems to be best modeled as a pair of objects. One is the region, which is much like the spatial dimensions. The other is the dynamic now, which seems to be lacking from the usual natural dimension."

Two: "Well, when will that be revealed?"

One: "Time continues to be a work in progress. We have two competing models of time, one with results that would seem to rule it out. That leaves the other. However, as always, we take great caution when we attempt to rule anything out. So we proceed conservatively and don't rule anything out just yet."

Follow-up.

Two approaches One.

One: "Greetings Two."

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "How did we do? Is the challenge solved?"

Two: "We have found a solution. It is not the only solution. There may be other solutions. However, we think our solution is closer to the reality than any other solution."

Two is in fact a plural being, so it is acceptable for either character to reference itself with the word 'we'.

One: "Our challenge was to solve the following:

  1. What is gravity?

  2. What is magnetism?

  3. What is electric field?

  4. What is charge?

  5. What is mass?

  6. What is inertia?

  7. What is solidity?

  8. What is space?

  9. What is energy?

  10. What is nothing?

  11. What is dimension?

  12. What is time?

  13. Are all or any of these part of the same thing?"

Two: "If we aren't careful, we might not understand the question."

One: "Before I ask for the answer to each question, would you summarize the solution?"

Two: "Yes. The enabling assumption for all these questions is the dium hypothesis: we assume the existence of continuous natural dimension as an object. It is not bound by materiality laws. The dium is not bound by atomic theory. On the other hand, dium gives rise to atomic theory. Dium is at the next level more fundamental than atomicity. This assumption lays the foundation for the remainder. This assumption makes the rest easier."

One: "What is gravity?"

Two: "Our solution is that gravity is the differential in the continuum-density and that regions of gravity are attracted to each other. The regions bring along their particles with a spatial acceleration that has no inertial effects. Stated differently, acceleration due to gravity does not feel like acceleration. Some particles borrow continuous natural dimension from the surrounding volume which creates a regional deficit as the dimension is stretched thinner. Thinning is additive."

One: "What is magnetism?"

Two: "Our solution is that magnetism is the toroidal looping flow of continuous natural dimension. Magnetic field lines trace the flow. One end of a magnet has diverging continuous natural dimension, the other end has converging natural dimension. Both ends are labeled North and South."

One: "What is an electric field?"

Two: "Our solution is a little vague. A changing magnetic field produces an electric field. A constant magnetic field does not create an electric field. Therefore, an electric field is the definition of a changing magnetic field since the electric field is only (sufficient) and always (necessary) found with a changing magnetic field. This is admittedly a little weak."

One: "What is charge?"

Two: "Our solution is that charge is a semi-permanent twisted spiral of continuous natural dimension."

One: "What is mass?"

Two: "Our solution is that mass is the differential in the density of continuous natural dimension. Instead of mass causing gravity, mass is simplified as the definition of the differential of density of continuous natural dimension. Any differential of dium density is called mass and gravity."

One: "What is inertia?"

Two: "Our solution is that inertia is the equilibrium of a particle having mass (a particle centered in its gravity well). When a particle is kinetically moved out of its equilibrium state the gravity well adjusts to regain equilibrium. The adjusting gravity well is defined as inertia."

One: "What is solidity?"

Two: "In comparison to continuous natural dimension, solidity is a place of constant spatial barrier that can't be traversed through. Two solid particles can't occupy the same exact coordinates. Solidified temporal history can't be traversed. Continuous natural dimension is not solid."

One: "What is space?"

Two: "Our solution is the enabling assumption that is the foundation for the rest of our solutions. Space is assumed to be a Continuous Natural Dimensional object with the properties of continuity, stretchable, flow-able, twist-able, compressible, and a solid phase. It is a single continuous object instead of being an atomized, aggregated collection. The continuum can be stretched infinitely without breaking. Stretching doesn't stretch the coordinate systems of particles in the continuum. The continuum itself is defined as raw energy. Empty space is continuous natural dimension and therefore is full of energy as dium."

One: "What is energy?"

Two: "Our solution is that raw energy is continuous natural dimension itself. We do not say that continuous natural dimension merely has an energy equivalence through some formula. Rather we assume that the continuous natural dimension itself is by definition raw energy. The two are the same, there can be no decoupling. Any decoupling of the two is an illusion."

One: "What is nothing?"

Two: "If natural dimension itself is something, and we assume it is, then nothing is the lack of any dimension. Note that the lack of dimensions is not 0-Dimension: 0-Dimensions define point universes. Lack of dimensions is the absence of dimensions for any and all cardinalities N>=0."

One: "What is dimension?"

Two: "See 8, What is space, above."

One: "What is time?

Two: "We have left this partly unanswered. It is work in progress. Two incompatible models are in the works."

One: "Are all or any of these part of the same thing?"

Two: "Our solution is that gravity, magnetism, electric field, charge, mass, inertia, solidity, space, nothing, dimension, and maybe time are all simply part of the continuous natural dimension object we labeled dium, and thus are closely related in this simplified way. A certain kind of unification is achieved."

One: "Good, Two. We have accomplished our task to solve the challenge."

Two: "Yes. This was no trivial task."

One: "This was a worthy challenge. It was a technical challenge. We like the hard challenges."

Two: "Yes. The harder the challenge, the greater the satisfaction when we solve it."

One: "Agreed!"

Further dialogue.

Two: "One, how hard is it to test the dium hypothesis?"

One: "It can be tricky. For example, as with any axiomatic system, you must stay within the bounds of the axioms. Therefore, one cannot start with another set of axioms and then add the dium axioms and then expect all to be consistent. Mixing axiomatic systems could cause contradictions. If mixing is done, any errors may be due to the mixing."

Two: "Are the dium hypothesis axioms incompatible with other models?"

One: "There are many models. The dium hypothesis may be compatible with some models to some extent, and less compatible with other models to some extent."

#  Chapter 16. The most difficult question on planet Earth.

The challenge.

One: "Greetings Two."

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "So good of you to come so quickly."

Two: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

One: "We have a challenge."

Two: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

One: "It is a worthy challenge indeed. We consider this to be the most intractable question on the planet Earth."

Two: "That is great! We like these challenges. The more difficult the challenge, the greater the satisfaction when we solve it. What is the most intractable question on the planet Earth?"

One: "That question is this: What is continuous natural dimension made of?"

Two: "Is that our challenge, to solve this question?"

One: "Yes. Be aware that this question has two parts. The first challenge is to understand the question. The second challenge is to solve it after understanding it. They must be solved in order."

Two: "If one does not understand the question, how can one solve it? It would almost seem strange to claim to solve a problem, but not understand the problem."

One: "No, it is possible to solve something without understanding it. But we claim it is necessary to understand this question before solving it."

Two: "If this hardest question has two parts, which is the harder part?"

One: "The hardest part of this two-fold question is to understand the question. Once the question is understood, the solution is simpler."

Two: "So the hard challenge is for us to understand the question, and then solve it."

One: "Yes, the main difficulty is in understanding the question."

Two: "This is a technical challenge."

One: "Yes."

Two: "I dare say it also encroaches on philosophical space."

One: "Yes. But at the core this challenge is technical. This question is not directed solely at philosophers."

Two: "What constraints do we have on our thinking?"

One: "None."

Two: "Are we able to think freely?"

One: "We are able to think freely."

Two: "Then we accept this challenge. We accept the challenge to the hardest question on the planet Earth."

One: "Agreed."

Understanding the question.

One: "Two, have you considered the question of what is continuous natural dimension made of?"

Two: "Yes."

One: "Do you understand the question?"

Two: "Yes, we understand the question."

One: "Good, then please summarize the understanding of the question."

Two: "I think it may be easier to understand some of the common ways this question is misunderstood."

One: "Okay. Proceed."

Two: "There are several ways to misunderstand this question."

One: "Continue."

Two: "One way of misunderstanding is if one believes the what-is question is irrelevant or meaningless. In that case the question may seem irrelevant or meaningless."

One: "Continue."

Two: "Another way to misunderstand this question is to be locked in the atomic/particle box. If one cannot conceive of the possibility of continuous and non-atomized/non-quantized object, then this question may seem meaningless. If one believes from atomic/particle theory that everything, therefore including natural dimension, is made up of smaller pieces, then there may be difficulty in understanding continuity."

One: "Continue."

Two: "Another way to misunderstand this question is Math. If one thinks the physical natural dimensions are merely variables in equations, and that those variables have no association to a real, natural dimensional object, then the question may seem meaningless."

One: "Continue."

Two: "Another way to misunderstand this question is with abstract dimensions in math. Examples include the X-Y plane and X-Y-Z volumes in math books, and in general any N-Dimensional regions in math books. Those are abstract artificial dimensions useful for equations and math. But the X-Y plane is not necessarily a real-world object. It is an artificial space to relate two variables. Ditto for the volume and 3 variables. Abstract dimensions appear and disappear with the variables in an equation, but natural dimension continue to exist."

One: "Continue."

Two: "Those are the ways that I can think of for how this question is misunderstood. There could be more ways."

One: "Now, please describe the understanding of the question."

Two: "Okay. Things governed by atomic/particle theory all have the property that they are composed of smaller things. But the dium hypothesis places a lower limit on atomic/particle theory: the dium hypothesis defines a final small limit which is natural, continuous and regionally distributed with the name "N-dimensional". Dium has properties, such as phases. Continuous dium can condense to particulate phase. Particulation is constrained by atomic/particle theory. Atomic/particle theory is no longer the fundamental smallest scale model. See the illustration for the dium order of reality."

Drawing 11: The dium order of reality, natural continuous dimension is the base.

One: "I have a question. Isn't this continuous natural dimension the same as any of the following: ether, aether, the fifth element, luminiferous ether, quintessence, fabric, membrane, phantom energy or vacuum energy?"

Two: "The natural continuous dimension is different. In the dium hypothesis there is no need for ether: the natural continuous dimension is sufficient as the medium and the energy. Nothing else is needed to fill the void nor to contain the energy. This will be the model we continue to work on."

One: "Agreed!"

#  Chapter 17. Application of the hypothesis of natural continuous dimension.

The challenge.

One: "Greetings Two."

Two: "Greetings One."

One: "So good of you to come so quickly."

Two: "I came as soon as I was summoned. Why was I summoned?"

One: "We have a challenge."

Two: "Is it a worthy challenge?"

One: "It is a worthy challenge. It is a technical and partly theoretical challenge."

Two: "Good. We like the technical challenges, and we like theoretical challenges. What is it?"

One: "Our challenge is to design a gravity attraction engine and also figure out where a gravity engine should be placed in a spaceship."

Two: "Don't you think we should design it first, then verify it works, and then and only then figure out where to place it in a ship?"

One: "No. The hypothetical 'if' allows us to do things out of order. If we accept this challenge, we do so knowing we work under the hypothetical construct that we neither need proof of the existence of such a gravity engine nor that it is even possible to build one. We are allowed to make an assumption and then proceed under that assumption, provided we realize that placement of the engine is predicated on the assumption. Subsequently, outside of the hypothetical construct, we drop the assumption and are back to reality."

Two: "Is that allowed?"

One: "As you know, it is allowed in science and rational thought to make an assumption and then explore the cause and effect of that assumption as if it were true. If under this assumption we find the results of the analysis are contradictory, we may conclude the assumption was bad and we drop the assumption. On the other hand, if with this assumption we find consistency prevails at a minimum, and if we find that previous unknowns can be solved given this assumption, but otherwise not, then we may gain confidence in this assumption. However, anything derived from that assumption is dependent on that assumption, unless it can be shown to be independent of that assumption."

Two: "We are in agreement."

One: "So, do we accept this challenge?"

Two: "Are we allowed to think freely?"

One: "We may think freely."

Two: "Are there any constraints to our thinking?"

One: "There are no constraints."

Two: "None at all?"

One: "Well, perhaps just the constraint of life. These corporeal biological shells have a finite lifespan."

Two: "Perhaps there is a challenge there, to solve the challenge of immortality."

One: "Indeed there is. But that is not this challenge. We will keep the focus on our challenge."

Two: "Then we accept the challenge of the hypothetical gravity attraction engine."

One: "Agreed."

Design of the gravity engine, version 2.

Starting with the dium hypothesis, it is now easier to understand how to design a gravity drive engine. This kind of engine generates gravity by the annihilation of matter with anti-matter. This is merely a phase change of dium: particle phase into the continuous phase, with gravity as a temporary by-product which is short-lived and quickly disperses. _This temporary gravity is detached from particles, otherwise it would be like normal gravity associated with particles and the ship would not move_. There are also other energetic by-products: capture those and use for electricity and other things, but these by-products aren't used for gravity attraction.

Drawing 12: dium released diffuses into surrounding.

Placement of the gravity engine in a ship.

Given the design of the gravity engine, the next step to realize space travel with gravitic attraction is to design the placement of the gravity engine in the spaceship. Gravity attraction works differently from rocket propulsion. Gravity attracts a ship forward whereas a rocket engine pushes matter backward. Another difference is that the release of dium travels through matter with only a gravitic effect. This allows the gravity engine to be placed inside a ship. No external engines or exhaust are necessary, the ship may be sealed.

The simplest ship design to start with to get an understanding of how placement of the engine affects ship movement is with a cylindrical tube ship. This is merely for example to grasp the concepts. For now consider the cylinder ends capped. Also assume this ship is effectively homogeneous in mass distribution such that any length of ship has the same mass as any other length of ship (this will help for understanding, later we will see this is not strictly necessary). Three locations of the engine will be considered:

  * the engine at the mass-wise center inside the ship.

  * the engine at the front inside the ship.

  * the engine at the outside front of the ship.

In all cases the engine is at the central axis of the cylindrical tube inside the ship. Cutaway views are provided here to simplify. The dark color of the engine represents it in operation, annihilating matter with anti-matter in a dium phase change.

When the engine is in operation releasing dium in the center of the ship mass-wise as in next drawing, the pull of gravity is symmetric front and back lengthwise, thus canceling the pull of gravity. In this design the ship doesn't move.

Drawing 13: dium released creates gravity. Ship symmetry cancels pull.

When the engine is at one end of the ship as in the next drawing, then a bias is introduced. Let us consider how the bias operates. First, we learned from the prior design that as much mass front-ward from the engine cancels the same mass toward the rear of the ship. To simplify, divide the ship into 10 evenly- massed parts and place the engine at the first part at the front of the ship. Because of symmetry the mass of the ship which is 1/10th in front of the ship cancels 1/10th mass immediately behind the engine. The remaining 80% of the ship is pulled forward toward the diffusing dium which is detached from the ship. The arrows are not drawn to scale of gravitic pull, they merely show direction of pull.

Drawing 14: dium-released-gravity pulls more of ship to right.

Placing the engine out in front of the ship as in the next drawing pulls the entire ship forward. However, that leaves the engine unprotected from space meteors and junk, so that location could lead to destruction of the engine. Nevertheless, that design is shown below. It achieves the maximum of attraction of the entire ship being pulled forward while minimizing mass-canceling due to symmetry.

Drawing 15: dium-released-gravity pulls entire ship to right.

Follow-up.

Two: "One, I have a question. Since we have no engine to demonstrate, what happens if some day the engine is built and works as described? Does that prove the hypothesis of dium?"

One: "No. It only provides supporting evidence of the hypothesis. It is not uncommon for a hypothesis to be useful to make predictions, but the hypothesis can be incomplete and another hypothesis may be at work."

Two: "What happens if the engine is built some day and it doesn't work? Does that disprove the hypothesis of dium?"

One: "No. It could have been built wrong or placed incorrectly. If the first jet engine built blew up, would that disprove that jet engines work?"

Two: "I have another question. One of the cons of rocket propulsion is that human being astronauts experience uncomfortable acceleration proportional to how fast the ship accelerates. How does this compare to the gravity attraction engine?"

One: "The problem of acceleration on the human body is eliminated in the gravity attraction engine design. Gravity attraction pulls all the matter in the ship to it, not just the ship. So the ship's occupants are pulled forward equally as the ship, regardless of the rate of acceleration."

Two: "How convenient. This should be a huge win for space travel to other solar systems."

One: "Indeed."

Two: "Hmmm. I have another question. Why is this called version 2?"

One: "As you know, this is the second version of the gravity attraction engine. The first version had a problem in its design."

Two: "What was the problem?"

One: "It directed the gravity to the front of the ship, but the directing 'material' was, after considerable analysis, determined to be intractably hard to make, or mine."

Two: "What was this material made of?"

One: "It's not so much what as when."

Two: "What?"

One: "No, when. The words do not even exist to conceptualize this. The only material that could direct the gravity the way we needed was chronodium: solid crystalline time. Also known as history. We consider ourselves capable of solving many difficult challenges, but even we have not solved this yet. That does not mean it cannot be solved, just that we did not solve it. Sometimes it is useful to step back from a problem for a time, no pun intended."

Design of the gravity engine, version 1.

Drawing 16: Version 1 of gravity engine released the dium forward. Containment wall made of chronodium (time).

Two: "One, even though we may not solve that challenge, perhaps others can take up the challenge. We are not perfect, after all. We don't mind creating opportunities for others to excel."

One: "Indeed. We can release the gravity engine version 1 as a design that is exceptionally more difficult to build than version 2. The challenge remains to acquire chronodium for the outer casing. Well, we think that is the challenge. Sometimes it is our understanding that is the limitation, not the reality."

Two: "Where can we get chronodium?"

One: "Not where: when! The question is when can we get chronodium."

Two: "Ah, good, so it's just a matter of time."

One: "Yes, it is merely a matter of time."

Two: "Maybe tomorrow?"

One: "No. In fact, we just missed our opportunity less than 1 second ago."

Two: "What? How did we come so close to chronodium?"

One: "We are always a fraction of a second away from chronodium. Every point in the universe is a fraction of a second away from chronodium. It's so close, yet seemingly impossibly hard to get a sample of history."

Two: "Maybe we're going about it the wrong way. We look back in time for history."

One: "Continue."

Two: "Since it is so hard to get historical chronodium, perhaps we can solidify chronolium into chronodium in the future and then get some as it passes by us from future to now to history."

One: "Perhaps. Do you have any suggestions on how to do that?"

Two: "No."

One: "Any more brainstorms?"

Two: "Perhaps we can make the chronodium in a factory or lab."

One: "It takes time to make time. Nothing is free. The dium is conserved."

Two: "Chronodium is so hard to solve."

One: "Yes. Any more brainstorms?"

Two: "Not now. Chronodium is really hard to acquire."

One: "Agreed!"

Two: "One more thing One, unrelated to this topic. Earlier I asked what version 2 was and you said 'As you know . . .'. Don't you think it is strange to respond to a question by starting out saying that I know the answer?"

One: "Normally that would be true for two distinct life forms having a conversation. However, since we are really two aspects of the same life form, my response is technically correct."

Two: "That must therefore make my question rhetorical."

One: "True."

Two: "If we are each aspects of the same life form sharing the same physical memory, perhaps our memory banks are some kind of shared memory."

One: "Yes. We share memory. We are like two processes in Unix with SHMMAX (shared memory max) parameters and other shared memory kernel parameters."

Two: "All the world is a kernel, and we are processes. Is that it?"

One: "Good analogy."

#  Chapter 18. Poem.

The art of java.

  * # Afterword.

The title of this book, Penzar, is similar to pensar, which is Spanish for to-think. I chose to express the "s" sound sharper, "z" was the letter I chose.
