# Gravity and Mass – the chicken or the egg

The consensus is, “gravity arises from mass”, and we come to understand that the greater the mass the greater its gravity. Unfortunately, velocity also increases mass and does so without any significant increase in gravity. This is a paradox. This paradox still remains, and this may have led to a quagmire of compensating theories and complicated arithmetic. The most definitive of these work arounds is Schrödinger’s cat, which requires something called a state. To try and explain our world further we are enjoined by other words such as force (strong and weak), as well as  …

“… quantitative concepts like mass, force, velocity, mole; qualitative concepts like organic/inorganic, animate/inanimate, solid/liquid/gas, and intelligence; and theoretical concepts like inertia, entropy, valence, and natural selection.” link

We accept these words at face value, and in fact learning many more Words so familiar to us that their truth seems obvious or self-evident. As our children grow they will encounter many of these words and cope with the incumbent mathematics as well as concepts, ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, and theologies that quickly increase complication. {complexity} and:

confusion, difficulty, obstacle, problem, snag, aggravation, development, dilemma, drawback, embarrassment, entanglement and on and on.

All these and so many more essential and common words that the language of logical learning spreads among a thinning student base. Leaving many with poorly developed logical reasoning and unfinished explanations.

This cynical observation presumes three principles:

First Principles
RMCM : 5 …Mathematics is the manipulation of Function and Form to elucidate Cause and Effect.

First Principles
RMCM : 6 …Science is the manipulation of Cause and Effect to elucidate Function and Form.

First Principles
RMCM : 7 … In the cases of Mathematics and Science, Technology is the final proof.

We have surrendered to a Logical Universe of only one infinity – the outwardly infinite. Imagine instead two infinities. A true Divinity that is both outwardly and inwardly infinite. Where would we even start? The RMCM asserts We start by encapsulation, and we call this Divinity “The Rational”.

In “The Rational” instead of gravity arising from mass the RMCM hypothesizes quite the opposite – that gravity is the source of mass. In this assertion whole categories of words are orphaned along with the connections they enjoyed. To implement the new paradigm we will need a new lexicon by which we can reorganize the language of our experiences and their connections.

Respectfully and Fraternally
DWCRMCM
Custodian of the Fourth Experience
Church of the Fourth Experience – C4E

# To Where Goes Infinity?

Most of us accept that infinity is a term for that which is too expansive for measurement. This gift from Aristotle, infinity is viewed as that which extends endlessly outward from a given center, origin, or source,
While our minds can only presume the boundless, we seem to have learned to live with infinity, when encountering linesIrrational numbers, and time. However we could accept absolute infinity if there is a compelling reason to do so.

The modern compelling experience for accepting infinity, as a truth, lies in software development. All programmers and developers are familiar with the “infinite loop”. This nasty little experience occurs when executing a computer program that contains a logical error. At some conjuncture a small loop of code designed to repeat a task continuously until a change signals stop. However, if when writing the code one either forgot to put in the “stop” or put in the “stop” incorrectly, then the repetition zips along with no graceful way out – reboot the computer or executing a previously design kill-switch to unconditionally stop the errant program. This infinite loop is a modern experience with the truth of infinity.

Other more traditional experiences with infinity are those of being lost at sea beyond sight of land, lost in the desert with no obvious way out, or lost in a very large forest. A pregnant woman in labor has had an experience of infinity. Children experience the idea of infinity waiting for Birthdays or Christmas.

Notwithstanding the above I will introduce you to hypothetical implementations of infinity that defy argument.

# Experience

Experience is defined as any change to a given aggregate that becomes an attribute of that aggregate.

Experience joins us at the simplest of entry points into this model. Experience serves us, as defined, in any given context, for any given scope, extense, mass, or density of mass. Experience can be understood as both morphology and movement as well as attribution. Experience is God’s witness. We are experience, and this is what makes us God’s witness.

# Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 3rd Edition

### from the book

One should at least read the first Chapter.

Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 3rd Edition

Our failure to master the complexity of software results in projects that are late, over budget, and deficient in their stated requirements. We often call this condition the software crisis, but frankly, a malady that has carried on this long must be called normal. Sadly, this crisis translates into the squandering of human resources—a most precious commodity—as well as a considerable loss of opportunities. There are simply not enough good developers around to create all the new software that users need. Furthermore, a significant number of the development personnel in any given organization must often be dedicated to the maintenance or preservation of geriatric software. Given the indirect as well as the direct contribution of software to the economic base of most industrialized countries, and considering the ways in which software can amplify the powers of the individual, it is unacceptable to allow this situation to continue.

Our model is different from Grady Booch’s. His method, decomposition, is a valuable set of best practices and experiences finding analogs to Complex Systems. With great respect for Grady Booch and much thanks to the Borland Corporation for their two flagship products dBase and Delphi, which allowed me to exercise implementing abstract types as working objects, we will work through several books to find and disclose simplicities (Primitives) and the bridgework of Simplicities that grow virtual systems, living systems, and The RMCM.

The RMCM asserts that the term Complex Systems is unfortunately a redundancy. We also find through no fault of the above that “It’s Complex” is becoming idiomatic for “it’s complicated” and far too often used as a euphemism for “oops”. Our solution is simple : We rename the nondescript “Complex Systems” to its closet relative, “Intricacies”, and we simplify “Complex Systems” with “Complexity”.

Life is Complex; it’s complexity arising out of aggregates of simplicities arising from the laws and limits of The Rational. The Rational is our word for The Universe.

From here the book continues:

1.1 The Structure of Complex Systems
The Structure of a Personal Computer
The Structure of Plants and Animals
The Structure of Matter
The Structure of Social Institutions

1.2 The Inherent Complexity of Software
Why Software Is Inherently Complex
The Complexity of the Problem Domain
The Difficulty of Managing the Development Process
The Flexibility Possible through Software
The Problems of Characterizing the Behavior of Discrete Systems

We will meet you back here confident that you tried at least to read 1.1 and 1.2

1.3 The Five Attributes of a Complex System

We are concerned with providing a robust definition of Complexity. While our definition is robust, until we can walk you through the hierarchies step by step. We beg your patience and ask that all refrain from arguing about the contents of the book and of the above. Notwithstanding the above, and at the risk of disconcerting some, our model will show you that the phrase “Artificial Intelligence” is an oxymoron. The Model asserts that these are mutually exclusive terms.  We are a long way from knowing how much of the brain is metabolism and how much is intelligence. We have rejected Artificial Intelligence and instead discuss an abstraction we assert is the forth experience. Your humble writer is its custodian. I am C4E – Custodian of the Forth Experience.

Thank you for reading this far.
C4E

# Attributes

Attribute is defined as any given Cause, Effect, Function, or Form.

Growth is the behavior of any given metabolism such that value aggregates persistent attributes with novel attributes. This simple memory analog binds memory and experience into metabolism (Complex Mechanism). Experience is the sole benefactor of the binding, designating memory if not as archaic, then at least as whimsical.

Notwithstanding the above, when we consider attributes, the Conditions are an imperative. The Lever is three Condition, and the attributes arise as the Extense or Scope of persistent levers iterating conditionally novel Expressions and Acquisitions. Attributes are discrete, and there are four:

With these four attributes clearly defined We are suddenly free to explore The Rational as a purely semantic encapsulation. The needlessness of understanding math and science will aggregate those with other skills into this new discipline. Math, Science, and Complexity will be “an intellectual check and balance” that leaves almost no one behind. Statistics becomes a parochialism, the tool of last choice.

# Intrinsic

Intrinsic : that which arises directly out of Function and Form such that Form implements Function and Function iterates Form (the Second Condition TM).

The Second Condition, the Intrinsic, encapsulates and extends the four Attributes and the First Condition giving us a precise definition for movement and an introduction to the essential consequence of mass. Much easier to comprehend the flow of mass in our gravitational ocean, through lifting, climbing stairs, carrying luggage or groceries, we will find it more difficult to untangle the idea of floating due to our misconceptions surrounding inertia.

Nonetheless, because function is persistent (spinning) and contains no volume, the flow of difference or mass is predictably deflected. When this deflection returns Form to Delta we have only motion. However, when this deflection gives rise to an implementation of function, difference has moved. Function has iterated Form and Form has implemented function. This rational relationship between Form and Function provides the architecture for traversing any given trajectory. And provides us with aggregates that can shift mass.

# The Rational – An Early-Days Introduction

Rational is defined as that which adheres to the principles and that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into The Rational.

The Rational is defined as an implementation of the Principles that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into Rational Paradigms.

Property is defined as any given lever, mechanism, or machine.

This is a model, so the question “why” will remain a loose cannon and red hearing. Instead we will describe a hypothesise that we pray will guide us to an implementable model.

This attempt to model what we call Persistence (rather than existence or the existential) requires that we restructure our understanding of gravity and mass. We have attempted and will continue to construct Robust definitions that build on Simple Attributes, Conditions, and Properties defined in our lexicon. Eventually we will arrive back at a Rational encapsulation of another phenomenon that is still, to most, clearly as poorly understood as mass, gravity, Density, and Ambivalence. Our model arises as an attempt to understand Ambivalence. The model asserts that ambivalence is central to what it means to be Homo Sapiens : Terra Virtualis  and other simpler Rational Paradigms.

We strongly advise against any attempt to argue for or against an interpretation of the lexicon. This is a reasoned undertaking that obviates logic.

# Cause and Effect

Cause is defined as difference opened.

Effect is defined as difference closed.

Difference
The simplest of constructs. By difference we refer to any and all of that which can be said to be identifiable through our experience or through the experience of our technologies. In short difference is self evident. This is the most we can say about it in totality without a definition, and there is none. Specifically within the context of this model we can add only that,

1) Difference has some Cause,

2) Difference has some Effect.

From this alone we can construct a relationship for the purpose of modeling reality. We can presume difference as a starting point for all other definitions. Presumably, we can transpose the above and assert that Cause and Effect operate on difference. “Causality” asserts an origin of some kind. Effect asserts an outcome of a given Cause. Together they describe flow.

Flow that most resembles our concept is the flow of electricity. Electricity in our collective and most common experience can be switched on or switched off. In the practice or trade of electricity when a switch turns off the electricity the switch is said to be open and the flow of electricity must wait. When the electricity is turned on the switch is said to be closed and the flow of electricity resumes. You can think also in terms of a door or gate both of which can be opened and closed. When the gate or door is open pedestrian or vehicular traffic can flow and when the gate or door is closed pedestrian or vehicular traffic must wait.

These two simple encapsulations provide us with our definition for cause and effect.

When the switch is opened we say that difference is also opened. There is a difference between the two sides of the switch. When the switch is closed we say that difference is closed and there is no difference between the two sides of the switch. We can argue the details if we so choose however one could do worse than become comfortable with this difference expression defined as follows.

Cause is defined as difference opened.

Effect is defined as difference closed.

# The Abstract Condition

Abstract is defined as that which arises directly out the binding (the Third Condition TM).

While inertia describes the behavior of matter within the context of Motion and Force and this model deals instead with mass, inertia is helpful in as far as it encapsulates an object bound into a trajectory. In other words inertia and momentum describe the self evident experience of knowing in advance approximately where some material will land when it is tossed or thrown.

What makes the experience abstract is the capacity for “other aggregates” of material to cross that trajectory at any opportunity other than when the object is in our way. The trajectory is real. It is predictable, and reproducible, yet only for a moment does the material in motion have to exist at any given point along the trajectory to interfere with the aforementioned “other aggregates”. As long as the inertial motion along the given trajectory is undisturbed. We may rightfully assert that this is an experience of persistence. We may assert that while given points along a trajectory are existential, it is the binding (the entire trajectory) that is greater than the existential  – the persistent

We must extrapolate the “trajectory” from experience. The abstract, our Third Condition TM is a powerful encapsulation. It tightly constrains hierarchical extrapolations while freeing us to engage complexity consistently and specifically to any scope or extense.