[alancalverd]

Unlikely since "system" is a human construct.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Unlikely since "system" is a human construct.

Like the Solar System?

[alancalverd]

There are various objects orbiting the sun. We have devised equations that tell us where they will be at any given moment, but they weren't put there for any particular reason so the notion of "system" is human - it is the name we give to those bits of  nature for which we can make reasonable predictions.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There are various objects orbiting the sun. We have devised equations that tell us where they will be at any given moment, but they weren't put there for any particular reason so the notion of "system" is human - it is the name we give to those bits of  nature for which we can make reasonable predictions.

And we spend lifetimes trying to make reasonable predictions about those bits of nature that seem to defy our predictive powers.

There are also "bit of nature" that are not bits at all but, instead, references to bits. or concepts rather than things. A human system, the brain, specialises in them. In a 4dSystems App, this type of "byref" system is far more numerous than the "byval" (or original) sytem referenced. In fact, Visual Basic, and hence 4dAbstractions, works pretty much exclusively with "byref" systems.

Thus, our brains will likely contain a description of a hamburger (a class) and will generate an instance of the hamburger class when experiencing a particular hamburger. There are systems involved in this process even though they involve references rather than real things. As per the Matrix, what we experience is not "real".

In fact "real" is relative. The universe is an abstraction hierarchy of systems  and the further we go down the hierarchy, the "realer" (or more concrete, or less abstract) a system becomes. At the centre of the Universe is the top of the hierarchy. Things are very abstract here. Nothing much changes. This is the essence of a black hole. At the edge of the Universe is the bottom of the hierarchy. Things are very concrete here. Change is constant with very little uncertainty. All systems, from the Universe to the smallest particle are identically constructed systems.

We, ie, human systems, occupy a particular level in the Universe's abstraction hierarchy and, as a result, are not fully real. In any case, we are, internally, own own abstraction hierarchies. So externally we belong to the Universe abstraction hierarchy and internally we contain our own abstraction hierarchy. Which makes for a lot of fun and games where mistakes will abound, but evolution will be heavy. . (Which may also explain a lot of quantum weirdness and even relativity, as discussed previously)..

It is interesting to note that the top-level Universe System is a common super-system for all of us. Be good to remember this in our dealings with our neighbours.

Learning about abstractions and how they interact does not come easy. It was 40 years as a software developer before I was able to call myself an expert. IMHO, systems, as described in 4dAbstractions, are the key to being able to describe and manage abstractions and are also the future of physics..

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Unlikely since "system" is a human construct.

Hardly. A good definition, according to Wiki is:

"A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.[1] A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning."

[Origin]

A good definition, according to Wiki is:

"A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.[1] A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning."

In other words a human construct, we set the rules and set the boundaries.

[Origin]

And we spend lifetimes trying to make reasonable predictions about those bits of nature that seem to defy our predictive powers.

This has nothing to do with measuring the energy of a photon.  Why don't you start a new thread if you want to discuss another topic?  Better yet why don't you start your own blog.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

And we spend lifetimes trying to make reasonable predictions about those bits of nature that seem to defy our predictive powers.

This has nothing to do with measuring the energy of a photon.  Why don't you start a new thread if you want to discuss another topic?  Better yet why don't you start your own blog.

Asked and answered previously.

[alancalverd]

And we spend lifetimes trying to make reasonable predictions about those bits of nature that seem to defy our predictive powers.

Up to a point. Most scientists are happy with the concept of essential randomness and unpredictability, without which the hydrogen atom would collapse and we wouldn't exist. Which is why science is better than philosophy.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

And we spend lifetimes trying to make reasonable predictions about those bits of nature that seem to defy our predictive powers.

Up to a point. Most scientists are happy with the concept of essential randomness and unpredictability, without which the hydrogen atom would collapse and we wouldn't exist. Which is why science is better than philosophy.

Maybe the randomness is an illusion because of the abstract nature of the universe. In a abstraction hierarchy like 4dAbstractions, a system is unaware of its higher level parent. The parent controls its children via function calls. As far as the children are concerned, what happens during one of these function calls may appear to be random, but in fact is purposeful at the parent's level. Given that the universe is an abstraction hierarchy, something similar may be what is happening with the Hydrogen atom.

A simulation of a Hydrogen atom in 4dAbstractions (below) will have an outer Hydrogen system and an inner abstraction hierarchy containing a central Proton in level 1 and an Electron in level 2. The outer Hydrogen System controls the Proton via function calls and the Proton in turn controls the Electron via function calls. The Electron communicates with the Proton via Photons (a type of event) and, in turn, the Proton communicates with the Hydrogen system also with Photons. What happens to the Proton can only be explained if we know how the Hydrogen atom works and, I am guessing, we don't.

Code: [Select]

namespace Hydrogen

    System (Atom)

        Inherits Atom.System

        Star (Proton)
            Inherits Ion.System

        Subsystems (1 Electron)
End Namespace


[mxplxxx (OP)]

A 4dSystem is the base object in 4dAbstractions. Once you have one 4dSystem you can create an infinite number of 4dSubSystems. The  (top level)  4dSystem in this system could be considered to be the equivalent of "God" in religious terms.

A 4dSystem contains a single central 4dStar and an unlimited number of 4dSubSystems. This is the equivalent in physics of a solar system, a sun/star and the planetary systems.

A 4dStar inherits a 4dSystem. i.e. a 4dStar is a type of 4dSystem. It has its own central 4dStar and a set of its own 4dSubSystems. In 4dAnsstractions this often implements a 4dStateMachine especially if the parent 4dSystem involved is a reactive system.

So, if the Sun is a type of 4DStar, it will itself contain a central 4dStar which likely implements a 4dStateMachine. If the central system of the Sun is a black hole, then a black hole cannot create new systems but can change state. Which makes a lot of sense. Maybe dark matter is a state machine component.

Since State is effectively a record of something that happened in the past, it may also be that a black hole is a record of the past.

In 4dAbstractions, 4dEvents travel UP an abstraction hierarchy until they reach the top-level 4dStar system, at which point they simply vanish. The top level 4dStar system in a Sun simulation is likely to be a Black Hole in Reality, so events that reach it go no further. Events in a simulation of Reality are light particles in Reality. This may be why a black hole is black.
   
How is the future handled in 4dAbstractions? By randomly modifying the variables involved in a calculation and rerunning the calculation and evaluating the result of the rerun against the original result. Do this n times for the current calculation and use the variables that produced the best result in the future. 4dRacing, a personal gambling package does this extensively. Sounds a bit quantum in nature? . Possibly. Maybe black holes are involved in this way (somehow) in quantum calculations