I want to tell you about a dream I had many months ago. I dreamt I was locked in mortal hand to hand combat with the Devil (my subconscious pulling down the image of Julian Sands for this purpose). This combat rolled up and down the streets of my old neighbourhood and into my childhood home and onto our old sofa. We both grabbed at on of its wooden struts – this strut braking in a fibrous manner making a luscious sound – then it flashed into my mind: This is it – this is what God loves – God loves this sound – God loves the process…

In a general sense, I have seen that some organisms convert carbon dioxide to oxygen while some others convert oxygen to carbon dioxide. Nature does not favour one state over the other, but condones the process.

I have revisited some thoughts about bias. I have often thought nature as a blind roulette player playing at a biased wheel with the instructions to always bet on red (the biased colour). While the outcome seems 50:50 (red or black), if nature persists on red nature wins.

I had a particular pair of shoes once whose left element’s lace used to open three times more regularly than its right counterpart. I started to calculate the permutations of possibilities as to why this could be so – the fact that I was right handed, right footed, the evolutionary aspect of my heart’s positioning, bias in the design of the shoe, bias in the manufacture of the the shoe and so on – these permutations quickly beginning to hit exponentially vast proportions. But soon I realised that the reasons for bias paled in relation to the fact that the bias exists.

Much of my reflections have led me to conclude that a bias does exist in this universe. Moreover, I feel that it is a bias toward process. I can see how those can attribute much to intelligent design. I can also see how there are those who attribute much to absolute randomness. My own view is that it is incompleteness in a topological model that permits this movement (this is one of the core assertions of my theory). I firmly believe that stochastically modelling this nudge toward process, coupled with the stochastic mutation theory which I have developed will go a very long way to deliver an overall stochastic model that will go a very long way toward modeling Gaussian events.

This is the outline of the mutation theory (with sketch attached):

Consider any object in a Riemann Geometry. [Riemann Geometry is the mathematical “stage” for quantum mechanics.] It is a property, a mathematical truth of this object that any line section of it is Möbius in structure -¬ the Riemann object can be described as a pinched S^3 sphere and by examining it as a Clifford (Fibre) bundle of a Riemannian manifold, we can say that all sections are Mobius in character, as there exists a “choice of sign” with respect to the vectors therein. (Sorry if this seems over technical, but it is a critical nuance to the theory.)

Take the interval of inflexion and call it the Aleph Point. This is the point where symmetry breaks (down) in the overall section and the system is called on to evolve to a higher dimension. Now consider a closed space under some sort of constraint, gravitational or otherwise, and represent it as a bounded conic, in this case bounded by mirrored “tails” of instance and shadow Gaussian curves, with a time interval T operating. Note that as we travel down the conic, taking sections at points a, b, c, and d, we can deduce, as we travel “down” the conic, that the probability of an “Aleph Point” being called on increases for two reasons. First, because the section interval is shorter (|a|>|b|>|c|>|d|), so the “aleph” point is more likely to be “chosen” as the locality of an event. Second, because the time interval is operating faster as spacetime is getting denser toward the bottom of the conic. The overall conclusion is that the greater the strain/constraint on a system, the greater the probability of symmetry breaking. With respect to genetic algorithms, I propose that symmetry breaking is analogous to mutation. The challenge lies in fabricating an appropriate metric for the solution space so that a suitable variable mutation function can be applied and a more efficient algorithm developed. This is a very important demonstration as to how Mobius topologies, incompleteness and Riemann geometry combine in a sense that seems intelligent.

I have been also been giving considerable thought to the treatment of the origin and infinity in the construction of models, particularly to the interval (0, infinity) and I have come to the thinking that labeling an interval in such a manner leads to some devastating non-sequiturs. Also, the origin tends to be removed from planes making some very valuable properties and effects due to its non-existence inaccessible. It’s a fine point that demands a large degree of rigour and when I know more, I’ll let you know.