applied XQ — what a leap!

3 11 2013

I took a massive leap the other day, in terms of math and psycho-social dynamics. I followed it with a second dive yesterday related more with the direct application of number to actuality, and a third today, where I explored SEA and its various value vectors.


the leap

I started off with the intention of being heavy on my coming death-day, to raise the stakes. Instead, I ended up applying number to language, and then developing a reflexive syntax, generating a fractal social algorithm Qunity, and creating a social contract with a viewer (or other person) that merges decision, hope, trust, power and all the good qualities that make is worthwhile to be human.

I recorded the leap, thankfully, as a textango, and have put it online, with the first 30 min of the first movement visible if one has the link. The second bit, as well as the second and third movement are private. The last movement is more of the ‘return’ from the dive, attempting to apply it to the real world, specifically to team Goose, Gunther, Sasha and Bernard, as well as genius Alex.

nervous second dive

I have shared this video now with 6 people, none of whom have replied. I don’t expect anyone to follow the line of thinking, but there is always hope.

So I conducted a second dive yesterday, with mixed results, attempting to apply the syntax to the application of number to actuality, and I got in a muddle with Bitcoin and Qubits. I have made the first part of the hour’s dive visible, and the rest is locked.

third dive and joy

I have been nervous because the territory explored is… not new exactly, but a conflation of a lot of thinking over the last decade and more. I have had very loose models of reality, minimal systems, and I was concerned that the leap I took with applying number to language and developing the syntax was into a territory that was… too large to explore.

Given time, given money flow, given relaxed conditions, I might be able to conduct this comfortably. Doing so under poor social, financial, material and temporal conditions, makes it all rather ‘pressured’, existentially. I got into this in a post I wrote yesterday on my main, more human blog.

I shall put up the initial track, and keep the other’s private. Although I conflate everything to something entirely meaningless, I feel that I have explored enough of the space to be assured that the task at hand is not impossible. It should be relatively easy to design an algorithm which combines people-money-time-resources using SEA value vectors and has touch-points with money and the current valuations of e.g. property. I do hope the guys, Gunther, Sasha, Doug and Brendan, get a sense of it, and manage to pull something practical from it.

in sum

So, I still don’t know if it has any meaning, actually. Which is why doing what I am doing… tricky, or even dangerous. Playing around with value equations, where one is uncertain of one’s value, is… a vulnerable thing to do. I hope one day you may appreciate this, whatever happens between us these days and over the coming months.
So, it’s not clear, and it’s not concrete, however, there is enough space to explore. I am not sure how useful it will be to concrete plans, but I am confident (to an extent, perhaps k=7) that we’ll be able to produce a simple enough equation for it to be useful in a first application. This may come more from your side (e.g. Sasha) than from mine, since I am approaching it from a generalised space, as usual. MTTP and SEA were penetrating results, but exploring the space around these, considering the variations, systemically, is a rather tricky task.

therapeutic math

30 04 2013

Recently, I have had the opportunity of experiencing hell. My previous offerings (2020worldpeace, eco^2) seemed abstract or detached, but they weren’t, they just weren’t down and dirty with emotional problems. Now, I might be able to provide a means which may actually prove directly useful in our daily lives. Transforming negative emotional states, as well as dealing with psycho-active agents which cause us so much internal and social turmoil.

When I first explored XQ way back in 2008 in Thailand, I wrote a section which suggested that if the premise is correct — that there is a subjective side to math — then the act of performing certain math actually performs certain processes in the mind which may be useful to us within our internal mental space. I think I am approaching a time where this exploration is now possible. Surviving hell has its benefits.


I have finished (messily) three movements of a book I am writing called GIFT, and approaching the final movement. As with all my books, there is always something dramatic at the end. I set up up the book as I write, and create a mental space at the end which is entirely empty, hoping that inspiration will provide a fitting conclusion. Not so much a logical conclusion, but an emergent one.

With GIFT, the narrative is about an older man who is living in a period of time where society is approaching a massive global transformation, of which he is part. I do not know how this is to be written, the content, the drama. I do not know what format, first person, third, whether to write more dialogue, or to simply describe. I simply do not know.

However, because of my personal relationship, the hell I have been going through, I have undergone a form of transformation, and though math has been partly responsible, it is not entirely clear. I have had some projections into the verbal field, noticing how our mental environment matches our ecological one, or how self-denial matches our social-denial. But when I start to describe them, because of their nature, they tend to multiply in word and story. Hence, the desire to capture it in concise mathematical form.

Funnily enough, I started to write an article which goes into multiplying by negative one as well as multiplying by i, the square root of negative one, but I thought this material was too much for my 2020worldwalk blogpost and transferred it here. I continued writing it, but got bogged down in detail and have not returned to it yet.

I simply wanted to write this post to indicate where I am at the moment. Midway between a social, verbal description, and an XQ mathematical description.

XQ — a rigorous path to personal and social happiness!

And if I manage it, then not only will it align to my current mental trajectory, but it will fulfil my intuition of a therapeutic maths, as well as provide people with direct testable material which will not only improve the quality of their own lives, but will naturally lead to us all improving the quality of our lives collectively, globally.


But these are just words, not fitting for this blog. What is needed is math.

tron and the learning of language

13 03 2012

I am a fan of armagetron, the game based on tron lightcycle sequence, so much so that I spent months trying to draw people’s attention to it in education. I played with Wendy and her two children yesterday, Joe 6 and Anna 10. I was reminded of the incredible teamwork the game engenders. It remains a game that can insert open source into schools and help revolutionise the system.

What makes me write the post, however, is not the teamwork, it is the simple experience I had when I was playing with Joe. When we played a few weeks ago, he demanded that the ping be increased, from 1, the game local default, to 10, then 50. He wanted it higher, but I just thought that by then he is learning very little. We were running on the idea that he needed more time to see what to do. I mean, it stands to reason. He keeps on crashing, so give him some more time.

But for some reason, this time, he said he wanted cycle_rubber 0. I looked at him as he asked for this, shocked. And we did. Best decision we ever made. For one thing, the AI is not as good at 0. Which means we, as a team, won a little more. But then something truly startling arose.

After the split, Joe often got in a position where he was ahead of an opponent, leading him down a tunnel. He could see the end of the tunnel, but if he waited till then, the opponent accelerates because they are in the tunnel and close to both walls.

So I told Joe to block him while he was ahead. I had to stop playing as I noticed what he was doing. He would go left, and because the width of the tunnel was so close, he would end up crashing into the other wall of the tunnel.

That’s why we went down the path of increasing rubber, so that he would have time to see what he was facing, and thus turn from the wall. However, this doesn’t quite make sense. Are we suggesting that this 6 year old can not see the black when when he turns against it? A six year old? He lacks reaction time? And his mother thought it was because his wiring was not established. Possible, but let’s see what actually happened.

I told him a tactic, to shimmy.

That is, to quickly turn left and right. Not complicated. But he couldn’t. I asked him to just do it on the keyboard, left right. He could manage this easily, really quickly. But again, when we returned to the game, immersed, with the actual enemy in the tunnel, he couldn’t do it. He was pressing the keys aggressively, as if by pressing harder, it would work better. I told him to do it lightly, just simple tapping, as he had done. And as he was doing this came to my mind, and excitedly to my lips:

Just like one letter and another letter, two separate letters, left and right, but together they are more than two letters, they are a word.

There is a direct relationship between his wiring together of left and right as a “move” or tactic, to combine them into a unit of actionable meaning, a meme, and what he is doing in school as he is learning language. A few weeks ago he was having difficulty reading. He was reading each letter separately, and he could not see the pattern of the whole word. It is a bit of a jump for all of us, after all. And I hunted for some learning materials which outlines the word, the shape of the whole thing, thus engaging his right hemisphere etc etc. I even got him reading the words upside down. Seemed to do the trick. He seems to be moving on nicely with reading. And now this!

Tron can be used as an experiential basis to explain how language works — to a six year old! He can directly map his left/right combo to his reading of two letter to one “meme”. Incredible.

And sure enough, he managed to defeat the opponent. Will require a little bit of practice. But once he gets the combining trick, he’ll be able to do this with more than two moves, or letters. It is a multiplier, an accelerator of learning. Joe is going to go through an amazing few weeks…

But just to return to what we did. We thought it was to do with reaction time. It was not. Another way to think about it is this: he could not see beyond his next decision. (Does this remind you of a phrase in Matrix by any chance?) That is, he could not see that after turning left, he had to turn right immediately. He tried to press the left key harder at first, to indicate he knew he really had to do something, but he still waited to see what was on the screen to make the move.

I have experienced this myself in the game, sometimes, where the mind must perform quicker than it can see. It sees the whole maze ahead, which may involve five key presses. And it must perform them sequentially without any brain signal going into as it is happening. Getting in the zone, I believe it is called. And in tron, this zone, is in the micro-seconds beneath the mind’s perceptual ability to respond.


All in an open-source computer game. Which is another reason why we need this game in schools. Imagine the utility for teachers to explain directly, experientially. Imagine schools teams playing against one another. Combine this with eco^2, and we have ourselves a global million-dollar competition within a year. In education. Funding educational enterprise. — But of course, this doesn’t make any sense to many of us, because we probably can’t see beyond the next decision, just like Joe… Social confluence has this quality, and the only way to overcome it is trust, again something many of us are a little skeptical of.

Tron as the minimal meme, for language, strategy, teamwork… coding, open source… education, economic experiment…

equations themselves are nonlinear

15 02 2012

When faced with an expression, the mind is instructed to perform a sequence of calculations. Consider a simple arithmetical expression:


The convention is to perform the calculations in a proscribed order: Brackets, Order, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction. So, the above calculation simplifies to:


Giving the answer 42. Of course.

Compare this to how you are unpackaging this sentence. In english, we read left to right, arabic right to left, chinese top to bottom. There is a linearity to it. With maths, we stretch into the equation and work from the inside out, as it were. Equations are nonlinear, in terms of the sequence of processes our mind performs.

My brother pointed out over the weekend, that we package sentences into phrases. An interesting comparison, and I got all excited because it provided a little more detail to the general, first order intuition, that algebra is related to language, when I conducted my first deep dive into XQ a few years ago. The manipulation of unknowns, akin to the semantic manipulation of unknowns when listening to wording.

It is important, even at this juncture, to note the different modality of script and vocalised wording. Mathematics, at least algebra, does take scripted form, and I am not sure what the equivalent is in wording. Can we speak mathematics as easily as we speak a language?

Of course, things get way more complex when we deal with generalised arithmetic, and when we examine the complexities of higher order mathematics. Looking at einstein’s field equation, and we can see the expression requires much unpackaging.

Most of the terms need to be expanded, such as lambda being the cosmological constant, einstein’s greatest blunder or so he thought at the time.

Mathematics is more like the creation of a chinese character than it is to writing a sentence. Composing a picture, more than writing a book. There is mental depth to it. In this way, we can take a prosaic interpretation, that the glyphs sequence the processes that need to be performed for the equation to “work”. Or we can take a more poetic interpretation, that the mind must hold various mental functions simultaneously in order for the equation to make sense.

The difference might be greatly overlooked. Scientists perform in the first way, like accountants manipulating spreadsheets, or factory workers simply performing tasks that work. To actually conceive of what is meant, to navigate the concepts, to be creative in such a conceptual space, requires composition, requires sensitivity, requires an experiential appreciation.

And rather than start off with a complex symphony like einstien’s field equations, or indeed any higher level mathematical constructs, might it be wise for us to retrace the conceptual developments that have been made historically? Or alternatively, to grapple with simple arithmetic as does every child, but this time from the vantage point of appreciating what the mind must perform for it to “make sense”.

Specifically, and returning to our first example, there is a sequence in time.


We perform the (4+7) and the (9-3) and the 2^4 first. And if we can learn to appreciate what function our minds are performing in time as we conduct arithmetic, and perhaps simple algebra, might this suggest a direction of mathematics that is less to do with application to the external world of objects, nor the pure field of formalist play in the flat world of script, but in the reflection of our internal world of thoughts?


So when we look at equation, and we observe how our minds perform the various processes, we may observe the sequence in our minds. Perhaps we add seven to ll, then divide by three then subtract two. Perhaps. We get rid of things furthest away and gradually approach the revealing of the unknown. This temporal sequence, this algorithm of subjective processing, so easily objectified in our schools and implemented in computers, is often overlooked. But it did take humanity many centuries of exploration to discover and hone and apply. Mostly for physics, the application to physical objects out there in the “real world”. Perhaps it is time to consider the subjective implications, the effect on the mind that performs these functions, in time?

Undoubtedly, performing specific forms of mathematics exercises our minds. Can we take this a step further? If mathematics consists of formula for mental processing, can we derive formulations that exercise our minds to perform specific mental processes? That is, can we construct mathematical equations have therapeutic value? Equations that heal sick minds?

I have already detailed processes like multiplying by -1, a trick to convert any “negative” experience into a “positive” one, far more useful than the additive strategy. What is the mental equivalent to multiplying by -1? Or by zero, for that matter? To nullify an experience or a thought. And of course, something which maintains it fascination, the root of negative one. Can these have therapeutic value?

Once we feel comfortable with experiencing the effect of arithmetic and simple algebra, we might be able to appreciate the subjective appreciation of euler’s identity, for example, an equation which remains a beautiful and enigmatic formula.

%d bloggers like this: