The Chameleon Function

In this article I will bridge two of my ideas together demonstrate the building blocks of existence.
Some people will immediately get a "are you crazy" moment and refuse to put some effort in understanding it.
Crazyness is description of describing people in a state that hear voices and believe they are squirrels.
However, to avoid the misunderstand that follows from people not being customed to philosophy,
I have written a whole paragraph that explains my viewpoint of the universe:

My Viewpoint Of The Universe

I see language and mathematics as tools to communicate properties of the universe that have a strong historical and biological bias.
I have some experience with programming artificial intelligence, which naturally made me interested in how the brain works from logical view.
When a brain try to understand itself, it also has to consider it's own thoughts and words as subjects to interpretation.
A single test of this is to write something down, then wait a couple of years and read it again.
Can you clearly understand the earlier you? I can't.
I have no guarantee that I will even agree with this article in the future, but I probably will find some good points in it.
Only because humans as a social structure hold people responsible as individuals, that doesn't mean that they are the same.
What we think of ourselves does not change the fact of what we are, but we can't prove those fact in terms of human language.
Human language is designed to make distinctions between people and tasks, it does not have an one-to-one mapping to reality.
I believe the only way to gain an understanding of the universe is through physics, programming and philosophy.
Programming is the part where you put your thoughts to the test, physics is the part where you put predictions to the test,
and philosophy is the part where you put the logic to the test.
This article is not based on a single experiment, but I use my experience from these 3 fields to deduce the connections.
It also means that it is a subject to interpretation, it is attempt of mine to communicate what I believe to you.

Simplified Summary

When something is something, it exists. Nothing is not something, then nothing is not something that exists nothing.
We think of nothing with something, and something always change.
Therefore the way nothing is not nothing is because it is
different each time we think of it.
Everything includes something and nothing, because if I choose to think of nothing, then I get less time to think of something.
The more nothing there is in everything, the less something is.
How could you see nothing if it was not something existing, like yourself?
Having nothing is not nothing is a paradox, but can be solved if nothing is not something in two different ways, like comparing something to something is not always possible.
Let's describe this connecting as

[comparable, not comparable]2 = reality

We could have manipulated the equation to fit not comparable with a certain probability to describe qubits and so on, but we will leave it like it is now.
The question that rises to my mind, is what makes nothing fail to satisfy the equation?
If nothing is not nothing, it is always comparable, so while you always can imagine the not comparable
part of nothing, because of the symmetry, it does not exist, because you would have to assume it's real before you imagine it.
To prove that nothing is nothing, you would have to compare all something to each other,
which would take infinite time and change everything in the process, because some parts of something is just itself and other parts can be compared.
It is easier to just say that nothing is not nothing because it will never be proved, and since nothing is different from
itself, there is something that makes it true.

Introduction

To get rid of paradoxes, the following constrain of existence must be satisfied:

c2 = X

Where X is reality and c is not possible to define.
This is called the chameleon function because it is impossible to detect but also impossible to disprove.
I use the name "function" because of an old habit, you can also call it "the chameleon equation" if you like.
It is not wrong to think of it as a function, because it is the fundamental requirement of what existence does.
We already have 3 types of complex numbers, the chameleon function makes the 4th of them:

c2 = 1Split complex numbers
c2 = 0Dual complex numbers (hyperreal, Grassmann numbers, ...)
c2 = -1Normal complex numbers (complex plane, quaternion, ...)
c2 = XReal stuff (particles, animals, consciousness, ...)

The chameleon function was written down in 2010 and has survived every attempt to falsify it.
The most important attribute is that it cleans up paradoxes like a vaccuum cleaner, leaving the reality more consistent.
It is absurd and don't get fooled by the appearance, but it is absurd in a very subtle and consistent way.
You will have to consider it as an axiom for the moment and see where it takes us.

Solving The Chameleon Function

The c element can not be defined.
The most subtle way we can tell that it is not definable, is by using Havox symbols.
This is simply logic that tells if something is different from another or not, without constraining the form of difference.
For example red is different from green, and red is different from blue.
According to Havox, there is a possibility that red is blue as long as you don't check if there is a difference or not.
It is also a possibility that red and blue are different, and if there are more than one way the color are different,
the more possible states there is for every unchecked comparison.
You can also make hypothesis about multiple differences connected as a group, and assign each possibility a priority over the others.
Havox is used to check the validity of hypothesis by looking at the big picture of the total amount of information.
What makes something unique is the piece of evidence that shows it is different from the others in one aspect or another.
Without distinction, it is not possible to define something by itself only, it just is itself, it exists.
Because it is itself does not mean it's comparable, since we need something else to justify the comparing.
Comparing is a process as a result of existence and therefore definition of nothing could not exist if there was not something.

Nothing can exist only if it's not comparable to anything else, but this not intuitive from physical experience.
Using the chameleon function we state that in order for something to be not definable, it has to be not comparable.
If the chameleon function was false, then nothing could be not comparable, and therefore nothing would exist.
It is a coincidence that this plays on the words of "something", "nothing", and "exist" but it actually fits both meanings.
Because nothing is not something, either something or nothing exists, but not both.
Since something exists, we know that nothing can not exist, and nothing is possibly comparable.
The problem with nothing is that compared to itself, we can not define how to compare since we have nothing to compare with.
We can choose to live with this paradox, or we can say that only something is not comparable to itself.
Since nothing is not something, then nothing is always comparable, which leads to the numbers which we perform the check that can not be defined.
That means we need to have at least two groups of something, since something has to be comparable in some ways and differs from nothing in two different ways.
Therefore, if this symmetry makes up reality, then the chameleon function is the simplest expression we can make of it mathematically.

(+c)×(+c) =
(-c)×(-c) =

Even and are not comparable, and are comparable because they come from different states.
We know that none of them are nothing, because the other side of the chameleon function is reality.
It does not mean they are not similar or they are not completly different from each other, only that they are comparable.
Now we got two sets of "items" that we can start modelling reality, where one set is not comparable to itself directly.
It is only in the big picture that we can say two black dots are different from each other, but any time we can erase that information.
We can say that two dots that are equal to the other dots in the same way, are symmetric.

Something And Nothing

Everything contains two things: Something and nothing.
Here is an overview of what is comparable or not:

EverythingSomethingNothing
Something
X
noyes
yesno
differs in black way
Nothing differs in white way c = [+c,-c] not comparable

Identity of something is that they are different from nothing.
Identity is the variable element in a group that share properties.
If something could not be different from nothing in different ways, there would be no variable, no identity.

Nothing is always different from everything else, but not comparable with itself.
The reason for this is that we define nothing from something, which makes it impossible to define it by itself.
Then we can use the chameleon function to describe in which way it is not definable.

Havox Adinkras

Adinkra diagrams are used to describe supersymmetry and supergravity.
It was invented by some genius mathematicians and computer scientists which you can read more about here.
I got interested in it because the idea of using white and black dots and colored lines between them.
The mathematics is still a mystery for me, but I'm working on it.
Just like Havox symbols can be used to transform a problem to solve it using imagination,
I found out that many hard problems are easier to illustrate in Adinkra diagrams.
It has a certain invariant expression of variables and consistency while still being editable which I find comfortable.
In my wild approach to finding new areas of using the diagram, I hope not the creators feel I'm vandalizing the concept.
It is true that any of my applications can be described with adjacency graph theory, but here I feel the urge to put up an argument in favor of Adinkra:
While a adjacency graph can be represented by a matrix, it is not that easy to represent a matrix with adjacency graph as with Adinkra diagrams.
The structure of matrices appear self-evident from Adinkra diagrams and now I also want to use the constraints to develop a new way of reading them.
Notice that the following is not "True Adinkras" which are used in physics.
Sometimes you operate within the definition, but that is not relevant in the many applications of Havox Adinkras.

Strictly speaking, Havox Adinkras are not explicitly a new kind of Adinkra diagrams.
It would be, if the Adinkra physics didn't already existed.
Havox Adinkras is a method of reading the diagram to make decisions, it does not deal with the underlying data at all.
Therefore my goal is to create a universal interpretation of universal laws in every kind of universe.
And it's very simple and clear... if you have a computer to help you.
To build such diagrams by yourself, download this software Cutout Pro Adinkras.

The following Adinkra (1) consist of one and dot connected.
A solid line in Havox means "equal" so this diagram tells us that the and are the same thing.
Notice that being black or white does not affect the difference or similarity, it only tells you what's comparable and not comparable.
Identity is the pattern to the whole, the variable in a group that share properties.


Figure 1

Let's look at another one (2), now telling that the black and white dots are different.
When we have only two dots, we don't actually describe a world where the things are comparable.
If something can't be similar to something else, then it's possibly nothing, and the only acceptable thing is something.
The same thing could be said when something is similar to everything else, and therefore can not be compared to anything.
When we look at the big picture, we see that this seems wrong even we are now at a higher level than the chameleon function.
Something has to be comparable to nothing, because something does not include nothing and else we would not know the difference.
And the result by comparing something to nothing will always have the answer that it's different.
This definition works only with the chameleon function and else it leads to paradoxes.


Figure 2

It is possible to have 4 dots connected (3) to each other but not 3, because one thing can not be equal to two others while the other two are different.
When each dot has at least one solid and one dotted line, it is the smallest requirement to tell that something is different from something else.
I can demonstrate how powerful this expression of diagrams is with just a few nodes.
The upper left dot is different from the upper right one but equal to the bottom left, so the two white dots can not be the same.


Figure 3

If you flip the dots horizontally (4), you can see you have the exact same symmetry.
With a bit reasoning you might find out that the rule we used previously also works in this case.
The black dots are different from each other, so in total we have 4 different things.


Figure 4

Now we put in one extra node (5) that has the same relations as the bottom left dot.
These two nodes are now indistinguishable, like a mirror reflection.
If the nodes were intelligent, any of the two white know there are 2 black dots with same relations.
The lonely black dot to upper right would not know that because his/her relations does not change.
This indicates that Havox Adinkras can be used to model systems where each part not necessarily see the big picture.


Figure 5

Conclusion

The simplest system that is consistent describable needs to be composed of at least 4 things.
I've been aware of this for a while without being able to prove it, so I called myself a "fourian" for fun.
A "fourian" is a person that seeks answers to the mystery of this deep fundamental connection between existence and life.
There are plenty of unknown knowledge yet to be discovered for those who learn to use "the fours" (refering to "the force" in Star Wars).

It is not possible to describe one thing by itself and be right, because if it just exists, you would impossible have information about it.
To describe one thing by itself you would have to accept not knowing the difference between logic and paradoxes.
Havox symbols demonstrate that the more complicated thing that is claimed to be true, the possibility to be wrong grows very fast.
For example, if you get angry about a person's opinion, you are very likely to be wrong by attacking the person based on your feelings.
That's because the person and your feelings are complicated, and therefore they probably do not match with the big picture of reality.
When we think of it, much of what we call moral is based on the fact that no single person understand everything that is happening.
It is wrong to base your moral on believing that you know everything.

Further Work

Colored lines can be used to describe a way something is similar or different and since it can only be one line between two dots,
this fits perfectly in the picture of quantum bits, as the more one know of one direction the less one knows of the others.
The specific description or the mathematics needs to be defined, and might result in Quantum Havox Adinkras.

Next Part - Multi-Dimensional Havox