Astrology: Data-Accumulation systems vs Logic-based systems
In the modern world, we have created computers that applies processing to data and modifies input data according to the applied processing. Meaning, if we have two data, say “2” and “3”, to this we apply a simple processing of say mathematical addition, we get a modified output data as “5”. Now, we can create a processing function called “mathematical addition” as an abstract version of this logic with variables to represent the data as “return (x + y)”. Varying the input data to this function, gives us different outputs based on input data. This kind of computing is logic focussed. The processing logic is abstracted and that logic drives the data got. Here, obviously, the logic is fixed and the data is varying. Sure, you can ask me how about “if” and “loops” and other such constructs that vary logic and my answer to that will be, it is still a fixed logic, because all the “ifs” and loops and everything is coded in and cannot be varied once coded in. You can ask, how about embedded engines that allow the users to write scripts on the fly and run them against data? Again my answer will be the same, they are coded in. It does not matter whether it was pre-coded when the logic was created or a variable contained the code that was run, it is pre-written code by some external source external to the system which is run. So, it is still a logic based systems.
Now, let’s reverse this and say that the focus becomes the data rather than the logic, so how will this work? In our example, rather than the focus being on the mathematical addition processing, the focus is on the data which are ‘2’ and ‘3’. Note, I called it as data accumulation and not just static data. When we just look at ‘2’, and ‘3’, we have nothing. But, say we have a continuous stream of data that keeps getting detected and accumulated, similar to the time-series data from an IoT device like thermometer, now we start applying processing to this data, then we are talking about data focussed. So, in our example, we keep getting data as ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘5’, ‘2’, ’10’ and so on the data keeps getting accumulated. Now, if we were to vary (limiting to mathematical) processing to fit the data, then for this series of data we get ((‘2’ + ‘3’) = ‘5’) * ‘2’ = ’10’ and so on it goes. This processing obviously is very simple and I have taken a very specifically simple and just number based example to demonstrate. Here, the data is driving the logic and logic is not pre-coded. For this data-set the logic is add first two numbers, to the result multiply the next number and the resultant is the current state of the data series. So, when you vary the data set the logic fitted to the data will vary. You can ask me, so what is the difference between this and real-time data-analytics or a learning algorithm? In a data-analytics again you have coded in an algorithm which is applied on a data-set which may be a continuous time series data, and the data matching the algorithm is weeded out or bubbled up to get conclusions. So, conclusions are limited to what is coded into the algorithm that written to be run on the real-time data. Where as here, we have no algorithm or just some sort of pattern recognition based on which data is organised and conclusions drawn. While a learning algorithm comes closer to this, again, the algorithm is pre-trained with some data to fit and that is then used over and over again on other data-sets. Basically every one of them are focussed on processing rather than data. In a data-focussed accumulator, the data keeps getting accumulated and logic is modified as the accumulations grow based on the data rather than the other way.
Another example of this can be seen when we talk about say a series of numbers. Let’s say, we get a series of numbers as 1, 1, 2, 3. At this state when we pass through a data accumulator, it is possible that we conclude Fibonacci series. Then the next number comes as 5, the logic still remains at Fibonacci series, the next number comes in as 5 again, now it does not fit the Fibonacci series, so the logic is changed to a Fibonacci series with double repetition of every 5th number. And so on it goes, where the logic adjusts itself to the number series that are coming in rather than the data modifying according to a pre-set algorithm. Say we look at curve-fitting algorithms that are written for a data-series, typically what is done is that the extra ‘5’ that comes in, is considered to be an outlier and ignored. This is the primary difference where, for a data-accumulator system the data that comes in, is considered the correct state and the logic is considered to be flexible, where as in a logic based system, the data that comes in is considered flexible while the logic is a set one that cannot be modified.
It is strange isn’t it. I am supposedly writing about astrology, yet, here I am writing about the difference between data-accumulation systems and logic-based systems. As I have written before, astrology is basically creating a map of the paths of existence. What is after all a path of existence? A growing collection of data as the paths of existence are extended. There are various ways in which to see these extensions to the paths of existence. They can be seen as a specific algorithm being run to modify the data pieces to create various circumstances, that are collected to form these paths of existence. OR, they can be seen as “data” accumulating and extending to create a path of existence in a base set of data, these can then be transformed into circumstances based on some rendering algorithm. Here, I have given the name “data”, the modern technological term to “change” which is the term I have used so far. Rather than view it as a change, what if we saw the recorded properties and their changes as “data”, after all that is what data is, a series of some values of properties.
When we look at reality around us, we find that the different types of logic that are run against the myriad of different existences is also as myriad and varying. Trying to find any sort of abstractness in this logic is pretty difficult and practical impossibility. But, the same if we started looking at these as purely data, then we start seeing commonality in what is occurring. We see growth which rather than a logic can be seen as accumulation of data (changes). This if we apply to a plant, an animal, a mountain, a stone etc., it is the same. As data accumulates growth happens. The establishing of equilibrium from an infinite recursion can also be explained because when we look at it as data accumulation, there is no infinite recursion, it is purely data being collected, when the data which is just changes collect into an observable, repeatable amount, it automatically take on a stable equilibrium. Order coming in randomness is also possible, because logic is associated with the data that is got, rather than the other way. It is only when logic cannot be varied, does the data look random w.r.t that logic. But, if logic varies according to data, then a logic or pattern is established irrespective of the collected data.
Thus, the system of reality that we are looking at can be seen as a data-focussed system rather than a logic-focussed system. While, it feels as if it is a processing based system because we have brains that is considered the processor and the thoughts, a result of it, it should be recognised that all inputs that go into the brain are changes that have already occurred. As I have explained in my book “A Research of Shiva: The Enigma” in “Limitations of study with manas“: when we study only that which we perceive, we study that which has already occurred, which means the brain is processing and spitting out thoughts from data which is an input to the brain from that which has already happened. But then, that which has already happened is just a change which is data. This means, data is more primary than processing. As I have said in my book “Surya Siddanta: Explaining the emergence of empirical reality” in Imperfect fundamentals, we seem to have reversed the cause and effect in everything. For example, we study the neurons firing in the brain and say that thoughts are just neurons firing and search for sequences of neurons firing in the brain. But, it is equally possible that the thoughts occurred first because of which the neurons have fired and the subsequent thought associated with the first thought is firing the next set of neurons and so on. There is no way for us to know if neurons firing is the cause or the effect. But, then if they are the cause, then the question arises how did they fire first? What triggered the neurons to fire first to create the thought and there is no answer to it. But, the same, if thought is considered as a pattern of changes in properties detected in the underlying truth, then given that we are always changing, this question does not arise. Similarly we tend to believe our processing and analytical thoughts drive the data around us rather than the data around us driving our thoughts. This is not what the ancient texts are saying.
Thus, what we are looking at is a system in which there exists this large indiscrete contiguous amount of varying data to be detected over which these paths of existence are formed. When we look at it from this perspective now, then mapping the paths of existence becomes a search for factors that affect a specific data to be accumulated into a path or ignored by a path. What data when accumulated causes the path to flow and extend, what causes the path to stall. What do these stalling of paths and flowing of paths transform as, in our reality around us? How is a forward direction determined by the path? What accelerates this flow in the forward direction and what diverts it into a different direction? What are the qualities acquired by the data due to what accumulation? And so on. While yes, these questions are also difficult to find the answers to, but what is important to note is that we have changed the infinite logics down to a finite number of questions that can be answered to create the map and most importantly an abstract representation is got for the infinite that is present. It looks like this is what is answered in these ancient astrology literature.
Read more on this topic in my upcoming book