Hey, Philip,
Regarding your statement below of 'invisible nested structure', being made of dark matter/biodark matter, I can somewhat relate to your proposal by pointing at what I call the center connector  the brasswiretube (or plexiglas) construction that I use to align and ~hold four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron that I use in my magnetic tetrahedral analog math. Without some such structure or tensegrity the magnets would just collapse into a tight groundstate, non3d pile. With it, the three dimensional (tetrahedral) structure persists.
The analogy of such an aligning structure, I believe, would or could or might extend ~down to the ~tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level of organic molecules (see images  https://magnetictetrahedra.com/images/phpshow.php?newGD&slides&2 ) wherein, potentially, in the storyline you propose, collections of biodark matter would or could be serving as like "center connectors" maintaining the flexible, within limits, mostly tetrahedral arrangements and inverting/reactive structures of the related (bio) atoms/collections.
I mean, potentially, as 'center connector', might be one way to visualize how ~light and ~dark matters might be ~working together potentially giving life its special properties. (Also, serving as some poetic account for: "...made in our image...")
I guess this proposed insertion of dark matter at that level might raise questions or issues, too, relating somewhat to quantum mechanics since QM calculations, I believe, presently calculate/predict the tetrahedral  sp^3 hybridized and similar types of adaptive structures also found empirically in, say, crystallography, etc., but supposedly just calculated from (assumed) properties of the "lightmatteronly" regular chemistry atoms or their subatom particles and forces.
I suppose then, also, ~dark matter could or might or would have to take on some further types of structural coding roles that we (that is, mathematicians) presently and traditionally might visualize and think of as being "~purely mathematical structures" and/or related to logic, mathematical logic, etc. ...as well as giving some account for all the many instances of nested structured~duality found in, and making up, say, philosophies of mathematics, or in all the various philosophies in general, which seem to oscillate or partition between mental/mathematical and/or physical  invisible and visible/sensible realms or fractions. The same might also give some account of Wigner's 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematics.
IF dark matter et. al., is or becomes a happening thing, then it seems it ought to be spread out in various places and niches and would have influences in key levels of organization and phenomena than just in the astrophysical expansion, or as Paul Werbos says, the noospheric level.
...Probably, as you have been trying to express for a few years...
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Continued thread on fundamentals of mathematics (Assuming R=NSD)
Bruno,
Some clarification regarding you saying I assume physical reality... My prior (long) reply was truncated. Perhaps just as well.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Hi Ralph,
..snip..
[bm] It [the approach/trial theory rf advocates] assumes something physical, which is what I want to explain without assuming this. From my view, you start with the answer. Your idea might help to pursue my investigation, but you would need to make it much more precise. If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”.
[rf]
I do start with the answer, but I don't "assume something physical". The difference, though, I think, is
(1) you are assuming math and logic artifacts (~mental things) so you can logically derive ~physical things as features of the arithmetic reality as ~proved/able if someone survives the comp/digital mechanism substitution... while you also delegate to supposedly friendly and humane Turing devices for them to scribble out the or an associated model of consciousness,
whereas,
(2) I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality (R=NSD), which prompts me to start with a specific structured~duality and then scribble out analog math that ~verifies the assumption by/while demonstrating the capacity to convey physical intuition about physical reality and our ontology while also illuminating structural coding as an improved replacement for (substitution of) the term and features we previously labeled and know as "consciousness".
Thus, in your comp storyline, you assume AR and aim to derive, or have your Turing devices derive ~physical reality (carbon, electron), whereas in
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
[Sadhu Sanga] Re: Continued thread on foundations of mathematics
Bruno,
I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04 paper.
(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and
Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
But I have a question in subhypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...
"Definition: Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three subhypotheses:
(1) yes doctor..
(2) Church thesis...
3) Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."
What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true)  independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...".
Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning? I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion, when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation. Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing... to me it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.
Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations, and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?
And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?
Can you please clarify and explain?
Secondly, your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions. Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously. Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multipleperspective  which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each. In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
[sadhusanga] Continued thread on foundations of mathematics
Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
First, thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of selfreference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/selfreference/ and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqsaboutselfreference/ and some introductory logic material.
From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~listlike (something equals something else...) and the duality is truefalse. Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.
I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (truefalse) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies. Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality. Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.
I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality" I guess I am or could be referring a "set". Also, when I observe your or logic's successor notation for the numbers: 0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's. Numbers are NSD's.
Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself, and seeing his term: "method of inner models", I suspect there may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too). He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order  adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.
Secondly, FWIW, your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline. I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful.
No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider.
Some comments below..
[Which Mechanism? How many are there? Terseness and delivering physical intuition as measures of effectiveness.]
On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:
Monday, October 16, 2017
Collapsing the wave function
Sadhusanga  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/EpjvabjxXuA/70WAL5hhBAAJ
Dear Kasyap, others,
Dear Kasyap, others,
Regarding stochasticity, I think there are also alternatives to the models and perspectives that you and others advocate or discuss.
For instance, I believe that the dominant scientific models we all reference have developed from the root assumption of objectivity separate from subjectivity  in the slang terms that I learned: via the socalled Cartesian subjectobject split. If one wrestles that entanglement to the ground and simplies (hopefully not oversimplifying), then everything in the objective category is also ~equal to or a member of the strongly repeatable subjectivity category. That is, things that repeat strongly (consistently...) we have been educated to call "objective". ....Discern a pattern once or twice and it is just a "subjective feeling". Repeat the same "subjective feeling pattern" at several accredited, independent international science labs and we have a confirmed instance of a strongly repeatable subjectivity pattern ...that we previously have agreed upon and/or been educated to call an "objective fact"  and probably if it's a strongly repeating pattern, call it an "objective classical physics fact".
Within the repeatable subjectivity perspective, the twocategory subjectiveobjective system collapses into a single category of grades of repeatable subjectivity, or to the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity. This spectrum includes nonrepeating, rarely repeating, stochastically repeating, periodically repeating and strongly repeating, etc., 'feels', 'measures', 'impressions'... phases. The strongly repeatable variety matches up with what we label as patterns in "classical physics", whereas the stochastically repeatable varieties may populate the "nonclassical physics" realm, with some registering in the QM, xQED storylines and regions.
For those interested, spiritual liberties may be then be seen to associate closer with rarely repeating (and/or more highly nested) situations, but still within the same single repeatable subjectivity spectrum category. I suppose 'this all' may be more like a different, more nested topological viewpoint, and focusing more directly upon repeatability rather than "stochasticity" or "measures of probabilities" along with or versus, 'always' or 'assumedly never' happening events.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Collapsing the wave function
=============
(Would you hubris on that?)
[rf2] Also, if QM is fundamental or a close approximation of partial fundamental, wouldn't we naturally observe quantum effects or quantumlike effects at various enfolded resonance points? I mean, photovoltaics are macrophysical as are the stacked nested structured~duality of Higgsboson detectors. So, from my perspective, stacks of magnets exhibit the alleged quant effects ~because reality is nested structured~duality (NSD). If I add extra hubris, I suppose the quantum effects actually turn out to be NSD effects, manifesting at different scales...
Excerpt from post in https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/EpjvabjxXuA Sep 27, 2017
=============
(Would you hubris on that?)
[rf2] Also, if QM is fundamental or a close approximation of partial fundamental, wouldn't we naturally observe quantum effects or quantumlike effects at various enfolded resonance points? I mean, photovoltaics are macrophysical as are the stacked nested structured~duality of Higgsboson detectors. So, from my perspective, stacks of magnets exhibit the alleged quant effects ~because reality is nested structured~duality (NSD). If I add extra hubris, I suppose the quantum effects actually turn out to be NSD effects, manifesting at different scales...
Excerpt from post in https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/EpjvabjxXuA Sep 27, 2017
=============
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
sci.physics.research Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis
Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis

Interesting clarifications, Jan.
Regarding agreed upon dimensions, typed algebras, decisions and
adoptions of conventions, and standardization in units in terms of of T
(or 1/T), doesn't all of this also expose why or how, people got/get the
idea that '~consciousness' and/or observation is ~necessary/related in
sorting out quantum mechanical ~results? ...That is, the ~mentalrelated
qualities or aspects are already (subconsciously) inserted in an
earlier, previously adopted set of conventions and thus are already
'nested' in the activity/experience.
In the storyline I advocate and express, 'reality is nested
structured~duality' which means pick a structure and pick a duality
(that is, had I had a better math education, aka, in your terms: 'typed
algebras'). But, with this more unified (NSD) perspective, what we also
have is nested fields within nested fields, rather than just an
idealized or assumed L^3 (lengthcubed) container containing other
collections which somehow, inexplicably pop in and out of
particleantiparticle existence.
One can sort of conceptualize 1/T vibrational features in a nested
fields within nested fields system, perhaps as subdivided tetrahedra
within tetrahedra, whereas it seems a bit more difficult to grasp 1/T
everywhere starting with the initial condition of an unnested L^3,
cubic model.
Thoughts?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Reality is nested structured~duality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)