Saturday, August 11, 2018

The Principle of ~

Thanks, Joe,

I do appreciate --What to call it?-- your constant encouragement and support, but certainly  including your naming nested structured~duality  as NSD and saving on some bandwidth over the last couple years.  The next information compression  step on the docket is to compress nested structured~duality down to just  ~,   as in, Alfredo has his instance of ~; you have your aware-ized energy instance of ~; and we all typically have our  own  instance of ~.     Perhaps  the overloading with "approximation" works a bit, too, but it likely will take many more reps to insert it completely.  We all have our approximations, but ALL of those are instances of NSD -- nested structured~duality.: pick a structure and one or more dualities or differences, build outward from there to the limits of your selections.

...Perhaps as the main title of the "book":   The Principle of ~ ,  but with the recursive compression, the book is one sentence long: reality is nested structured~duality, with a bit of analog math to deliver the physical intuition.  So, yeah, not much to write about.

I'll have to work on that or team up with  a verbose ghost writer.

As for the stagnancy and one trick pony-ism, these attributes  come along naturally with items in the  general principle territory. When everything IS a nail, then you do only need a hammer -- or a one-half spin.   NSD is  mind-numbingly, universally recursive and applicable but it contrasts well with the failing, wildly verbose non-nested models.  It turns out, we need both, and more.

As for "There's nothing related to consciousness here. Move along. Move along.",  The NSD begets nested structural coding and that does  or can relegate consciousness to the bin containing phlogiston.   I don't know why you would want to push for that immediately since it seem the current clamor is, "What is consciousness? What is consciousness?".  The short answer is: consciousness is various types of nested structural coding.  So, we arrive at yet another definition or association. The thing with acquiring  NSD is dropping down to this inner general principle shifts the paradigm which also provides cross-paradigm associations, so  a couple of things are happening at once.  Also, even with the information compression there is a huge expansion of clarifying information.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost, PhD

Changing the scientific paradigm.

Thursday, August 9, 2018

Understanding NSD



For you to try to understand nested structured~duality  and  reality as nested structured~duality,  YOU might make progress on that task  by thinking of Alfredo's TAM as a three-layer instance of NSD  and your eDAM framework, perhaps like a yin-becoming-yang-like two-layered instance of NSD. Also, YOU might consider NSD as like a "multi-aspect (layered or structured) monism" -- MAM. Do that in a loose, approximate fashion and not too seriously.

As well, though,  I think you would need to shift over to different scientific paradigmatic tenets than those you presently hold -- particularly adopting  structure, really, structured~duality, as a fundamental tenet, perhaps in place of space-time and/or mass-energy, so that you can acquire and use a common common denominator also for  things like "thoughts" and "paradigms".

As well, I think you might need to relax or relinquish your hold on neuron-theory-only, or neural  or brain references and begin to consider, say, respirational, metabolic, genetic and epigenetic structural coding as additional ACTUAL ways we acquire internal representations of surroundings and, through (inseparable) hydrogen-bonding influences in protein-folding, also form adaptive, expressions.

My read or projection, so to speak, on your use of the word "inseparable" is that it appears to me that you are implicitly or unconsciously carrying on a measurement or testing of different 'parts'  relative to some additional structural or locational reference. Otherwise, perhaps you just extrapolate from wave-particle or yin-yang lores.  I observe a divergence, though, in your account on 1pp  versus 3pp and/or your focus on a hand-wavy relation with a physics-like energy conservation.

That is, in the NSD storyline that I am advocating, the so-called 1pp is actually running, say, its own nested structural coding representational and expression system within the 10^20 water molecules per second structural coding forming in respiration sites within cells (including neurons). And, in this primary or more internal system the structural coding representation and expression is directly coupled with our energy and materials collection and conservation process -- as we find ourselves engaged with it on "our side" of, or in relation to  the photosynthesis-respiration system.   In this system, sustenance is less a matter of alleged overall energy conservation alone but involves both energy AND structure collection and conservation.  If  you focus on your breath I believe you will come to agree.

Our 1pp runs in its own non-neural or sub-neural energy and structure-conservation-related analog language.

Our so-called 3pp, or group, or family-tribal-collective, empathy-relational, or more unified perspective -- the wordful one --  is perhaps running what I would call the secondary neural networking/verbal process.   Considering both together, you or other readers MAY be able to observe how it is that it can fashion together a description/model that observes and can state energy conservation as fundamental but is rather blind to, or wildly, confusingly verbose and nonsensical about  structure conservation.   The answer is the functional structure conservation  is already provided by the primary representational-expressive-pre-cognitive 1pp  structural coding process occurring in respiration.  Everyone experiences it so there is no big reason to be aware of it or be explicit about it. The structured~duality conservation is just assumed.

Again, focus on the breath. If you only see  1pp and 3pp running on the same or similar neural process, mostly likely you will not be able to consider the distinction I am making.

In this manner, then, contrary to what you may see or project  in eDAM, in the NSD storyline "effective information between the two layers" is NOT the same and it is NOT just a matter of viewing the same reality from two perspectives.   Minimally, the 3pp neural system receives its material (structure) and energy flow and is dependent upon the primary 1pp.

You, or other readers, MAY catch more traction on structure conservation if you reflect on enzyme (structural) catalysis or inhibition playing roles in survival or behavior, and how these structures come forward as transcribed structures from memory structurally coded within our genetics or epigenetics.  If you or your tribe have epigenetics helpful during drought or famine you may be thankful for that conserved structural coding.

So, perhaps some of that may help you to begin to understand NSD and reality as nested structured~duality.

If not, ask questions on where you think you are still getting stuck.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

NSD Time and Timelessness

Whit, others...

Trying to clarify on my "experience exists; time does not"  prior clarification (below) summarized as "experience exists; time and all the temporal relations are mental artifacts/categories and  only part of our map (not the territory)",  and me additionally hoping to retain both bath water and baby,   please consider the following further attempt at a (nested) clarification.

My current storyline has it (currently) that, say,  roughly, we can dial back to the ancient Greeks who hold that space and time are just TOO intrinsically intrinsic to be further divided or explained away otherwise. Then we fast-forward along the Western scientific paradigm trial through Descartes' cube/subjective-objective initial trial theory and model of physical reality AND consciousness, up through Newton's refinements and insertion of the trial absolute time,  onward to Einstein's refactoring and merging  into the only relativistic, curvy space-time, where, if you want to do any measurement, roughly, I guess you have to carry with you  your own yardstick and clock.  (So in that way  it gets a little bit "nested".)

Then, that storyline sort of bifurcates and splits, I guess into the quantum electrodynamics (abstract mathematics) explored empirically with various stacks of nested fields within nested fields.  I admit I know nothing about QED and summarize most of that region as "multiple-states".

But, in others' reported accounts of the non-classical (or non-ordinary) regions, some quibbles have also emerged about  "observation influencing outcomes", and in addition and/or parallel to this, the larger cultural and/or scientific paradigm story is sort of dancing around the apparent need to groke an improved scientific paradigm that gives a better account of both the physical and the mental artifacts and features.   Or, as in some quarters where folks consider a two-step process, some are currently involved in  developing a stand alone "Science of Consciousness".

In the one-step trial theory that I am advocating and following, I

Time and timelessness


Some other questions and thoughts...

On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
    On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 02:19:51AM -0700, Ralph Frost wrote:

    There is so much about how knowledge works that's dependent on temporal relations, that it's hard to conceive how it might work beyond that.

[rf] Are you experiencing time as such an entangled tenet in your mind wrap capacity that you cannot conceive of the temporal relations just as different categories , as in "before, currently, potential or expected but not yet happened"  -- "past, present, future"?  Just mental categories...?

I recently found myself puzzling frantically over how to make a connection in an airport even though I had left home a hour or two late.  Then I realized I was dreaming and that I could let the angst go because it did not, and in fact could not be resolved as in a regular, actual  experience. I was in "dream time" -- "~neuron time". Armed with a memory, i am convinced of the "past".  Able to guess or expect or predict, learn or surmise developing or repeatable events, I am convinced of the "future". And yes, the shadow on the sundial moves and night and day alternate and seasons changes in regular varying patterns.  If I have batteries in the clock, the clock hands and date indicators move with great accuracy so I know when to pay my bills.   But, again, these are part of our conventions and map.

As well, if you have taken or studied some calculus, please reflect on the conditioning of onboarding years worth of dx/dt meditations --  a change in some variable "x"  relative to  a small change in "time, t".   A bird flying east overhead seems to be moving relative to time, but the actual change of it swimming through air occurs due to a lot of fancy, energy-related protein-folding, etc.  So, the "time", the dx/dt, is part of our conceptual map, the comparative summary, as a function a shorthand approximated category.  Time and the temporal relations are in our mental map, but not a fundamental part of the territory.

Friday, May 11, 2018

Common denominator of all ontologies and epistemologies


On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 7 May 2018, at 21:17, Ralph Frost <> wrote:

You might try to reflect, perhaps, asymptotically,  upon our reality as being nested structured~duality, fitting with Kushal's imagery/analogy with gas/liquid/solid, and observing the continuum as being within that sort of a nested fashion, including the remaining unknowns, where the ontology and epistemology are one.

It is too much imprecise for me, so I can’t reflect on this. I doubt that the ontology and epistemology can be one, except from an epistemological perspective (which I guess is what you mean, but that is either the worst illusion, or a non communicable truth related to enlightenment. I explain this in my paper of East and West, but I don’t find the reference right now(*)).

Re: non-communicable truth, please notice that apparently I did communicate it so it's no longer non-communicable.  Regarding, East and West, my perspective is the two are linked in a structural ~self-reference, just a convention, one being the ~opposite (dual) of the other relative to the Earth spinning on its axis in a particular way relative to "north".

You know, rather than continue to hide behind, "...[that] is too imprecise for me...", you could try to consider or learn, perhaps ask a question or two...

Monday, March 19, 2018

Foundations of Mathematics - How arithmetic and numbers are "quantum-like"


Thanks for the clearer and more detailed summary of your thesis relating/associating p and [p] to concepts developed in other traditions and linguistic communities.  

I am curious whether you can add more detail or clarity on relating ~how you see/saw arithmetic contain 'quantum features', or that you came to "predict quantum logic and quantum computations"  and what you mean by that?  Does it have to do with some propositions being both doubtless and doubtful, etc.? And if so, what words came to you first?  

Also, when you say, """by justifying the quantum from a very old theory of consciousness (Mechanism, or its modern Digital form) """,  what are the traits you reference in "Mechanism"?   Also,  by "very old theory of consciousness", are you referring to the split into "subjective and objective" categories?

Additionally, are you saying that quantum features are implicitly "already"  embedded in arithmetic and numbers, as in, just like the ordering alternations between  addition and subtraction or multiplication and divisions,  or a number potentially having N+1 inner states thus predicting the numerical value of its successor?

It seems to me that  math or STEM education might greatly benefit from such a re-factoring since it might eliminate  the habitual starting out in teaching a seemingly non-quantum, classical 1,2,3,4... math perspective and then, after the die is cast,  trying to introduce the non-classical,  quantum mechanical inner states, artifacts and relations.  

If arithmetic and xyz-Cartesian numbers and math are ~already  quantum mechanical or having the "quantum logic", that would be a handy feature to accommodate and emphasize in the early steps of the K-12 educational process.  

It's rather obvious and easily conveyed in the magnetic or ~bipolar or ~binary tetrahedral analog math that I am marketing, but, other than pointing at the positive and negative numbers, I am not clear on how students  might observe or see arithmetic and numbers as "quantum-like".   Can you clarify?

I'm not doubting you did or can discern these relations, I'm just curious to discover what is entailed or involved in describing it and conveying it in the instance of nested structured~duality   that you are working with.

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Duality and "Bipolar Polyhedral Structures

[Bruno Marchal] But how do you relate that with you experience? You have not yet told me what is the duality in the nested structured duality. You need to try to explain this without using the terms “nested”, nor “duality”. You seem not trying to explain. 

[rf] Try this. Think of 'duality' as a pointer to 'quanta' or 'multiple states', and consider that such quantum features are and must be  inserted first in the foundationation of mathematics (even in arithmetic), rather than as a somewhat magical add-on after a classical, non-quantum, introductory prepi-cycle. In my first pass through this terrain back in 1975-1982 -- in the Bad Old Days, back in the Reagan eras,  I was imagining building a tetrahedron using four rod magnets. With my wife's metal-working help I soldered a center connector together and then played around with the five states of the inner magnetic tetrahedron.   Tetra- implies poly- and inner implies outer, so in a couple of moves on the gameboard I was considering the states of all inner and outer "bipolar polyhedral structures" (bps).  So, if you follow, I upgraded the term from 'bipolar' to 'duality'.  Originally, though, I came around to noticing that even forgetting about magnets and just making a structure out of anything, to my way of thinking there would always be a tiny, maybe what mathematicians might call "infinitesimal difference" between one end (half) of a radii or edge. One half could have a few more electrons or photons or quanta on one half than the other,  So the ends are different, similar to what is overtly present with magnets, but now more subtle, tending to the point of practically indistinguishable.

That's the original meaning/origin of "duality" as in "nested structured~duality", to me.  That's why I sometimes qualify it a "difference", and it could be a difference or duality in many different traits of features.

In the last few weeks, I have remembered that I used to think that ALL structures, even the highly idealized ones, are ~actually 'bipolar polyhedral structures' existing or having multiple states.  That is, that there are not the two categories: {regular, bipolar},  but just the one category: {bipolar}.