Try NOT to think about it.

...That is, our internal analog 'math'  develops and replicates in particular patterns. 

This alternative imagery arises from the rather strong  trial theory I am advocating that within neurons (cells), within the cytoskeleton,  we and all our living cells are running the respiration reaction in the on-going effort to harvest electron flow and to maintain stabilizing resonance. In the process of that reaction, we're  each respiring 160 kg per year of oxygen and consequently generating 10^20 water molecules per second, body-wide,  in a large number of distributed respiration sites.  Water molecules are tetrahedral-like with two positive and two negative regions (at the four vertices), and so, as each water molecule forms in the respiration site, it can do so in one of, say, six orientations within the enfolding field.  A sequence of, say, 12 molecules can then form in 6^12 or about  2.2 billion ways.   Since physics says, roughly, that everything influences everything else, repeating vibrations from our surroundings really ought to influence the formation of similar or the same sequences in the 6^n patterns of water molecules. Thus, structural coding within hydrogen bonding packets forming  within our respiration sites can naturally develop as an internal representation of our surroundings.    Since hydrogen-bonding has some influence within protein-folding and protein-folding is, for us, motility and expression,   such an internal representation would always inherently feel like something, even when unconscious.   Reinforce or structural code stacks of cellular water clusted within the matrices of newly forming proteins or xRNA chains and the representation of the external influence, and/or responses to the pattern become stronger, more persistent and interactive.

Since  this respiration/structural coding process is synergistically related with energy flow, any and all improvements in structural coding which improve energy conservation would have a selective advantage.  Consider enzymatic catalysis and the natural selection of, or migration to more general, more unified  trial scientific theories. 

Try NOT to think about it.

RE: Non-computability of human thought ---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com

Thanks for your provocative and interesting post.  

 I believe if you and Penrose consider the nested structural coding on just the genetic and epi-genetic levels, and add in metabolic and protein-folding (expressive) features -- even if you don't dare venture into the stacks and sequences in the underlying 10^20 per second hydrogen bonding packets forming within distributed  respiration sites' transactions --   you may notice that the ~system is shifting from one structurally coded resonance point to another, basically, adjusting in terms of energy --  conserving energy, hashing out balance within the nested structured~duality. 

 Also, the ~system is  running these transactions in analog mode, naturally.  The ~routines that succeed do so naturally, energetically.

 With this backdrop, that is, conceptualizing reality as nested fields within nested fields, then oddities such as Pi and infinity, etc.,  are a lot more like special system resonance points  rather than just special numbers on a single idealized number line. Similarly, primes, etc.

 As for sums and strings...

 <<

1. Only humans can do sums.
2. Sums use strings.
3. The genetic change that allowed us to do sums allowed our brains to use strings internally.

In contrast I think the correct conclusion is
3. The genetic change that allowed us to do sums allowed our brains to interface internal non-string computation to external string signalling. A mechanism was acquired that could convert temporal sequences into spatial patterns and out again.

>>

I wonder whether #1 thru #3a or 3b is correct.  Though limited, animals appear to keep track of things and do a balance with lack of food/food.  And, it seems the key difference is adding nested level of association which seems to mainly be a reverberating memory type of thing begining with a one-to-one alignment of artifacts of interest/energy and one's fingers and toes, later to marks in sand or on bark or skin and the associated protein-folding expressions.   An increase in level of association can also be gained by inhibition or reduction of dissociation -- which again circles around to increased empathy relating perhaps just to an increase in mirror neurons.

I'm not tracking on why you suppose  or suggest a "mechanism to convert temporal sequences into spatial patterns and out again".  Can you clarify, please?  It seems to me that habituating  and then falling asleep to the constant heart-beating and in-out breathing (plus orbits and seasons), prompts assuming that the erroneous temporal relation exists. This flaw seems more like a natural  initial  approximation --  a precursor to discerning that reality is actually nested fields within nested fields.

 

I suspect all this may become easier to provisionally accept once there are some repeatable instances of multiple-state transportation kicking around.    We can't walk or count our way  to infinity; still it's just a matter of hitting a resonance point and shifting state. 

 

Nested structural coding...  genetics, epi-genetics, metabolism, protein-folding, reproduction, respiration... Think about it.

 

RE: Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Happy New Year,  RLG

I get the impression that your statements and defenses in your post are quite furtive and demanding. Like you are very anxious about certain developments.

It's likely you are making coherent statements from within the box of the relativistic storyline and about  the relativistic invariance imagery that you've mastered and  that you like to repeat.  However, beside being correct from within that box, it looks to me like what you are not allowing  for is the natural emergence of additional  (slightly more useful)  ~equivalent expressions and adaptations.  

How I phrase it is to point out that we're experiencing the shift from the flat-to-curvy-to-nested paradigms, or conceptual models and in the nested imagery, the developing truth is experience exists; time does not. 

Thus, where you drag forth the linguistic artifact of the so-called 'thin present', granted, if we all mesmerize to the familiar tune  all of the must be's and have to's that you demand seems so very logical. Yet, from within the nested fields within nested fields motif you (and Einstein, et. al) apparently don't notice when you dissociate from one of your ingrained internal models to another.  

Perhaps it is just our overwhelming enchantment with  words, but please notice that before you get  to a differentiated 'thin present', you sort of have to first upload and ingrain  the entire basic past-present-future storyline, like we ALL typically have done.  This storyline COMES with the assumption of a very thin present.  But more than that,  from within the nested structured~duality or the nested fields within nested fields model 'the past', 'the present' and 'the future' are also just three different structurally coded widgets -- linguistically encoded secondary associations, or perhaps what Serge might call different intellectual products, or with respect to our love affair with 'time',  what is a mis-shapened part of our western scientific spiritualism or religion.  That is, time,  it's a deeply ingrained but still erroneous paradigmatic assumption. 

I suggest that the anxiety associated with letting go of that scientific~religious-like belief prompts your  agitated demands for the 'true nature of time' a la the flawed or  limiting argument in your post.

Again, I suspect you correctly state the partyline position from within the box. But the point is, that does nothing to advance the ongoing shift from flat-to-curvy-t- nested.   And notice that even when you get through  you have relativistic space-time nested within at least a few other levels of enfolding  intellectual products, so where do you hide or how do you express the overall conceptual model of it if not as nested curvature within nested curvature, or more simply as it is as nested fields within nested fields?

I'm suggesting a non-dual approach -- both and more -- and that there is or are more that one more unified, more accurate and useful conceptual models that match up with our overall experience.  Curvy is the initial approximation which obviously works well. But the nested ones are the more unified and more robust ones which will serve to carry us forward and further.  

It's a matter of changing the questions.

Nesting as a core feature. Was: Re: Is the universe driven by mathematics or is it driven by aesthetics

What do you think -- either/or, or both and more?

 There are many, many ways to say that there is some kind of resonance going on.  Aesthetics is one impression or expression.  Initially, when reading yanniru's question/statement, I was thinking about the mathematics, particularly the rational widgets, all being geared back into stochiometry, which is basically about fit and/or resonance and, one or my favorites: nested structure  or actually, the nested structured-duality -- if we are to paradoxically but adroitly  acquire a solid non-dual understanding of ourselves down into the technological/symbolic/transformational depths of our surroundings.

 It seems to me we might benefit by  by noticing that associations and relations do involve the nested, both and more circumstance and that the symbolism, or the conceptual model of nested structured~duality is the imagery that we seek to model the type of vibratory standing waves and  transportation needed in this neck of the quantum gravitational woods. 

 Additionally, what most often turns  out to be false are our beliefs -- our paradigmatic assumptions. Don't you think?

 Those flawed associations are merely one small (and negotiable) fraction of the local nested structured~duality.

Both AND more:  math and stochiometry -- math and energy and matter and associations and memories and protein-folding and nested fields within nested fields...

 Nesting is a core, central feature, supporting both and more.