Re: Languages -- including analog math.

Chris,   [jcs-online]

There are many challenges in  a paradigm transition related to language or expression, many of which, like habits, preferences, prejudices, interpretations and other structural coding,  are also deeply ingrained in participants.   The challenge in the present transition is a bit more complicated in that migrating to the improved trial theory minimally makes a step in revealing  how  mental and physical patterns and artifacts ride along on the same underlying, unifying  general principle.  Getting to that new ground involves learning at least one or two new words -- new language acquisition --  and that  step -- learning a new language -- is  usually pretty difficult for all of us. 

Your representation as 'nested hierarchies' of what I actually emphasize [magnetic tetrahedra, the principle of structured~duality, structural coding, nested fields within nested fields], in the storyline I am advocating  is a somewhat fair, but also  somewhat  misleading characterization.  The hierarchies imagery is somewhat descriptive and may be excellent for linking back toward abstract math expressions of fractals or holograms. But the term falls down just a bit when defining all of reality as nested hierarchies.  Yeah, it sort of works, but not as well, or as independently  as actually crossing the boundary to all of reality being nested structured~duality.    I suspect many readers can catch this nuance since the new term is sufficiently open to contain the expanded terrain whereas 'nested hierarchies' is already  a bit too limited for that task. 

 

Higgs within electromagnetic, etc.

Dear Jo,   (jcs-online)

Where you wrote: "For a token mode there are no knowable values distributed in time and space in this sense, because these 'values' are probabilities for getting a value at a place and time and if you get it at one place and time there are no values at other places and times."...

[ralph wrote] Much of this multi-generational confusion    clears up by shifting to viewing reality as (pulsating) nested fields within nested fields.  

I mean, that's part of where the difficulty arises when folks assume or isolate out  the alleged separate  'space' or the 'time' ~fields, or make their measures against that erroneous assumption -- and then run into the dynamical difficulties you outline.   

Viewing the entire showboat as the dynamic (aka, pulsating) nested fields within nested fields, or the dynamic nested structural coding, then  the space and the time are just more of the structural coding -- not hard and fast actual solidified dimensions.  Again, the structured~duality is the underlying tenet, not space and time, or even space-time.

Within such an improved emerging paradigmatic perspective, then one can begin to track on L-monads, monads, fields, mode of a field, ensembles, matter-energy transformations, emergence and the elusive qualities of non-classical dynamics supporting classical physics,  -- Higgs within electromagnetic, etc.

The issue at hand is paradigmatic, requiring a change in underlying tenet(s).   'Mode of a field' is great, but not quite general enough.  The space, time and space-time need to dissipate and dissolve into the underlying nested structured~duality. 

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

----

RE: [jcs-online] Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Hi ralph

Penrose and Hameroff didn't provide us with
a scientific account of consiousness,
they only gave us the contents of consiousness.

But consciousness= subject + object.

They only gave us the object, not the subject.

Only Plato and Leibniz give us both.

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

Hey, Roger Clough, 

I believe there is at least one other perspective on this subjective-objective elephant that you may not yet be  considering.

When we drill down through the tectonic plates  of both the western and the eastern paradigmatic expressions, what we encounter through and through are various instances of the underlying nested structured~duality. The eastern tradition sports the Tao/yin-yang patterns and our western scientific  tradition sports, roughly, the ~cube/subject-object instance, or variations on that theme.   To build a paradigm  ...pick a structure and pick a duality or sets of dualities, then work outward from there.   Plato does it. Leibniz does it.  Hameroff and Penrose do it. You do it. I do it. 

From this more unified vantage point, then when we look squarely at  subjective + objective, what we discover is objective things are instances, mostly, of the strongly repeatable subjectivity, blurring into the stochastic repeatibility.  This repeatability  is one of the most exquisite and uplifting impressions which comes  along with stumbling onto a new objective scientific discovery. The first occurrence of it is a hugely pregnant affair which then is found to repeat, first, within trials of the person discovering the pattern first, and next in the experience of others who discover  or are informed of the ~new scientific discovery.  The pattern repeats. The generality holds and expands.  Yet, in the early going all that each participant has is a strange, odd, usually poorly effable subjective feeling.  In fact, that is always all we get and have, but in the case of the strongly repeating patterns, after a while, we all like, or have been taught within the western tradition to label them as OBJECTIVE experiences.  

As you perhaps may now see, if you did not before,  there is  just the one type of experience --what likely is best thought of as a spectrum of repeatable subjectivity.   Crudely then, along and within this path of divine union, we might consider different categories such as  none (unique,solitary), rarely, stochastically, and strongly  repeating subjective experiences.    Thus,(rarely repeatable) spiritual is, as most  everyone also says, nested within the physical, etc.

 

 

As for your notion that  "Penrose and Hameroff didn't provide us with

a scientific account of consciousness,",  I disagree.   It looks to me like they are doing an admirable job of projecting, articulating and defending a mostly rationally founded trial theory of consciousness, and/or attempting to sketch in boundaries of science containing