True or false, or approximate enough? Considering Donald Hoffman's modeling

There is another advantage in noticing that reality is nested multiple states within nested multiple states within nested fields within nested fields -- or more simply, that  reality is nested structured~duality.

Basically, this additional new-found advantage is that such a more unified new perspective supports and is in good alignment  with Donald Hoffman's and others' findings that  "perception is non-veridical".   (See, for instance: "https://edge.org/response-detail/11942" or other of Donald Hoffman's publications since 2008.)

How or why might this be important?    Here's and example revealing more of the perspective. 

I read in a recent jcs-online post something to the effect of: "[blah-blah-blah, some argument(s)] ... therefore realism is false".   

At issue is not the quality or apparent perfection of the argument supporting the conclusion  that "realism is false",  but that given other times, or other orators having, let's say, newly effable (expressible)  or different counter-arguments,  readers have also been alternatively informed that, say, "realism is true", or "idealism is true (or false)", etc.  And on and on within all the various -isms for which the familiar logical true-false states are said or believed to be valid assessments. 

The issue, though, is that  with visual perception being non-veridical,  as Hoffman presents,  I observe that (secondary) thoughtful, wordful (verbal)  philosophical constructions can obviously be no less non-verdical.   Thus, potentially, open-minded readers may begin to get the impression that what we face  is not the assumed classical assessments of the naive, (2^n) true or false states and conditions.  What we actually face is our non-veridical, non-classical, more robust, higher dimensional nested approximations.

The philosophy of structural coding

Serge,

Thanks for your questions. 

I think I  do make progress on a few of the items you say you don't yet understand about realty being nested structured~duality and reality being unified in accord with the underlying general principle of  structured~duality.
However, before that I would like to back up to characteristics of rational compared with intuitive thinking/communication,  and begin by asking readers to glance at and register the contents at http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm particularly the 2nd and 3rd pairs in the bullet list.

Secondly, I understand "structured~duality" to be an intuitive term coined after a period of physical, sensory experimentation with magnetic tetrahedra (balancing,  *feeling* spins and the shapes of magnetic fields)   and concurrently a period of intense ineffability. No doubt the term: "struictured~duality"  is an imperfect, approximate term, particularly from a strongly left-brained or strictly rational perspective. 

Overall, when I consider the rational/intuitive characteristics of looks at differences/looks at similarities, I get the impression that looking at similarities would be the likely path for coming up with a more unified, different arrangement of paradoxical elements and features.  Yet, also, such a useful expression might not translate well, as RLG might say: into ordinary English. I would advise curious people to NOT try to take it  apart into separate parts but instead, to consder it more in the class as with wave-particle or the non-classical states that are considered within classical collections of matter.


But, let's see if we can make progress...

---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :