---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
Ralph, you did not answer any of my questions; you never explain how your sugars, magnetic fields, fats, and proteins "has some *feel*".
[rf] I believe I learn and appreciate *feel* via the tactile learning style. If you are predominantly, say, a 'visual learner' you may not be able to 'understand' or appreciate my explanation. Have you worked with wrenches and solved problems building physical things? That is, your own gifts and proclivities may be in other areas -- as mine are.
To start out, either take, or remember playing with two rod magnets, one in each hand. Push /holdthem end to end. Can you *feel* either the attraction or the repulsion? Play around with resisting and imposing the attraction and repulsion. Notice that you can give magnets "one/half spin" -- 180 degree rotation, end for end, and still get the ~same *feels*.
Next, consider the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron -- two ways to have all repulsion at the center [variable mass density] (n4, s4); one way to have balanced attraction (n2s2); and two ways to have more repulsion than attraction [weak attraction] (n3s, ns3).
Notice (on the image of the magnetic tetrahedron at the link below, for instance) that I refrain from pasting visual cues or N-S labels on the ends of magnets. I do this on purpose so as to not blur or inject the map with the territory -- in essence, to NOT overlay secondary visual/intellectual categorizations with the primary tactile observation/measurement. If you can follow this, you may understand that what this discipline does is prompt for periodic or 'on-call' checking with a probe magnet to determine or measure (*feel*) -- 'observe from perturbation differences' -- which of the three sets of states one has in front of them as "an object of study'. Then, after that assessment, IF it really matters, a participant could align the probe magnet end in the local field and thereby think they were sort of conscious of specifically WHICH of the five states one really had 'observed', assuming ALL fields are not oscillating wildly back-and-forth.
That is, this delayed or blocked labeling procedure gives some physical intuition to participants something akin to thinking conscious observation as being entangled with ~collapse of the (informational) wave function. Yet, notice what I have done is exclude or block inserting or nesting (secondary) visual/intellectual maps directly into the actual, physical/tactile territory. My impression is that particles, atoms and molecules similarly do not have any such such visual cues about particles, atoms and molecules in surroundings but these artifact DO engage and interact via *feel*. Thus the "analog math" described above is a more faithful 'analog model' of various states of our reality. In the process of blocking, delaying or re-ordering how we nest and layer, let's say, learning styles/sensory-intellectual categorizations, we do get slightly different models and understandings of reality. (Again, ~proving reality is nested structured~duality.)
I can and often do wonder about this delayed or blocked measurement=perturbation/labeling procedure, but I have come to appreciate that since magnets are said to only have a quantum mechanical but no classical description, the magnetic tetrahedron (or any similar construction) turns out to basically be a simple machine of quantum mechanics and/or for all nested fields within nested fields. Thus, when treated in some ways and not others, this simple machine provides experiences and reflects features of various characteristics found in quantum mechanical, quantum gravitational and other low-level physics transactions.
Thus this instance of "analog math" is a more faithful 'analog model' of various states of our reality. (More faithful, more powerful, more compact and "communicative' than the abstract math models are.) I understand this is the case because of the above described blocking inserting the visual/abstract intellectual cues, too early in the model development.
Click on the links at http://magtet.com and consider the pictures. IF you have studied or learned some chemistry, you may be able to see that the Debye electronegativity diagram for water (H-O-H) is akin to or analogous with the n2s2 unit for example, , and, the ammonia molecules/pattern (NH3) is akin to the n3s/ns3 unit.
[rlg..] I did a google search on "analog math" and got the below link. It doesn't look like anything you have been ranting about over the years. Are you willing to consider other ideas?
http://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/analog_mathematics
[rf] Other ideas? Sure. What do you have in mind? I also would encourage you to think less of analog electronic circuits and more about the simple machines of mechanics in classical physics like lever and fulcrum, wedge-screw-inclined plane, wheel-pulley, etc. Yet, further, if you consider the image of the magnetic tetrahedron at the link above, what one has in view is one (or any/all) of the five states exhibiting anharmonic motion balanced in the gravitational field via friction at two vertices with one vertex above a like-poled support magnet from the bottom and restrained or influenced somewhat by a probe magnet at the top. A participant can consider the hand-held probe magnet as analogous to a gamma-ray photon and the balanced unit above the support magnet as analogous to an 'electron'. Thus, 'pushing' with the probe magnet gives an analog (with *feels*, and the uncertainties of position and momentum) of Heisenberg's gamma-ray photon thought experiment. Analogous, but also giving *feel* of the field-field interaction, and, also impressions of many other low-level features and characteristics.
When perturbed too much the unit 'collapses' from a nested fields within nested fields wavilinear state to a more entangled, condensed, particulate, 'ground' state. That is, the system goes from one instance of nested structured~duality to another instance of nested structured~duality. As well, it's also true that the collapsed state is accurately described as just a pile of magnets.
So, I would encourage you to try out those sorts of ideas relating to the terms of 'analog math' and analog model'. Like I said, if you are strongly biased toward the visual learning style, you may not understand or appreciate developing physical intuition rather directly via the tactile information channel.
As an aside, I was fortunate in 1971 as a civil engineering student at University of Maine to have a few weeks of analog computer exposure while punching card decks for FORTRAN programs to run on an IBM 360 digital computer. The instructors back then said that people didn't know whether analog or digital computing would 'win out' or how the two would shake out or merge. That exposure always stuck with me and helped me later to discern that all our abstract math symbolisms and words, etc., are secondary artifacts riding on a primary internal (my impression -- biochemical, structurally coded) 'analog math language'.
The distinction and working from different initial conditions seems to be fruitful.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Changing the scientific paradigm.
http://magtet.com
http://magnetictetrahedra.com
http://frostscientific.com (Coming soon!)
http://structuredduality.blogspot.com
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
========================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment