Before words?

 (Scientific Basic Of Consciousness Google-Groups - Dec 16, 2018)

John, others, 

In follow-up to the question of how migrating to NSD/magnetic tetrahedra catalyzes acquisition of physical intuition... Kant's Transcendental Idealism seems relevant.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism allegedly says space and time are subjective items ~forming our intuition.  Maybe others can clarify or correct if I misinterpret or add too much of my bias. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism

...the idea here is, NSD turns out to be a more accurate basis of our intuition and our physical intuition.   Our intuition is not formed of "space and time" but of "nested structured~duality". The magnetic tetrahedral analog math is a close enough approximation of the real thing so as to be able to deliver the improved yield.

Whether ~this ~refutes T.I., or just drills down through and replaces "space and time" with "nested structured~duality"  is not clear to me today and may be irrelevant. Both approximations are necessary and/or helpful.The bigger issue of switching to a more deeply, fundamentally nested  model, I think, overrides most other considerations.  That is, NSD and/or its spectrum of repeatable subjectivity (SORS) soundly disrupts the familiar or popular subjective-objective method of assessing or  of conceptualizing and categorizing, so various items, even on Kant's gameboard, get shifted around.

That is, he is saying (or I am interpreting wildly from skimming the Wikipedia article), that we have one apparently objective model founded on objects moving about within space and time -- which itself is like a flat nesting image: objects within space (and/or time).

But then he fashions together a ladder and climbs up to view "Transcendental Idealism" to notice that that flat objective model is mysteriously nested within  or emerging from our intuition which appears to be formed of subjective "space" and "time".   But (I assume or project) no where does he notice the fundamental, but simplified  nested ~structure that he is also  relying upon. (OR, he's relying on the spiritual nesting and does not consider it necessary or perhaps possible to make it scientifically explicit.)

Anyway, he's sketching out a problematic nesting and inaccurate structure problem compounded  with a related missing spectrum of repeatable subjectivity problem. It's excellent for an initial approximation or one in the succession of approximations, but at some point it reaches its limits and folds away.

Best regards,

ralph

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 5:15 PM Ralph Frost wrote:

Dear John,

In attempt to summarize or clarify further from this morning's post,  if or once a reader can provisionally consider "reality being nested structured~duality",  what is structured turns out to be different instances of structured~duality (as one word) -- one instance for the so-called thing itself and some other instances for  all the various communicable descriptions of the thing itself.

People have the tendency or ability discover, create, stack and/or balance  these instances of nested structured~duality, which, of course, just creates other instances of nested structured~duality.

Structural coding exists; time does not.

Hi, Chris, 
The   model I am advocating currently is that thoughts are structurally coded in ordered water.  You and I are about 60% water and in respiring about 160 kg of oxygen per year so our respiration sites (within neurons, and other cells) are generating 10^20 water molecules per second.  Water's structured~duality (two plus and two minus vertices in a tetrahedral-like shape) could support 6^n or 12^n structural coding forming internal representations of the vibrations of our surroundings.  Such units would also be hydrogen bonding packets that are influential in protein-folding, etc., (expression).  Yes, it may well be speculative, but the model is  visualizable, non-classical and somewhat rational enough, and storing such immediate ('now') stacks of ordered water in bound water layers of newly forming protein matrices provides a way to get more persistent (aka, longer-term) structural coding or memory.  It seems to be a somewhat interesting model and  trial theory.

More below..

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:45 AM 'Chris Nunn' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Ralph,
But what are ‘thoughts’ made of? Dynamic ‘codings’ of some sort for sure. And I agree that ordered water is likely to play a part in these, perhaps in the context of ‘hydro-ionic’ waves.

[rf] Perhaps. I think there are quite a few options for various kinds of structural coding. Plus, there are the various levels of un-sub-conscious as well as ~feelings/emotions, sensing, imagination, etc..   I have  happened onto the 6^n or 12^n structural coding as an internal analog 'language' which is an upgrade of the familiar 2^n binary coding. Getting associative coding into such hydrogen-bonding packets going  is just a step  or two away from sequences of protein-foldings sounding a lot like speech and/or the expressions  of useful, organizing sounds and words.

Something, however, is needed to provide continuity for the codings. As I mentioned to John, any purely classical account runs into trouble because its ‘moments’ are infinitesimal and its metric notional. But real things need to exist in a temporal dimension as well as the three spatial dimensions. As a consequence any purely classical account of continuity probably has to follow Julian Barbour in proclaiming the “death of time” and a universe lacking any real time, but only a path through an unimaginably vast array of relative state spaces. It’s another extravagant picture, not unlike a timeless version of the currently popular multiverse.

[rf] My impression for a few years has been:  "experience exists; time does not" -- or that ~time and the entire  many flavors of temporal notions are an artifact of our structural coding. It's difficult to describe and clarify because the notions of time  (and space) are paradigmatic in the dominant model. In  NSD, reality is nested structured~duality  -- nested fields within nested fields --  where, let's say we are structurally coding "thoughts" or "memories" as nested fields within nested fields.  Those so-called 'moments' are dependent upon  _completing_ increments of  structural coding which we might visualize as  building a coded stack of 12 or 18 water molecules, or perhaps packing  a number of those stacks within a newly forming  bound water layer.  You and I would likely still say, "yeah, but those processes take time", and yes, so it appears.  But add some catalyzing enzymes and the times the process takes lessens.  So the 'moments' still centrally depend on "completing the structural coding of a recognizable, recallable ~thought". 

Such bio-molecular structural coding is minimally non-classical and not infinitesimal. Yet, notice that what matters is that energy-collection-related structural coding does get packed, say, into bound water layers such that as the relevant (perhaps even caustive)  vibratory pattern repeats, the ~echo reactivates the stored structural coding to spawn a useful or effective adaptive response or expression.   You and I may consider these repeating events occurring "in time", and certainly the Earth turns daily as it obits the Sun, but the fact still is: experience (structural coding) exists; time does not".

Re: Reality!

Hi, Chris, 

The   model I am advocating currently is that thoughts are structurally coded in ordered water.  You and I are about 60% water and in respiring about 160 kg of oxygen per year so our respiration sites (within neurons, and other cells) are generating 10^20 water molecules per second.  Water's structured~duality (two plus and two minus vertices in a tetrahedral-like shape) could support 6^n or 12^n structural coding forming internal representations of the vibrations of our surroundings.  Such units would also be hydrogen bonding packets that are influential in protein-folding, etc., (expression).  Yes, it may well be speculative, but the model is  visualizable, non-classical and somewhat rational enough, and storing such immediate ('now') stacks of ordered water in bound water layers of newly forming protein matrices provides a way to get more persistent (aka, longer-term) structural coding or memory.  It seems to be a somewhat interesting model and  trial theory.

More below..


On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:45 AM 'Chris Nunn' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness wrote:
Hi Ralph,
But what are ‘thoughts’ made of? Dynamic ‘codings’ of some sort for sure. And I agree that ordered water is likely to play a part in these, perhaps in the context of ‘hydro-ionic’ waves.

[rf] Perhaps. I think there are quite a few options for various kinds of structural coding. Plus, there are the various levels of un-sub-conscious as well as ~feelings/emotions, sensing, imagination, etc..   I have  happened onto the 6^n or 12^n structural coding as an internal analog 'language' which is an upgrade of the familiar 2^n binary coding. Getting associative coding into such hydrogen-bonding packets going  is just a step  or two away from sequences of protein-foldings sounding a lot like speech and/or the expressions  of useful, organizing sounds and words.

Something, however, is needed to provide continuity for the codings. As I mentioned to John, any purely classical account runs into trouble because its ‘moments’ are infinitesimal and its metric notional. But real things need to exist in a temporal dimension as well as the three spatial dimensions. As a consequence any purely classical account of continuity probably has to follow Julian Barbour in proclaiming the “death of time” and a universe lacking any real time, but only a path through an unimaginably vast array of relative state spaces. It’s another extravagant picture, not unlike a timeless version of the currently popular multiverse.

[rf] My impression for a few years has been:  "experience exists; time does not" -- or that ~time and the entire  many flavors of temporal notions are an artifact of our structural coding. It's difficult to describe and clarify because the notions of time  (and space) are paradigmatic in the dominant model. In  NSD, reality is nested structured~duality  -- nested fields within nested fields --  where, let's say we are structurally coding "thoughts" or "memories" as nested fields within nested fields.  Those so-called 'moments' are dependent upon  _completing_ increments of  structural coding which we might visualize as  building a coded stack of 12 or 18 water molecules, or perhaps packing  a number of those stacks within a newly forming  bound water layer.  You and I would likely still say, "yeah, but those processes take time", and yes, so it appears.  But add some catalyzing enzymes and the times the process takes lessens.  So the 'moments' still centrally depend on "completing the structural coding of a recognizable, recallable ~thought". 

Such bio-molecular structural coding is minimally non-classical and not infinitesimal. Yet, notice that what matters is that energy-collection-related structural coding does get packed, say, into bound water layers such that as the relevant (perhaps even caustive)  vibratory pattern repeats, the ~echo reactivates the stored structural coding to spawn a useful or effective adaptive response or expression.   You and I may consider these repeating events occurring "in time", and certainly the Earth turns daily as it obits the Sun, but the fact still is: experience (structural coding) exists; time does not".

Something temporally holistic is needed to escape extravagance of this sort, which does imply incremental increase and something memory-like, but it’s not going to be a spatially definable ‘something’.
Best
Chris

[rf] Consider just the on-going mostly resonant structural coding  of nested fields within nested fields as a feature of reality being nested structured~duality.

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.
https://magnetictetrahedra.com

Understanding NSD

Ram,

Thanks.

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.

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

Whit,

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.

Common denominator of all ontologies and epistemologies

Bruno,

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

Ralph,

On 7 May 2018, at 21:17, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno,

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...

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

Bruno, 

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.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

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}.  

Continued thread on the foundations of mathematics

Thanks, Bruno, for trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

On 4 Mar 2018, at 10:44, Ralph Frost <ralph.frost@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I reply here below in attempt to convey to you an understanding of my term "nested structured~duality". 

Scroll down  a ways, below UTOPIA  to [rf Mar 4]...

Bio-dark matter as ~sp^3 center connector

Hey, Philip,

Regarding your statement below of 'invisible nested structure', being made of dark matter/bio-dark matter,  I can somewhat relate to your proposal by pointing at what I call the center connector - the brass-wire-tube (or plexiglas) construction that I use to align and ~hold four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron that I use in my magnetic tetrahedral analog math.  Without some such structure  or tensegrity the magnets would just collapse into a tight ground-state, non-3d pile.  With it, the three dimensional (tetrahedral) structure persists.

The analogy of such an aligning structure, I believe, would or could or might  extend ~down to the ~tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level of organic molecules (see images -- https://magnetictetrahedra.com/images/phpshow.php?newGD&slides&2 ) wherein,  potentially, in the storyline you propose, collections of bio-dark matter would or could  be serving as like  "center connectors" maintaining the flexible, within limits, mostly tetrahedral arrangements and inverting/reactive structures of the related (bio) atoms/collections.

I mean,  potentially, as 'center connector', might be one way to visualize how ~light and ~dark matters might be ~working together potentially giving life its special properties.    (Also, serving as some poetic account for: "...made in our image...")

I guess this proposed insertion of dark matter at that level might raise questions or issues, too, relating somewhat to quantum mechanics since QM calculations, I believe, presently calculate/predict the tetrahedral - sp^3 hybridized and similar types of adaptive structures also found empirically in, say, crystallography, etc., but supposedly just calculated from (assumed) properties of the "light-matter-only" regular chemistry atoms or their sub-atom particles and forces.

I suppose then, also,  ~dark matter could or might or would have to take on some further types of structural coding roles that we (that is, mathematicians) presently and traditionally  might visualize and think of as being "~purely mathematical structures" and/or related to logic, mathematical logic, etc.  ...as well as giving some account for all the many instances of nested structured~duality  found in, and making up, say, philosophies of mathematics, or in all the various philosophies in general, which seem to oscillate or partition  between  mental/mathematical and/or physical  --   invisible  and visible/sensible  realms or fractions.   The same might also give some account of Wigner's 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematics.

IF dark matter et. al., is or becomes a happening thing, then it seems it ought to be spread out in various places and niches and would have influences in key  levels of organization and phenomena than just in the astrophysical expansion, or as Paul Werbos says, the noospheric level.

...Probably, as you have been trying to express for a few years...

Continued thread on fundamentals of mathematics (Assuming R=NSD)

Bruno,

Some clarification  regarding you saying I assume physical reality... My prior (long) reply was truncated. Perhaps just as well.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

..snip..

[bm] It [the approach/trial theory rf advocates] assumes something physical, which is what I want to explain without assuming this. From my view, you start with the answer. Your idea might help to pursue my investigation, but you would need to make it much more precise. If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”.

[rf]  

I do start with the answer, but I don't "assume something physical".  The difference, though, I think, is 

(1) you are assuming math and logic artifacts (~mental things) so you can logically derive ~physical things as features of the arithmetic reality as ~proved/able if someone survives the comp/digital mechanism substitution... while you also delegate to supposedly friendly and humane Turing devices for them to scribble out  the or an associated model of consciousness,  

whereas,

(2)  I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality  (R=NSD),  which prompts me to start with a specific structured~duality and then scribble out analog math that  ~verifies the assumption  by/while demonstrating the capacity to convey physical intuition about physical reality and our ontology while also  illuminating structural coding as an improved  replacement for (substitution of) the term and features we previously labeled and know as "consciousness". 

Thus, in your comp storyline, you assume AR and aim to derive, or have your Turing devices derive  ~physical reality (carbon, electron), whereas in

[Sadhu Sanga] Re: Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

Bruno, 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...".  

Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning?   I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion,  when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation. Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing...  to me  it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.

Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations, and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?   

And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?

Can you please clarify and explain?

Secondly,  your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions.  Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously.  Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multiple-perspective -- which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each.    In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/air traffic control  communications channels, and, seemed quite important "to folks" I ~observed in co-linked control/monitoring rooms...   All, quite imaginative.   After a while,  in part since I couldn't figure out how to collect any back pay for services rendered, I got therapy for some underlying emotional tensions, became a bit more productive and retired from the "service" - turned away from that activity.  The guided imagery of your teleportation steps, though, seems quite familiar or along similar lines, except for   being less along the typical "wires and waves through walls" ~schizophrenic ideation.   

[sadhu-sanga] Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

Bruno, 

First, thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false.   Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies. Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality.  Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set".  Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD's.

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider.

Some comments below..

[Which Mechanism? How many are there? Terseness and delivering physical intuition as measures of effectiveness.]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote: