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...

We all have and create and express our various instances of nested structured~duality and in so doing pick our own (usually different) limits on structures, boundaries and differences that resonate with our own nested structured~duality.

I am just waiting you could define “nested structure duality”. I can recognise similar things in computer science, but not why it would be a primitive things, unless it is just a disguised version of some universal machinery or universal machine.

Best,

Bruno

Pardon me. It's not a disguised version. It is a rather  clear, naked general  underlying common denominator principle version.   If you want to talk about disguised versions perhaps we would need to talk about  "with mechanism...arithmetical reality... Church-Turing-device versions" that are supposedly universal yet are apparently blind to nested structured~duality.

Why don't you ask yourself what would you engage in if you were to fashion together just some regular machine -- maybe copy something like a lever and fulcrum. You'd arrange some pieces of stuff in a structure and apply effort one place to lift a weight someplace else.

The same pattern is in your scurrying about arranging well-ordered lists of idealized comparison statements and then drawing either covert and overt nested  (structured structured) associations.

Or consider  pattern-matching for  "recognizing" one dualic structure relative to one or more other dualic structures.  Or go into the organic chemistry and notice redox (oxidation-reduction) reactions, resonance and steric (structural) hindrance moderating reactions. Or enzymatic catalysis and inhibition.

Even in my crude understanding of Turing machines where one has a linear tape and one moves the magnifying glass to each step, reads the instruction, goes to the look-up table and finds what to do, writes or erases, etc., then increments forward or backward, etc.,   Pick a structure.  Pick a duality or difference. Work "outward" from those initial conditions.

It's all the same pattern. Pick a structure; pick a duality or difference or change. Then build outward from there in some nested fashion. 

If you notice it IS primitive in that it precedes and is prior to cobbing together both functional and flawed or approximate Turing and other devices, universal or not.

With reality being nested structured~duality, we do arrive at ontologies equaling epistemologies.

(*) I found it:

B. Marchal. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology,  2017, Vol. 131, Pages 251-260.

Without looking, I predict  it is another fine instance of nested structured~duality. 

Looking at a Googled  preview,  " to shed some [additional] light upon the apparent dichotomy in Eastern/Western spirituality".  notice that they are various instances of nested structured~duality. In the East, one version is Tao/yin-yang. In the West we run the Cartesian Cube/subjective-objective instances and its various epicycles.   Notice when one picks an effective common denominator, the so-call "dichotomy"  goes away and the common bonds appear.

That is, due to the increased generalization, understanding improves.
 

Best regards,
Ralph Frost, PhD

Changing the scientific paradigm.
https://magnetictetrahedra.com