(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.
