(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.

Thus,
if you notice, on the "physical" side as in the standard model scaled
on up to nebulae and universal levels, that everything is all fairly
obviously "nested structured~duality" -- patterns of various pluses and
minuses leaning against each other generating other patterns.

What's
a little more difficult to observe or grasp, or perhaps it is too
unsettling, threatening or frightening as one considers doing it, is
that everything on the "non-physical" or "mental" side is also nested
structured~duality. One thought is some sort of artifact representing
or reflecting some
other associated set of similar artifacts. Ditto for groups of thoughts
and thus for all paradigms. If a participant sits with the feel of
abstract mathematics for a long while, or plays around with or just
considers analog math of magnetic tetrahedra for a short while, most
readers can probably, also appreciate the rather unified, nested
cognitive, affective, emotional and environmental resonance.

Thus, nested structured~duality turns out to be the underlying general principle; the underlying common denominator.

I
am pretty sure, John, that without adding or glimpsing the new
vocabulary, there is no other such easy way to understand and describe
reality. Also, I am noting that my experience is that I
"accidentally" migrated into a different paradigm by creating and
playing around with magnetic tetrahedra, which I now claim as a very
good exemplar of "general" nested structured~duality and claim magnetic
tetrahedra as a valuable type of analog math. Again, with this, I just
picked a different structure and, in retrospect, "magnets as the
duality". After that "accident", as I've repeated several times before,
rather instantly, the analog math generates physical intuition on
variable mass density multiple states, as well as the rough look and
feel for the five Debye electronegativity patterns making up a huge
fraction of our own living, breathing, thinking, feeling molecular
bonding structures and that of much of our supportive, sustaining
surroundings.

So, while you or others steeped
in mastery in abstract math and productive within the dominant
scientific paradigm may rightly view my "tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion"
instance as a tiny toy paradigm, the terse reformulation still
provides the instant physical intuition that Feynman once wrote about as
a potential development for a small minority of students after decades
of mastering abstract mathematics and intensive mentoring in advanced
empirical sciences.

What accounts for that
curious and compact result? The analog model closely approximates the
model we are and that we use to use to model the model.

Lastly,
repeating for an initial time something that is recently dawning on
me, in the dominant scientific paradigm, subjective-objective
categorizations and attraction-repulsion register as "duals" or
"dualities". In the NSD storyline, objectivity is also strongly
repeatable subjectivity (exposing the multiple segments of the more
unified spectrum of repeatably subjectivity. Similarly, repulsion (at
least in magnetics) is also attraction with one-half spin. Both of
these examples are revisions in the "structured~duality". In one
paradigm, we ~see and conceptualize things in one way, perhaps littered
with anomalies that we don't think of as anomalies. In the alternate
paradigm, we ~see and conceptualize things as anomalies that resolve in a
different, more rational, more unified way.

I
am pretty sure wave-particle resolves similarly, as properties of NSD
(the environment, the lab, the test case, the experimenter, the theory,
the results and the interpretation) also, ALL being nested fields
within nested fields. This is intuitively hooked with the
"position-momentum" anomaly which really does hark back to initializing
the model by assuming or projecting empty space and XYZ-space, aka,
"position" as a fundamental or quasi-fundamental -- when it is not. The
cubic deformation is apparently a great driver for abstract math
development and detailed initial approximation, but it is a flawed,
improperly nested instance for understanding reality and developing
physical intuition rapidly.

Does any of this help to intervene with your struggling with the terminology of NSD?

I am grateful for your, and others' effort, good humor and patience. Thank you.

Best regards,

ralph

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:54 PM John Jay Kineman <john.kineman@colorado.edu> wrote:

Ralph,

Still struggling with the terminology of NSD, it occurred to me
that the first two terms are adjectives and the third, duality, is also
suggestive of a modifier - dual what? So these are three qualities of
something unspecified.

In wave/particle duality it is well defined as dual formalisms,
i.e. Different laws. Laws are structure of dynamics. So NSD in this case
translates to "nested structured dual mathematical structure", which
might come close to holons depending on the structure
of the nesting of wave/particle duality in this specific case.

For general mind-body duality, that is a category duality. The
structure of the body category is dynamical/material. The structure of
the mind category is debatable. In QM we had a probability structure,
but now there are other proposals. So I would also
wonder what the structure of the duality is in NSD.

Is there a simple way to explain what is being structured?

Joh

## No comments:

## Post a Comment

Leave a comment