tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87314504982827037162024-03-13T12:05:42.885-04:00Nested Structured~dualityВложенный структурно-дуальность <br>
Anidado ~ Estructurado dualidad<br><br>
The underlying general principle:<br>
"All things have some structure and
have or exhibit one or more
dualities or differences."
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-55441741264459235872021-06-01T09:29:00.001-04:002021-06-01T09:37:13.908-04:00Platonism Revisited<p> <span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)" face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Considering the often repeated statements that quantum mechanics "isn't understandable" or "doesn't make any sense", etc., I sometimes think it worthwhile to inquire about "make sense in relation to what?"</span></p><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Roughly, I guess the answer to that question is the non-classical features don't make sense in relation to our classical understanding and conditioning. And generally, at that point the inquiry stops because as most mathematicians might quickly say if they were to say anything is there is A LOT riding on the foundations of classical understandings remaining just as they are, thank you. The inquiry is as unwanted as republicans want aopen re-hash of Trump's and their January 6 2021 insurrection attack of the Capitol.</div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Well, maybe not that badly. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">In any event, from the vantage point of reality being nested structured~duality, if we dial back to Plato, first we observe that he is invoking a skimpy model of nesting in his physical and metaphysical classifications. To my knowledge he doesn't have a rule or guide or justification for such thinking other than, perhaps invoking God and/or soul relative to physical items-- just as the common assumption or belief. He also doesn't identify why there are just the two categories: physical and metaphysical. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">The second observation is that his important consideration was on the idealized forms and on the ideas of the idealized forms. Note that by invoking the word ideas, he is inserting a small but rather complete (and ill-defined) model of "consciousness" without mentioning that he is doing so. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Therefore, in his instance, he is running a nested structures model based inquiry. Not, nested structured~duality, but nested structures. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Then, however, or in among the developments, one can also observe a mathematical nested level and an idea level of structural coding emerge. So the underlying general principle is present and at work, but at sort of an unconscious level.</div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">In any event, it's a good approximation, perhaps, even though incomplete and largely ignoring or unaware of the concurrent Eastern yin-yang-like structured~dualities. The idealized pure and abstract math ideations emerged along with the associated causal-logical relations. Establishing and conditioning all advocates thinking as to "what makes sense". </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Thus the "classical physics" understanding. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Entre-vous la salle de class --- enter the classroom of the non-classical items and interactions, particularly given and guided by more newly created abstract math relations, which all ideations are formed of, and all of a sudden, educators say the new stuff doesn't make sense. They don't say, or suspect the old stuff not making the right sense. The problem allegedly is the new stuff. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Allowing that reality is nested structured~duality, it would also make sense that exploration and development would occur in somewhat of a recurrent fashion sliding from one successive approximation to a more general successive approximation -- from one trial theory to an improved trial theory, like we have experienced for the last 400 or longer years.</div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Thus, we find ourselves mulling these anomalies and we, or I, at least, can note that Plato's idealized forms -- the Platonic solids -- are a zero field strength subset of structured~dualities. For instance, for rod magnets align along radii of tetrahedron in five ways creating five (variable mass density multiple) states. Idealize this down to approach zero field strengths and the states persist. Idealize further and you can have the special case if you want, or if you deploy perfectionism differently, the idealization only occurs in your ideation.</div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Yet, and here there is room for all sorts of divergences the ordered water and carbon-nitrogen-based items making up our ontology are persistently all over in the above zero field strengths ands are "always" structured~dualities, not just the idealized forms. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">A ponderous question then rolls in (again) about the internal analog math (nested structural coding in our vibrating atoms and molecules) being 100% primary and the idealized special case abstract mathematics being 100% secondary, in fact, arising from the internal analog math. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">This fact might be a hard pill for mathematicians to swallow. Yet, I don't see any way around it, other than, ignoring, bullying or appealing to authority. </div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Do you?</div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Best regards,</div><div style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.000000953674316px;">Ralph</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-85807269437570879222019-12-07T08:12:00.000-05:002019-12-07T08:12:54.221-05:00What is reality?<div>
(12/3/2019 "Reply to your forum post" -- Scientific Basis of Consciousness group)</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Ram, </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's a good question. I guess I consider it (reality) as universe+theories+errors+<wbr></wbr>incompletions+other_items/<wbr></wbr>concerns/influences.
I'd say it includes more than just 'universe' and "originally" I think I
started out considering "both the physical and the 'mental' aspects of
reality". Later I think I realized that in seeing "reality as nested
structured~duality, which includes physical and mental aspects", that I
was pre-conditioned in the dominant western scientific paradigm to think
in terms of the supposedly two categories: physical and mental... (or
alternatives), but in the emerging more unified model, at the underlying
principle level there is just the nested structured~duality
"supporting both". Thus, reality is nested structured~duality. From
there, or prior to, we acquire the "magnetic tetrahedral/polyhedral
analog math" and that prompts for nested fields within nested fields and
nested structural coding.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The pattern seems similar, to me, relating to the<span style="color: #1f497d;"> <'Chit-Padartha: Conscious-Matter'></span> in that if/when one "looks inside" that, (according to me) it's the same thing -- more nested structured~duality. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
...As a quick and dirty very general approximation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Does
that help or answer your question? You do understand that anyone who
re-defines reality is typically considered psychotic, don't you? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How do you define 'reality', Ram?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best regards,</div>
--RalphRalph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-74022390224187362522019-11-23T07:51:00.000-05:002019-11-23T07:51:19.093-05:00Re: Rise of Ayurveda<div data-en-clipboard="true" data-pm-slice="1 1 []">
<table cellpadding="0" class="ajC"><tbody>
<tr class="ajv"><td class="gL" colspan="2" tabindex="0"><span class="gI"><span data-hovercard-id="scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" data-hovercard-owner-id="77">Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis-of-consciousness googlegroups.com=""> 11/23/2019</scientific-basis-of-consciousness></span></span></td></tr>
<tr class="ajv"><td class="gG" colspan="2" tabindex="0"><br /></td><td class="gL" colspan="2" tabindex="0"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Ram, others, </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When you describe (2) and reference "brain-based" and "neuroscience" terms, is the approximate "explanation" for why the self is said to die due to the Neuron Theory in that once the neurons rot away there cannot possibly be any neural and synaptic activity and thus obvious end of self?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I raise this question/query sort of in light of the storyline I advocate where, in my model I have nested structural coding going on in stacks of ordered water forming internal representations of surroundings (and thus self) forming in the energy-related aerobic respiration reaction. This structural coding goes on within neurons and other cells and parallel with or perhaps cooperatively interactive with the neural networking and other structural coding. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Upon the death, the structural coding of the stacks of ordered water, as in the (1) option could just continue on, let's say, going through various re-orderings in the similarly structured and coordinated surroundings and regenerative cycles. If we are basically talking about continuations of particular natural structures or coordinations, then this sort of model could give some account for both (1) and (2).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I suppose, to get technical, various psychic phenomena (astral travel, remote viewing, OOBE could work along a similar "structural" or resonance pathway. The so-called "self" would be "in or related with ordered water structural coding" and not so much with the neural activity, although locally, both are related.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thoughts?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best regards,</div>
<div>
--Ralph</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:07 PM 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis-of-consciousness googlegroups.com=""> wrote:</scientific-basis-of-consciousness></div>
<div>
Namaste,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The major debate is between (1) independent eternal self/experiencer without a brain or brain-like systems (which claims self survives death as Sankhya and Vedanta and theist religions claim) and (2) self/experiencer is brain-based (which means when we die, self also dies as neuroscience claims). So far, all scientific data favor (2). However, how can we be sure about this conclusion based on neuroscience?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Health benefits can be derived from both views.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Cheers!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Kind regards,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rām</div>
<div>
----------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div>
<b><i><span style="color: #00007f;">Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.</span></i></b></div>
<div>
<i>Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)</i></div>
<div>
<i>Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.</i></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #9d1811;">25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #9d1811;">Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907</span></div>
<div>
<i><a href="mailto:rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in" rel="nofollow" rev="en_rl_none"><span style="color: #0000cc;">rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in</span></a>; <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home" rel="nofollow" rev="en_rl_none"><span style="color: #0000cc;">http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home</span></a></i></div>
<div>
<i><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal" rel="nofollow" rev="en_rl_none"><span style="color: blue;">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal</span></a> </i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;"> On Friday, 22 November, 2019, 03:00:20 pm GMT-5, BVK Sastry <<a href="mailto:sastry.bvk@gmail.com" rev="en_rl_none">sastry.bvk@gmail.com</a>> wrote: </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">Namaste</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">This precisely is the reason for seeking the dialogue between Modern Science (Consciousness researchers) and Yoga-Science Researchers ! </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">Each has some thing special; and each team is not fully aware of the other side's strengths !</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">A unified effort will help for delivering the benefit: Health (Individual and Public). </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">The science teams are locked to their instruments and philosophies of preferred nature ! And on the top of it carry a preferential orientation of what 'Yoga/ yoga-science/ Yoga-state of Samadhi' means ! </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">the Yoga-Science teams and practitioners have serious misunderstanding on ' Practice and Philosophy' of Science teams.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">So <can -="" adherence="" and="" back="" basics="" fundamental="" go="" integration="" nbsp="" of="" philosophy="" principles="" restoring="" science="" simplicity="" the="" to="" we=""></can></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">Regards</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #26282a;">BVK Sastry</span></div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-26415853345463760802019-07-18T21:26:00.001-04:002019-07-18T21:26:02.528-04:00Subjectivity re-visitedStanley, Whit, Ram, others,<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />First, I
note Ram's condensation-sublimation is NSD-like -- roughly agreeing with
"reality is nested structured~duality", as does considering matter
converting to energy. Thus, Ram's statement might better or also be or
reflect: matter is a condensed form of energy where the "two" states
are changes in nested structured~duality.<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />Second,
where you say, "Like there is nothing shocking about brains producing
language and ideas. The challenging part is how do brain produce qualia
(subjectivity). ", I don't think brains alone produce language and
ideas, and so thinking that reality works that way sort of screws your
chances of understanding subjectivity.<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />That
is, in my storyline, the approximation is vibrations in surroundings
influence structural coding in ordered water and/or other
sp^3-hybridized structures (or, if you are a neuron theory advocate,
alignments in synapses...), but within that, in getting to language
that first involves influencing sequences of protein-folding CONCURRENT
WITH moving gas streams through varying channels as to get 'sounds'.
Those sounds add to the vibrations of the surroundings and additional
internal structural coding (all relating to whether such activities aid
or detract from energy and material collection and conservation "within
respiration reaction". Anyway, during the language learning phase the
brain and the surrounding gaseous environment and several other levels
of organization are all involved in scribbling up to so-called
'language'.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br clear="none" />And, if you think about it,
lots of our 'ideas' only get structurally coded after or concurrently
with the -brain-environment-vibrations resonance process involved with
"producing sounds-language". Idea formation likely takes a couple of
repetitions or passes through structural coding in ordered water, and
then within protein matrices and then in synaptic alignment habits when
selecting out "useful protein-folding sequences" from the less or not
useful protein-folding sequences. The useful items, in terms of
propensity of improving/sustaining energy collection-conservation
"become language" which structurally code into "useful ideas".<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />In
this light, then when you then inquire about subjectivity, in a way it
is like you are valiantly but mistakenly "thinking backwards". The
"feel of things", the nested levels of vibrations of the surroundings,
including those we form and structurally code, all in relation to "our"
sustaining energy and materials collection and conservation, plus
replication, etc., the "feel of things" is a central part of, let's
say, the formation and reverberation of all 'language and ideas'.<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />That
is, in this approximation, the various structural codings all have
relation back to a repeatable values within, mostly, "our aerobic
respiration process" within the enfolding environment.<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />Re-cast in terms of nested structured~duality and nested structural coding subjectivity acquires a different feel.<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />Best regards,<br clear="none" />Ralph Frost, PhD<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />Changing the scientific paradigm.<br clear="none" />https://magnetictetrahedra.com<br clear="none" /><span></span><span></span><br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 6:03 PM Stanley A. KLEIN <sklein berkeley.edu=""> wrote:<br clear="none" />><br clear="none" />>
Whit, I think that there are many aspects of consciousness that can
indeed be connected to our present science. Like there is nothing
shocking about brains producing language and ideas. The challenging
part is how do brain produce qualia (subjectivity).<br clear="none" />> Stan<br clear="none" />><br clear="none" />> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:42 PM Whit Blauvelt <whit csmind.com=""> wrote:<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 01:20:31PM -0700, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness wrote:<br clear="none" />>> > It seems that the simple hypothesis of “matter is condensed form of<br clear="none" />>> > consciousness” and its inverse “consciousness is a de-condensed form of matter”<br clear="none" />>> > can address all the debates on the mindbrain linkage.<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> Ram,<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> How far can we take the metaphor of condensation? At least I assume you're<br clear="none" />>> not being literal, or condensed milk would be more conscious than whole<br clear="none" />>> milk.<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> When we make ideas real in the world, that's a sort of condensed form of<br clear="none" />>> consciousness. Then when we pay more attention to what's in the world, we<br clear="none" />>> can acquire more consciousness from it ... so perhaps decondensing. Yet what<br clear="none" />>> we pay attention to persists, even so.<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> If you're emphasizing density, along the lines of "matter has density;<br clear="none" />>> consciouness does not," then you're saying something like Descartes' claim<br clear="none" />>> for "extension." Yet there are many non-dense forms of extended matter.<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> This might be a useful metaphor. I'm just trying to see how to work it.<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> Best,<br clear="none" />>> Whit<br clear="none" />>><br clear="none" />>> --<br clear="none" />>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.<br clear="none" />>>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to
scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br clear="none" />>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.<br clear="none" />>>
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/20190718204206.GA31177%40black.transpect.com.<br clear="none" />>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.<br clear="none" />><br clear="none" />> --<br clear="none" />>
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.<br clear="none" />>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/P1Q_DmIJOxY/unsubscribe.<br clear="none" />>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br clear="none" />> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.<br clear="none" />>
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAEKJmQ2KSr3U2zs%2BuQVH7YvuY73DZOsB0DVLF0V31PU12tQttA%40mail.gmail.com.<br clear="none" />> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.</whit></sklein>Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-61107147362659114402018-12-16T08:06:00.001-05:002018-12-16T08:08:43.411-05:00Before words?<div dir="ltr">
<div>
</div>
<div>
(Scientific Basic Of Consciousness Google-Groups - Dec 16, 2018)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
John, others, </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In follow-up
to the question of how migrating to NSD/magnetic tetrahedra catalyzes
acquisition of physical intuition... Kant's Transcendental Idealism
seems relevant.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
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:<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(0,28,147,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism" style="color: rgb(0, 27, 146) !important;"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
...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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best regards,</div>
<div>
ralph</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 5:15 PM Ralph Frost <ralph .frost="" gmail.com=""> wrote:</ralph></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
Dear John,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thus, nested structured~duality turns out to be the underlying general principle; the underlying common denominator. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, while you or others steeped
in mastery in abstract math and productive within the dominant
scientific paradigm may rightly view my "tetrahedron/attraction-<wbr></wbr>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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Does any of this help to intervene with your struggling with the terminology of NSD?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am grateful for your, and others' effort, good humor and patience. Thank you.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best regards,</div>
<div>
ralph</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:54 PM John Jay Kineman <<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(0,28,147,1)" href="mailto:john.kineman@colorado.edu" style="color: rgb(0, 27, 146) !important;" target="_blank">john.kineman@colorado.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Ralph,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Is there a simple way to explain what is being structured?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 13pt;">Joh</span></div>
</div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-14499458475849510992018-10-21T13:46:00.002-04:002018-10-21T13:46:44.136-04:00Structural coding exists; time does not.Hi, Chris, <br />
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.<br />
<br />
More below..<br />
<div class="F0XO1GC-Db-b" data-blkn-colour="rgba(136,136,136,1)" style="color: black !important;">
<br />
<br />
On
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:45 AM 'Chris Nunn' via Scientific Basis of
Consciousness <<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(0,28,147,1)" href="mailto:scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" style="color: rgb(0, 27, 146) !important;" target="_blank">scientific-basis-of-<wbr data-blkn-colour="rgba(0,28,147,1)" style="color: rgb(0, 27, 146) !important;"></wbr>consciousness@googlegroups.com</a><wbr></wbr>>
wrote:<br />
<span>Hi Ralph,</span><br />
<span>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. </span><br />
<br /></div>
[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. <br />
<div class="F0XO1GC-Db-b" data-blkn-colour="rgba(136,136,136,1)" style="color: black !important;">
<br />
<span>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.</span><br />
<br /></div>
[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". <br />
<br />
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".<br />
<div class="F0XO1GC-Db-b" data-blkn-colour="rgba(136,136,136,1)" style="color: black !important;">
<span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<span>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’.</span><br />
<span>Best</span><br />
<span>Chris</span><br />
<br /></div>
[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.<br />
<div class="F0XO1GC-Db-b" data-blkn-colour="rgba(136,136,136,1)" style="color: black !important;">
<br />
Best regards, <br />Ralph Frost, PhD<br /><br />Changing the scientific paradigm.<br /><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(0,28,147,1)" href="https://magnetictetrahedra.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 27, 146) !important;" target="_blank">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</a><br /><br />
</div>
<strong data-blkn-colour="rgba(34,34,34,1)" style="color: black !important;"><span>From:</span></strong><span> <a href="mailto:scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" style="color: #001b92;" target="_blank">scientific-basis-of-<wbr></wbr>consciousness@googlegroups.com</a> <<a href="mailto:scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" style="color: #001b92;" target="_blank">scientific-basis-of-<wbr></wbr>consciousness@googlegroups.com</a><wbr></wbr>> <strong data-blkn-colour="rgba(34,34,34,1)" style="color: black !important;">On Behalf Of </strong>Ralph Frost</span><br />
<div class="F0XO1GC-Db-b" data-blkn-colour="rgba(136,136,136,1)" style="color: black !important;">
<br /><strong data-blkn-colour="rgba(34,34,34,1)" style="color: black !important;">Sent:</strong> 16 October 2018 16:02<br /><strong data-blkn-colour="rgba(34,34,34,1)" style="color: black !important;">To:</strong> Scientific Basis of Consciousness <<a href="mailto:scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" style="color: #001b92;" target="_blank">scientific-basis-of-<wbr></wbr>consciousness@googlegroups.com</a><wbr></wbr>><br /><strong data-blkn-colour="rgba(34,34,34,1)" style="color: black !important;">Subject:</strong> Re: Reality!</div>
<br />
Chris,<br />
<br />
Not
sure on the holon-framing, but some of our experiences provide, supply
or promise energy. And others of our internal structural codings only
"work" in units of, let's say, completed 'thoughts'. Cast in terms of
bio-molecular structural coding, in ordered water or in other
collections, is it also formal in addition to material causes, but also
the coding does have to be completed in increments, stored and
recallable?<br />
<br />
- Ralph<br />
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-62761245523714508152018-10-17T00:26:00.002-04:002018-10-17T00:28:01.868-04:00Re: Reality!Hi, Chris, <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
More below..<br />
<br />
<br />
On
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:45 AM 'Chris Nunn' via Scientific Basis of
Consciousness <scientific-basis-of-consciousness googlegroups.com="">
wrote:</scientific-basis-of-consciousness><br />
Hi Ralph,<br />
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. <br />
<br />
[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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
[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". <br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
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’.<br />
Best<br />
Chris<br />
<br />
[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.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Best regards, <br />
Ralph Frost, PhD<br />
<br />
Changing the scientific paradigm.<br />
https://magnetictetrahedra.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" style="color: #001b92;">scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com</a> <<a href="mailto:scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" style="color: #001b92;">scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ralph Frost<br /><b>Sent:</b> 16 October 2018 16:02<br /><b>To:</b> Scientific Basis of Consciousness <<a href="mailto:scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com" style="color: #001b92;">scientific-basis-of-consciousness@googlegroups.com</a>><br /><b>Subject:</b> Re: Reality!<br />
<br />
Chris,<br />
<br />
Not
sure on the holon-framing, but some of our experiences provide, supply
or promise energy. And others of our internal structural codings only
"work" in units of, let's say, completed 'thoughts'. Cast in terms of
bio-molecular structural coding, in ordered water or in other
collections, is it also formal in addition to material causes, but also
the coding does have to be completed in increments, stored and
recallable?<br />
<br />
- Ralph<br />
<br />
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-4, Chris Nunn wrote:<br />
OkRalph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-58503229664213843232018-08-11T08:43:00.002-04:002018-08-11T08:47:50.749-04:00The Principle of ~<div>
Thanks, Joe, </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
...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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'll have to work on that or team up with a verbose ghost writer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<span class="im" data-blkn-colour="rgba(80,0,80,1)" style="color: rgb(79 , 0 , 79);"></span><br />
<div data-blkn-colour="rgba(79,0,79,1)" style="color: rgb(78, 0, 78) !important;">
<span class="im" data-blkn-colour="rgba(80,0,80,1)" style="color: rgb(79 , 0 , 79);"><br /></span></div>
<span class="im" data-blkn-colour="rgba(80,0,80,1)" style="color: rgb(79 , 0 , 79);">
<div data-blkn-colour="rgba(79,0,79,1)" style="color: rgb(78, 0, 78) !important;">
Best regards, <br />
Ralph Frost, PhD<br />
<br />
Changing the scientific paradigm.<br />
<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(17,85,204,1)" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://magnetictetrahedra.com&source=gmail&ust=1534077547706000&usg=AFQjCNEX7cMRUE9h1kGxhVChKcZzi9qmkg" href="https://magnetictetrahedra.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 39, 158) !important;" target="_blank">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</a></div>
</span>Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-75851456910197469702018-08-09T11:02:00.003-04:002018-08-09T11:02:56.917-04:00Understanding NSD<div>
Ram,</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
Thanks.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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". </div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
Our 1pp runs in its own non-neural or sub-neural energy and structure-conservation-related analog language. </div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
So, perhaps some of that may help you to begin to understand NSD and reality as nested structured~duality.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
If not, ask questions on where you think you are still getting stuck.</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
Best regards, <br clear="none" />Ralph Frost, PhD<br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />Changing the scientific paradigm.<br clear="none" />https://magnetictetrahedra.com<br clear="none" /></div>
<br clear="none" />On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <span dir="ltr"><<a data-mce-href="mailto:rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in" data-mce-style="color: #001c93 !important;" href="mailto:rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in" shape="rect" style="color: #001c93 !important;" target="_blank">rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in</a>></span> wrote:<br clear="none" /><div>
Hi Ralph,</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
Thanks.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
<strong>Frost</strong>:
Similarly, when Ram claims "inseparable" and relies upon, say, nested
structure -- one item within another but where the speech does not
identify structure as also fundamental.<br />
<br />
<strong>Vimal</strong>:
I have not understood your “nested structured~duality (NSD)”, but
the physical and non-physical aspects are considered as “a two-layered,
modified NSD”, then the two layers are inseparable, i.e., whatever is
going on in one layer is reflected in other layer because “effective”
information between two layers is the same. It is merely viewing the
same reality from two different perspectives. For example, if viewed
from 1pp, the effective information appears as subjective experience
(such as redness of a ripe tomato) and if viewed from the 3pp, it
appears as neural-physical activities. They look entirely different
nature. The inseparability leads to H=P. Another example in the physical
domain (QM), consider wavicle with wave and particle as two inseparable
aspects, where energy in wave-aspect is hf and energy in
particle-aspect = mc<sup>2</sup> and hf= mc<sup>2</sup>.<br />
</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style', serif; font-size: 8pt;" style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style', serif; font-size: 8pt;"></span></span><div data-mce-style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; color: black !important;" style="background-color: white; color: black !important; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span><span data-mce-style="font-size: medium;" style="font-size: small;">Cheers!</span></span></div>
<div data-mce-style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; color: black !important;" style="background-color: white; color: black !important; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span><span data-mce-style="font-size: medium;" style="font-size: small;"><br clear="none" /></span></span></div>
<div data-mce-style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; color: black !important;" style="background-color: white; color: black !important; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span><span data-mce-style="font-size: medium;" style="font-size: small;">Kind regards,</span></span></div>
<div data-mce-style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; color: black !important;" style="background-color: white; color: black !important; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span><span data-mce-style="font-size: medium;" style="font-size: small;">Rām</span></span></div>
<div data-mce-style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style', serif; font-size: 8pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style', serif; font-size: 8pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span data-mce-style="font-size: 8pt;" style="font-size: 8pt;">----------------------------------------------------------</span></div>
<div data-mce-style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style', serif; font-size: 8pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style', serif; font-size: 8pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<strong><em><span data-mce-style="color: #00007f; font-size: 8pt;" style="color: #00007f; font-size: 8pt;">Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.</span></em></strong></div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-52420309755550733902018-05-13T11:37:00.002-04:002018-05-13T11:37:39.343-04:00NSD Time and TimelessnessWhit, others...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".)<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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".<br /><br />In the one-step trial theory that I am advocating and following, I <br />
<a name='more'></a>suppose it is that I "assume" reality is nested structured~duality -- things have structure and also have or exhibit one or more dualities or differences. This holds for stuff in both the physical (aka, standard model), and the mental (thoughts, associations, projections, feelings, paradigms, metadigms) regions.<br /><br />This underlying principle comes with and emerges from the analog math of the "magnetic tetrahedron" where fiddling with the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron, participants get physical intuition on variable density multiple states plus an appreciation for the principle and the sp^3 hybridized (hydrogen-bonded, tetrahedral) molecular bonding of our our enfolding environment's structural-energetic make-up.<br /><br />Looking within some of those patterns, I've observed the n2s2 unit gives a somewhat close tactile feel for 6^n structural coding of the 10^20 water molecules per second forming in aerobic respiration sites, which, for now, let's just consider or focus on as just those occurring within neurons. Previously and elsewhere ( https://structuredduality.blogspot.com ) are a few paragraphs describing how this internal structural coding provides us with an energy-conservation-related internal representation of our surrounding, which, I guess is a wordy way of saying "part of our consciousness".<br /><br />Okay. So, here is where it may get a little weird. For the sake of maybe a clearer presentation, let's say, first, that ~you, everyone reading this, is running a conventional Neuron Theory Brand apparatus which is or by default is mostly and mainly pre-programmed with a flat, non-nested conventional space and time perspective. <br /><br />I, on the other hand, at least momentarily in the story, am the individual who drew the ~lucky straw to try to describe what it's like to be running a Frost Scientific Brand 6^n ordered water processor which is non-ordinary in the sense that it is sort of incrementally molecular but not so much a non-classical quantum mechanical level apparatus (if there is such a thing).<br /><br />Okay, anyway, strings and stacks of water molecules stream from, let's say, my "one really smart" respiration site, structurally coded in some elegant way by my multi-dimensional surroundings, and these widgets unfurl into protein-foldings that show up as marks in this post and convey some impressions to ~you, the reader. The ordered water stacks are already packed with attractive and repulsive regions, so they already have distinctive *feels*, so if there was a hard problem, I'm seeing it as arising as a feature in the Neuron Theory model. Similarly, intermediate and longer term memory, I am ~seeing as, say, incorporating prevailing stacks of ordered water (representative of representations of ~current surroundings) into bound water layers of ~newly forming protein matrices. (Sludge drying studies I have done long ago show that bound water layers persist.)<br /><br />Considering the structural coding in ordered water sort of reveals structural coding in metabolism and epigenetics and genetics as common and similar forms of "memory" or guidance. But that also delves a bit down into the multiple nesting layers of organization.<br /><br />Anyway, returning to the issue at hand regarding "time as part of the mental map", some stirring within me notices that my brand of processing is always ciphering in terms of increments of one or a few molecules. And this sort of structural-energetic discreteness, let's say, makes it ~easy for me to claim "experience exists; time does not", OR to assert that "time and temporal relations" ARE really just part of the mental artifacts -- a really handy but still only mental set of associations.<br /><br />Dare I say, to ~you and everyone else running the dominant Neuron Theory processor, my expressions sound a bit whacked out?<br /><br /> Pressing forward, from the incremental molecular processing perspective, or dialing out to the nested structured~duality level, then we come to really considering what a more unified, more coherent scientific paradigm might really feel and look like, and what cherished notions it might likely disrupt -- and how it would do that. <br /><br />Here, I'd like to say, qed, or the remainder is left as an exercise for the student, but to venture a guess, in a scientific paradigm that really does give some kind of account for BOTH physical and mental artifacts and features --BETTER than is done in or via the Cube/subjective-objective instance-- SOME of the adjustments in the scientific paradigm would involve just this sort of re-partitioning, as in time only being in the mental fraction.<br /><br />In a nested motif, model and existence such as the one we share and inhabit, where we are just now upgrading or first establishing an improved mental or consciousness fraction of the scientific model, this re-partitioning is pretty straightforward, obvious and rational. Life and business goes on and the change is basically or mainly just in the scientific revisions. <br /><br />We keep the baby and the bathwater.<br /><br />At this point I do have to go do some chores.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Ralph Frost, PhD<br /><br />Changing the scientific paradigm.<br />https://magnetictetrahedra.com<br /><br />With joy you will draw water<br />from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3<br /><br /><br />========<br />Whit, [re-posted from Dark matter thread... 5/13/2018]<br /><br />Some other questions and thoughts...<br /><br />On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Whit Blauvelt wrote:<br /><br /> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 02:19:51AM -0700, Ralph Frost wrote:<br /> ...<br /><br /><br /><br /> 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. <br /><br /><br />[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...?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />...<br /><br /> While our current paradigm of time has cracks in it, the only alternatives<br /><br /> proposed so far seem to me to toss baby with bathwater. <br /><br /><br />[rf] What is it that you are meaning by this as an alternative? <br /><br />Or, putting it another way as I nervously question or reflect upon perhaps how much my own paradigm has shifted, are you saying that you cannot easily glide from the left side of the spectrum where "time" is definitely an intrinsic field, through the mid-section and over to the right side where "experience exists but time does not" -- where time and temporal relations are clearly just nested mental, enzyme-catalyzed artifacts and categories? <br /><br />What might it be like for you, or where on the spectrum do you see yourself -- and why?<br /><br /><br /><br /> I agree with you<br /> that more data from experience may be essential to progressing on this<br /> (allowing that "progress" is also "timely"). Jonathan's fascination with<br /> time (and James' own struggles with the concept of it) followed from his<br /> experience of timelessness on a meditation retreat.<br /><br /> Best,<br /> Whit <br /><br /><br />Amid my own few, skimpy, provincial experiences, upon reflection I notice that it is the anomalies and breeches within the vast consistency of our life and living processes that provide the evidence supporting the "correct insight" that, scientifically: "experience exists; time does not". And, we can notice that this stands, even though we generally think there is 100% corroboration with the "obvious flow of time" with ALL results of ALL empirical tests (that I am aware of or able to understand). I chalk this implausible or apparent counter-factual development up to the previously unacknowledged "nesting problem". Reality is actually nested structured~duality, yet ~previously we've been unaware of that underlying principle.<br /><br />Perhaps there is a better way to express that. The temporal anomalies are important.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Ralph Frost, PhD<br /><br />Changing the scientific paradigm.<br />https://magnetictetrahedra.com<br /><br /><br />On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Whit Blauvelt wrote:<br />- show quoted text -<br /><br /><br />Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-42435994026177740192018-05-13T08:36:00.001-04:002018-05-13T08:47:04.728-04:00Time and timelessness Whit,<br /><br />Some other questions and thoughts...<br /><br />On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Whit Blauvelt wrote:<br />
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 02:19:51AM -0700, Ralph Frost wrote:<br /> ...<br /><br /> 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. <br /><br />[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...?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />...<br /><br /> While our current paradigm of time has cracks in it, the only alternatives proposed so far seem to me to toss baby with bathwater.<br />
<br />
[rf] What is it that you are meaning by this as an alternative? <br /><br />Or, putting it another way as I nervously question or reflect upon perhaps how much my own paradigm has shifted, are you saying that you cannot easily glide from the left side of the spectrum where "time" is definitely an intrinsic field, through the mid-section and over to the right side where "experience exists but time does not" -- where time and temporal relations are clearly just nested mental, enzyme-catalyzed artifacts and categories? <br /><br />What might it be like for you, or where on the spectrum do you see yourself -- and why?<br /><br /><br /> I agree with you that more data from experience may be essential to progressing on this (allowing that "progress" is also "timely"). Jonathan's fascination with time (and James' own struggles with the concept of it) followed from his experience of timelessness on a meditation retreat.<br /><br /> Best,<br /> Whit<br /><br /><br />[rf] Amid my own few, skimpy, provincial experiences, upon reflection I notice that it is the anomalies and breeches within the vast consistency of our life and living processes that provide the evidence supporting the "correct insight" that, scientifically: "experience exists; time does not". And, we can notice that this stands, even though we generally think there is 100% corroboration with the "obvious flow of time" with ALL results of ALL empirical tests (that I am aware of or able to understand). I chalk this implausible or apparent counter-factual development up to the previously unacknowledged "nesting problem". Reality is actually nested structured~duality, yet ~previously we've been unaware of that underlying principle.<br /><br />Perhaps there is a better way to express that. The temporal anomalies are important.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Ralph Frost, PhD<br /><br />Changing the scientific paradigm.<br />https://magnetictetrahedra.com<br /><br /><br />On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Whit Blauvelt wrote:<br />- show quoted text -Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-84140867038469878202018-05-11T12:54:00.002-04:002018-05-11T12:54:36.718-04:00Common denominator of all ontologies and epistemologiesBruno, <br /><br />On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px #ccc solid; margin-left: 0.8ex; margin: 0; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ralph,<br /><div>
<br /><div>
<blockquote>
<div>
On 7 May 2018, at 21:17, Ralph Frost <<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(0,30,149,1)" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(0, 28, 147) !important;">ralph...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br /><div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
Bruno, <br /></div>
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. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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(*)).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br />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". <br /><br />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...</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px #ccc solid; margin-left: 0.8ex; margin: 0; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bruno</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />With reality being nested structured~duality, we do arrive at ontologies equaling epistemologies.<br /></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px #ccc solid; margin-left: 0.8ex; margin: 0; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(*) I found it:</div>
<div>
B.
Marchal. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, Pages 251-260.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />Without looking, I predict it is another fine instance of nested structured~duality. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />That is, due to the increased generalization, understanding improves.<br /> <br /><br />Best regards, <br />Ralph Frost, PhD<br /><br />Changing the scientific paradigm.<br /><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(0,39,158,1)" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://magnetictetrahedra.com&source=gmail&ust=1526140558109000&usg=AFQjCNFpqa-Kb6lN_fXnPiCEjCMD0kiE-w" href="https://magnetictetrahedra.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 30, 149) !important;" target="_blank">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</a>Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-78438602108329225622018-03-19T11:00:00.002-04:002018-03-19T11:00:47.201-04:00Foundations of Mathematics - How arithmetic and numbers are "quantum-like"<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Bruno, </span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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? </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Best regards, </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Changing the scientific paradigm.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://magnetictetrahedra.com/" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: pointer; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</a></div>
</div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-10026122950468098272018-03-10T07:31:00.000-05:002018-03-10T07:31:01.951-05:00Duality and "Bipolar Polyhedral Structures<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[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. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[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.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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}. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I suspect mathematicians would opt for pure structures being pure and not having the so-called "bipolar' multiple states. But this, quibble, to me, raises what perhaps may be a fundamental issue in the foundations of mathematics. This being where and how "quantum features" are acknowledged. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Seems to me if such quantum features are fundamental or primitive, or however it's termed, then those features would be inserted/acknowledged as being in the initial step or first phase of all of the mathematical theory/modeling. And, all of this brings up the issue or question of "nested structure" in terms of the "proper" ordering of traits and features in the structures of mathematical structures. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I do not observe this feature is overtly included or considered in ~your "assume mechanism" elementary arithmetic storyline but you do mention arriving at "quantum logic" or having issues with "wave-packet reduction" later in your presentation. Also, what do I know about mathematics? So, perhaps you can explain the current partyline. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Over ~here in the weeds in approximate analog math, in my storyline, I suppose I might be able to invoke my N+1 rule where the NSD multiple-states of each number N, equals the count of N+1, which is also equal to the value of the next closest successor. Thus, visualizing each number as a count of center-to-vertex 'radii', each of which having one-half spin would have N+1 multiple states within itself which sort of means that each number has a representation inside itself ~equal to the value of its successor. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
~This relocates "quantum features" into numbers at, I think, a more fundamental level of organization, giving them (numbers) more of a nested structured~duality flavor or flare. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Thoughts?</div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-48498881146759947732018-03-09T08:55:00.002-05:002018-03-09T08:55:44.455-05:00Continued thread on the foundations of mathematics<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Thanks, Bruno, for trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">marchal@ulb.ac.be</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
Hi Ralph,<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /><div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>
On 4 Mar 2018, at 10:44, Ralph Frost <<a href="mailto:ralph.frost@gmail.com" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">ralph.frost@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br /><div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Bruno, </span><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I reply here below in attempt to convey to you an understanding of my term "nested structured~duality". </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
Scroll down a ways, below UTOPIA to [rf Mar 4]...</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br /><div>
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">marchal@ulb.ac.be</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
Dear Vinod,<div>
<blockquote>
<div>
On 1 Mar 2018, at 13:35, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <<a href="mailto:vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br /><div>
DEAR BRUNO,<br /><br />MY WIFI CONNECTION IS NON- FUNCTIONING SINCE PAST 2-3 DAYS SO I AM CONSTRAINED TO SEND MESSAGES THRU MY CELLPHONE WHERE EDITING AND SPELL CHECK FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
Thanks for trying. It looks OK here.</div>
<blockquote>
On Thursday, March 1, 2018, Bruno Marchal <<a href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">marchal@ulb.ac.be</a>> wrote:<br />> Vinod,<br />><br />> On 27 Feb 2018, at 10:23, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <<a href="mailto:vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br />><br />><br />> On Monday, February 19, 2018, Bruno Marchal <<a href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">marchal@ulb.ac.be</a>> wrote:<br />>> Hi Vinod,<br />>><br />>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:43, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <<a href="mailto:vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br />>> The fundamentality of any numbers and their relations in the absence of any consciousness/minds and some discrete physicality is inconceivable and prima facie an absurd proposition since<br />>> i) Numbers per se lack any ontology of their own. By ontology, I a mean some "substance" or “structure"<br />>><br />>> So you choose the Aristotelian ontology at the start. OK. Mechanism is then necessarily wrong.<br />>> But I have never see an evidence for substance. And structure is a mathematical concept which can be defined, but it assumes much more than the numbers.<br />><br />> BUT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND WHY ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY SHOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH NUMBERS, THEIR RELATIONS AND ARITHMETIC?<br />><br />><br />> You have to keep in mind my working hypothesis: digital mechanism, or computationalism, in the cognitive science. In that case, my (mundane) consciousness is supposed to be preserved through a substitution of my brain or my body (including possibly a part of the environment) for a digital computer emulating this at some right substitution level.<br /><br />BUT ABOVE IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.</blockquote>
<div>
I have discovered all this the careful observation of nature, especially the microbial world, and the reading of books and papers in Molecular Biology, until I discovered that the circular loop I saw manifested in biology were already in arithmetic, which makes me decide to study mathematics (instead of biology) and eventually the proof of the completeness of arithmetic with respect to the existence of computations confirms my empirical feeling that the physical reality has a phenomenological origin only.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are many evidence of the Mechanist hypothesis. All known natural laws confirms it (except the wave-packet reduction), but we have also already the indirect consequences: the many-words/histories and the quantum logic of the observable.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Any way, I do not defend the truth of mechanism. I am open to its falsity. But the evidences are much more on the side of arithmeticalism than of physicalism. In fact physicists usually do not inquire on metaphysics, and no paper in physics assumes the primary matter of the physicalist metaphysicians, unless they are “believer” of some sort.</div>
<blockquote>
THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS WHETHER OUR CONSCIOUSNESS SURVIVES DIGITAL SUBSTITUTION BY A MACHINE OR A COMPUTER OR NOT?</blockquote>
<div>
Indeed, and I could explain why this cannot exist. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But this is close to obvious, as there is no proof (argument or reason) for its contrary.</div>
<blockquote>
IN VIEW OF THIS, ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS IS AN UTOPIA.</blockquote>
<div>
All theories are. We can only count the evidence, and appreciate or not the simplicity and elegance of the theory.</div>
<blockquote>
> Then you have to keep in mind a fundamental result in computer science, obtained by those who discovered the universal machine (the mathematical computer). They have eventually understood that the notion of universal machine is not just mathematical, but already arithmetical. In fact Kurt Gödel showed this before, but without realising it. Emil Post also anticipated all this much before.<br /><br />DID THOSE WHO DISCOVERED THE UNIVERSAL MACHINE OR MATHEMATICAL COMPUTER DISCOVER IT WITHOUT THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS OR MIND?</blockquote>
<div>
Of course not, and they use paper to publish the result. But you cannot infer validly that this makes consciousness primary or different from the arithmetical truth seen by itself.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf Mar 4] I think the distinction I am trying to make is right in this region of your thinking, where I infer, or peer inward through both "consciousness" and "arithmetical truth seen by itself", and name the underlying commonality: nested structured~duality.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
I am not sure I understand.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] Not sure, or sure you don't? We/I/you may be up against being between a rock and a hard place. If you notice, I am making what I guess is a primary ontological statement:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Reality is nested structured~duality". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is not claiming a primary _physical_ ontology, which is someone else's, maybe Vinod's, recent phrase hereabouts, but I am making an ontological statement. I believe you express that you don't ~see or ~have any need for ontological substances and, I guess your methodology is to go --Is it?-- just the epistemological route?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, it may be that you are not capable of understanding because of your currently developed and pre-existing understanding(s) and investments. I certainly can relate as I have tried to admit about my lack of logic and abstract math abilities.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't know if the following is a fair or accurate projection, but it seems to me that you ~are always making an ontological statement, albeit, perhaps covertly, along with your other expressions which, paraphrased, sounds like: "Reality is numbers and math -- or Turing machines and numbers". Or, "Reality is knowledge which can only be in the form and terms of numbers and Turing devices" (Or, +,*,s,0). So, from my bias, I sort of observe you making the covert ontological statement. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Your arguments or talking points and approach seem to be set up and well honed for dispelling a (primary) physical ontology, however, not so much with dismissing a transcendent primary [nested structured~duality] ontology. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The arithmetical ~realism may give the account for knowledge, but not so much for the unknowns and the new knowledge that first appears via the analog (physical) math. Transcending at that point illuminates that the numbers stories are and always have been also instance of nested structured~duality.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Clear as mud?</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<br /><blockquote>
OBVIOUSLY NO. SO THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THR UNIVERSAL MACHINE ITSELF IS CONSCIOUSNESS OR MIND BASED AND OUT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS, NEITHER THERE CAN BE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY NUMBER NOR. ANY UNIVERSAL MACHINE.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That does not follow. I need my consciousness to believe in the existence of the moon, does not logically entail that without my consciousness the moon does not exist. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a scientist, I have no choice than to start on the proposition people agree with, and I start with elementary arithmetic, if only to define precisely what a digital machine is.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf Mar 4] Not that you are necessarily doing it since you do propose some type of epistemological construction and some kind of test, but the general appearance is, after you get through saying one cannot validly choose "consciousness as primary", it appears you go ahead and assume "arithmetical truth seen by itself" as primary. This step creates several opportunities for immediate confusion and conflict. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, consider your term: "arithmetical truth seen by itself". First, my hunch is, Vinod and I and others ~ see it as "arithmetical truth and/or notions of arithmetical truth as seen by consciousness”.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK. But it is the consciousness of the universal person canonically attached to the many relative incarnation/implementation in arithmetic.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] Perhaps in your case, but not in mine. I'm taking one breath at a time and metabolizing my doughnut, generating 10^20 water molecules per second in the process, anticipating what my wife and I will have for lunch. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Secondly, though, look at the statement itself: "arithmetical truth seen by itself". Yes, just sub-consciously opting for mathematical-like recursions probably seem acceptable particularly as an ad hoc or natural maneuver, but I would ask you to consider the other typical strategy for resolving knots of this type: some kind of transcendence to a different level of organization. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe? That is not precise enough, but I would compare this with the nuances on provability/rational-believability imposed by incompleteness.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
[rf] Firstly, though, do you catch my drift about the two approaches: (1) invoke more recursion, or, (2) transcend to a different level of organization and revise the tenets? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both are recursive, but more than that, both are also instances of an inherent, but until ~now not even provisionally ~formalized or acknowledged (as far as my meager knowledge has it) as a universal pattern of "nesting" or "nested structure”. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That is to vague for me. Numbers and recursion is full of nested structure. Recursion by itself is not Turing universal, but recursion needs not much to become Turing universal, and once we get the Turing universality, … God lose control somehow, and lost Itself in the “creation”.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] So, let me get this straight, recursion and nested structure is pervasive throughout the numbers and relations but in your epistemology you don't need to write that down as one of your constraints or tenets but you can just invoke it, ad hocly, when you feel like it? Is that the type of formalism you are talking about when you "assume mechanism". Might Nested Structure be missing Statement -1 in your Sane04 introduction?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
God may just be being patient and thoughtful.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
People apparently assume such in many instances and resort to transcendence (often un- or sub-consciously) when the going gets tough, and certainly at points of paradigm transition. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So here, we get the nuances imposed by incompleteness:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
p (truth of arithmetical proposition p)</div>
<div>
[]p (probability)</div>
<div>
[]p & p (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)</div>
<div>
[]p & <>t (Observable, “bettable”)</div>
<div>
[]p & <>t & p (Sensible).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which gives 8 precise modal logics (as three of them split on the incompleteness distinction between truth and rational-justifiability).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is testable, because the following:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
[]p & p (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)</div>
<div>
[]p & <>t (Observable, “bettable”)</div>
<div>
[]p & <>t & p (Sensible)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
… must give quantum logics when p is restricted to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) sentences, and indeed we get the quantisation there. The rest is open problems, but this leads to a non physicalist theory of consciousness with a testable theory of matter. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
[rf] Yes. What you present is clearly an instance of nested structured~duality.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But, how come that works? It's a slightly different thing to notice and accept that the reason transcendence works is due to reality BEING nested structured~duality -- to give the feature a name. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] You seem to still be arguing against a physicalist theory of consciousness when what I am saying is the arithmetical ~reality and the physical ~realism are both instances of nested structured~duality.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This thing that I advocate, that reality is nested structured~duality, to me is a way of asserting that reality is a "nested" or "hierarchical" system. That the nesting is a universal feature or principle. This leads me to sometime accuse the dominant scientific paradigm as being a "non-nested model as a opposed to what I am saying it inherently is as a nested system. I am aware that we all generally work with various stacks: {physical, metaphysical}, {mathematical, physical, theological,metaphysical...}, [subatomic, atomic, molecular, organic, biologic, species, ecological...} etc.. And these all seem to imply a sort of ad hoc or unconscious acceptable of nesting, which they do. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You remind me someone defending anti-foundation axiom in set theory. With mechanism, we get the natural nesting provided by the many recursion theorems.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] "<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;">The anti-foundation axiom postulates that each such directed graph corresponds to the membership structure of a unique set. For example, the directed graph with only one node and an edge from that node to itself corresponds to a set of the form </span><i style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;">x</i><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;"> = {</span><i style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;">x</i><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;">}." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;">Reading the wikipedia quickly, the thing this jogs in my meager storyline is, for instance, that I sort of hold the impression that ALL tetrahedra formed via four center-to-vertex radii have five multiple states -- borrowing the magnetic markings: n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4. This "comes about" from the/my original conception of "bipolar polyhedral structures" where the ends of each radii would always be slightly different --imbalanced, dualic, bipolar-- from each other (+/- an electron, or a photon, etc.). So, all such members have or are multiple states even if one thinks they only look like/have one state. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;">This story seems to insert or re-locate "duality", "multiple states", maybe "quantum increments" into a different level of organization in math or sets. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px;">I can't tell if that's pro- or anti-foundation. </span></div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, at this junction, particularly, in trying to develop a scientific paradigm accounting for physical and mental artifacts and attributes, I see the need and advantage to name and transcend to the more unified level of organization. Thus, reality is nested structured~duality.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I would say this for the platonic Noùs, the intellect. The truth above (the One, the cosmic consciousness) is one, and thus not a many (and thus not nested). The nested view of the one is in the many “ideas”, and those ideas are nested in more than one ways.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
[rf] One world; many descriptions. One world; many epistemologies. Reality is nested structured~duality. Many instances. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Regarding ~you developing understanding of "assume reality is nested structured~duality”,</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
I don’t know what you mean by reality. It is the object of inquiry. My method is starting with the hypothesis that our bodies are mechanical, and the results is that the ultimate truth is elementary arithmetic, with the physical given by a mode of self-reference. Making that theory of consciousness testable. To assume reality is a nested structure without saying which one is saying too much general. It is true, but does not lead to testing, at least not that I can figure out from what you say. “Reality” is as much general than “nested structured-duality”. A duality between what and what?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] Well, I appreciate you trying to understand. Like I said, if your covert ontological substance is numbers and Turing devices, then you would naturally have a conflict trying to conceptualize that arithmetical realism is an instance of the underlying (fundamental) nested structured~duality. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I suggest you try to accept it as a more general form of, and providing a container for your "assume mechanism" hypothesis, albeit, since NSD is more general, it contains and describes all hypotheses, theories, models, etc., in that each of those artifacts and their descriptions (their ontologies and epistemologies) arise from and invoke and are assessed by the recursive NSD pattern of "pick a structure and pick one or more dualities or distinctions and build additional nested structured~dualities outward, from (those/recent/adjacent) initial (nested structured~duality) conditions". </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In this way, the term: "nested structured~duality" is or becomes the name or label of the "root class" of reality -- each reality, every reality. Previously, this root class was active and influential and used on an ad hoc basis, but it was also unacknowledged as a universal feature and it was also nameless. Now it is acknowledged and named.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am sorry but I do not understand.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] I appreciate you trying. Maybe it takes a while, you know, to revise or grow new or different cognitive structures. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
BOTH KURT GÖDEL AND EMIL POST WERE ALSO DEPENDENT ON THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS AND MINDS FOR MAKING ANY HYPOTHESIS OR THEOREM INCLUDING THAT OF UNIVERSAL MACHINE. SO YOU CAN'T GET RID OF CONSCIOUSNESS AT ANY STAGE FOR CONCEIVING OR EXISTENCE OF NUMBERS/ARITHMETIC/UNIVERSAL MSCHINE.<br />> This means that if you are willing to bet that “18 is not a prime number” is true independently of your mundane consciousness then “this or that computation will exist, if it exists, independently of your mundane consciousness.<br /><br />BUT WITHOUT OUR MUNDANE CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE CAN'T BE THE EXISTENCE OF NO.<br />18, LEAVE ALONE THR ISSUE OF IT BEING PRIME OR NOT.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some insects exploit the primes 13 and 17 for the time of reproduction. Would you say that the prime numbers is a creation of the insects?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] More likely they also have some relevant 12- and 16-unit length polymers involved in some packaging that prompt for the appearance of primes triggering from some uninformed observer perspective. Notice again that you also bring up a composited, entangled math-physical instance or example and then infer you can validly then just erase the physical portion to regain the pre-conceived ~arithmetic realism/platonism. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not that that is unhelpful or non-productive tactic. It's just not the only approach, nor (as the history of mathematics indicates) is it always the absolutely correct one.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
I start from what I understand, to put light on what I don’t understand. The mystery I am interested in in the mind-body problem. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] What is mind? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am more certain that 18 is not a prime number than I am of any natural laws. I am not sure I can make sense of your doubt here, if any.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You speculate on the existence of “ontologically primary” physical universe, but not only there are no evidence at all (still less proof), but we do have indirect evidence of the contrary (just the living animal and plants bodies, and the quantum mechanics which confirms the startling consequence of computationalism (our infinite self-multiplication at each instant).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] Okay. But let's say that among all the computationals, there are also some non-computationals, too, analogous, I guess, to prime numbers scattered amid the other numbers. What then? Add another epicycle? Create another instance of nested structured~duality and cast it and conceptualize it in terms as an improved version of mathematical realism?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Or, might that be when ~you or other mathematicians might need to consider transcending to a different, more unified model?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
Yes. Until we find a discrepancy with the observable. We learn when our theories are shown wrong, but they have to be enough precise for that.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] ...Within the rules of your methodology. One discrepancy you apparently already have is working with the tenets of ~your paradigm, ~you end up with the mind-body anomaly(ies). Also, ~you may lack a theory or model of consciousness and even an approximate understanding of reality. How much proof do you need to try some different paradigmatic tenets?</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
If the brain (not consciousness) was not Turing emulable, you should find something which do not obey to the physical laws in the brain, as the current physical laws are mainly computable (only mathematicians can invent non computable solution of the schroedinger equation, by bringing up a special non computable hamiltonian, for which no evidence exist in nature. Note that classical physics and classical GR are not computable, but once made quantum, they are again computable.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] Which, I understand, means descriptive of, right? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Descriptive of?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By computable, I mean programmable on a universal number, or a universal machine, or a universal combinators, or (with Church-thesis) just programmable. A computation is a sequence of machine’s state brought by the activity of some universal machine/number.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] Like when I push buttons on my HP11c and then make out one check to pay two utility bills. The number displayed is descriptive of the sum dollars and cents I owe and I interpret it as that. When I say "descriptive of", I mean, the math process generates a number that is descriptive of something and then a person formulates the appropriate interpretation and/or programs it in.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
I ARGUE THAT THERE CAN'T BE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY NUMBER/ARITHMETIC/UNIVERSAL MACHINE OUTSIDE OUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS EVEN IF THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DISCRETE OBJECTIVE REALITY OUTSIDE OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS.</blockquote>
<div>
I can agree with this, as consciousness will eventually be explained with (only) the arithmetical truth. To explain this I would have to explain that “truth” itself is not something than we (the machines) can define. This requires too much technics for being done here and now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The point is mainly that there is no physical universe, without the consciousness of the (Löbian) Numbers.</div>
<blockquote>
> Maybe I could put it in another way. If you are willing to accept the truth that “18 is not prime” is true in the cosmic consciousness, or from the cosmic consciousness “view-point", then the existence of all computations is fixed and determined in that absolute point of view.<br /><br />YES, I AGREE TO THE ABOVE POINT OF VIEW TO SOME EXTENT. BUT I THINK EVEN COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS (CC) CAN'T CONCEIVE OF ANY NUMBERS IN THR ABSENCE OF SOME DISCRETE PHYSICALITY.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
CC created the natural numbers and CC thought it was all good.</div>
<div>
Then CC told the numbers to add themselves, and CC thought that it was all nice.</div>
<div>
Then CC told the numbers to multiply themselves and CC said: oops!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why? Because once the numbers can add and multiply themselves, they brought the universal machine in the picture, and CC lost itself through all of them, until he remembers who CC is, and recognise itself in the others, even the humblest bacteria.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
ALTERNATIVELY I CAN ALSO SUGGEST THAT CC WANTED THE CREATION AND WORKING OF THE UNIVERSE IN DETERMINED FASHION AS FOLLOWING SOME LAWS. THESE LAWS FOUND ITS EXPRESSION IN FORM OF ARITHMETIC OF NUMBERS.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think that the speculation on a primary physical universe makes everything Moree complicated, so in absence of any evidences, I prefer to not assume it at the start, and then look at the evidences provides by nature, and the evidences favour a lot Mechanism. The direct evidence fromboilogy, and the indirect (quantum) evidences coming from physics.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] A middle way is to transcend to a more unified level of organization where both ~physical and ~mental (including the mathematical computable and non-computable artifacts) arise from the more unified common denominator or "root class" which I label as "nested structured~duality”. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You take precise notions, and semantics to make them more difficult by using an expression that you have still not explain, or not explain the importance. The universal dovetailing (the program which generates all programs and execute them all) is nested in the transfinite, actually like the Mandelbrot set. Nesting is important, but does not make sense when taken as a primitive feature of reality.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What I give is a theorem, which is just that if we are machine, then physics is given by a mode of self-reference in arithmetic. It makes the neopythagorean right. For the ontology we don’t need more, an worst, we cannot use more without introducing a discrepancy with the consequence of mechanism.</div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
This avoids assuming a primary physical, OR a primary mathematic/arithmetic reality and each of those, plus more can continue along as they always have been just being instances of nested structured~duality, like all the other aspects, artifacts and experiences of reality.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<br />> That second formulation is somehow problematic, as you can guess with an expression like “cosmic consciousness’ point-of-view. The philosopher Nagel suggests the 0th-person view in an (arguably) similar context.<br /><br />0- TH PERSON VIEW PROPOSAL ILLOGICAL PRIMA FACIE.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<br /><br />> When this part of the definition of true/absolute is formalised, or asked to the Universal Machine, It remains mute or ask question about a possible identification between Truth and the semi-computable truth. The identification will be of the same type than self-consistency: that is true but not rationally assertable/justifiable.<br /><br />BUT STILL YOU CAN'T GET RID OF CONSCIOUSNESS SINCE THE VERY ARITHMETIC MACHINE EXIST IN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POSING OF ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD ALSO ARISE FROM CONSCIOUSNESS </blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In science, we need to start from what people already believe. If you believe in “18 is not prime”, and alike, you will understand the reasoning, which does not prove mechanism (that is not the goal), but shows that mechanism makes the number (or Turing equivalent) primary..</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That the numbers are creations of the CC is not really relevant at the start, although this is indeed proved when we accept some relation between consciousness and the concept of truth.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[rf] That's one way to go, I guess, relying upon mathematical recursion -- right? Relying on arithmetical truth seen by itself? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is more like the arithmetical truth/reality as seen by the universal person emulated by the infinitely many arithmetical relations supporting it.</div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But in the transcendent approach, notice that where you say, """which does not prove mechanism (that is not the goal), but shows that mechanism makes the number (or Turing equivalent) primary..""", you are actually proving is that nested structured~duality (i.e., the stack of NSD that you are employing -- Turing machines and numbers and logic stacks, and mechanism, etc.,) is primary. Remember, you represent numbers as s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0)))... functions which are also rather obvious instances of nested structured~duality.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK. The point is that 0, s(0), .. is enough. At some points, computations are equal to such s(s(s(s(s(s(…. (0)))))). Physical existence and psychological existence are brought by the true relation, provable or not by this or that numbers, among the numbers. All what needs to be assumed “in fine” is elementary arithmetic. The physical realism is explained by a mathematical (arithmetical) Maya, a bit like if the numbers were inconceivably good in prestidigitation!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best regards,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bruno</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I appreciate you trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality, and your questions and comments.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Best regards, </div>
<div>
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Changing the scientific paradigm.</div>
<div>
https://magnetictetrahedra.com</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Changing the scientific paradigm.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://magnetictetrahedra.com/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<blockquote>
><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> ii) All the arithmetic is a product of our assumptions as produced in our conscious minds.<br />>><br />>> That makes sense in your non-mechanist Aristotelian theory. I prefer to assume 2+2=4, which is far less speculative, and accepted by all scientists.<br />><br />> IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY, THIS IS A FACT THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION OF 2 PLUS 2--4 UNLESS THERE IS THE PRIOR EXISTENCE OF TWO.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The existence of two, that is the truth of the statement Ex(x = s(s(0))) is a theorem of the theory described just below, like the existence of the prime numbers, and like the existence of the computations and their implementation in arithmetic. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
><br />> I have given my precise assumption: classical logic + the theory of Robinson sometimes called Q:<br />> 0 ≠ s(x)<br />> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y<br />> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) <br />> x+0 = x<br />> x+s(y) = s(x+y)<br />> x*0=0<br />> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x<br />> From this you can deduce Ex(x = s(s(0)), that we interpret as the existence of the number two (the successor of the successor of zero).<br /><br />BUT THE QUESTION IS IF CAN YOU MAKE THE ABOVE PRECISE ASSUMPTIONS OF CLASSICAL LOGIC OR THE THEORY OF ROBINSON WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS?</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I cannot, but my consciousness is required at some meta level. The statements just above do not refer to consciousness. Either you agree with them, or you refute them. A priori, they have nothing to do with matter and consciousness. But with mechanism, such relations appear.</div>
<blockquote>
OBVIOUSLY NO. SO DEFINITELY, NO HYPOTHESIS, ARGUMENT, ASSUMPTION, THEOREM, NUMBERS, ARITHMETIC IS FEASIBLE WITHOUT AND OUTSIDE THR CONSCIOUSNESS.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
18 is prime is not a relative falsity. With or without consciousness 18 cannot be prime. Consciousness is needed only to accept that fact in some first person way.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<br /><br />> The more surprising thing is that we can derive the existence of all computations, including those supporting universal machines involved in rich and deep (intrinsically long) computations. They act as filter to differentiate the consciousness of the universal machine.<br /><br />WE DERIVE THE EXISTENCE OF ALL COMPUTATIONS!! IT IS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH DERIVES THE EXISTENCE OF COMMUTATIONS. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE MACHINE?</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All universal digital machine “rich enough” (Löbian) can prove the existence of all computations. I think that they are as much conscious than you and me. But of course, only the first part of that statement is itself provable in “enough rich” arithmetical theories.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
> Again, the consciousness of the universal machine, abstracted from all its computations, cannot be identified with the cosmic consciousness, in public. It will be true from the cosmic point of view, but false from the terrestrial relative mundane third person view.<br /><br />HOW COMMUTATIONS CAN HAVE ANY CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEIR OWN AS DISTINCT FROM CC OR OUT MUNDANE CONSCIOUSNESS?</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Computations are never conscious. But they can support a person (which lives in arithmetic) relativized in a context based on the work of some universal numbers. It is the person which is conscious,not the bodies or the representation in arithmetic per themselves.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
> At this place, the theorem of Solovay, which captures the true and the provable discourse of what the machine can prove and conceive about itself (in eventually eight senses), helps to disentangle all the subtleties.<br /><br />BUT DUD THE THEOREM OF SOLOVAY ARISE OUT OF AND WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? OBVIOUSLY NO</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It arises in the mind on specific Löbian digital number in arithmetic, but also in the mind of physical human beings. There is nothing weird here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You seem to want to intruse the meta level in the object level. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
><br />><br />><br />> I ADD FURTHER THAT YOU CAN ASSUME 2 PLUS 2 -- 4 SINCE YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE OF DISCRETE ONTOLOGY OF DIFFERENT TYPES -- 2 TREES, 2 APPLES, 2 PROTONS.<br />><br />><br />> Yes, I took the numbers from the empirical reality, and I even took the notion of “if … then … else” from the Lactose Operon (regulator gene) of the bacterium Escherichia Coli. Nature is quite inspiring.<br />> But, metaphysically, or theologically, I cannot be aware of an ontology. I can only be aware of an experience, or maybe a person. I might wake up in two seconds, and laugh of myself having taken for granted the trees, the appels, and the protons.<br /><br />YES, METAPHYSICALLY OR THEOLOGICALLY, YOU MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF ANY ONTOLOGY. BUT YOU HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF AN OBJECTIVE PHENOMENAL REALITY OF DISCRETE NATURE COUNTLESS OF TIMES RIGHT FROM THE TEEN AGE, YOU OPENED THR EYES. AS YOU OPENED THE EYES FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN THE BODY OF YOUR MOTHER. SO THE NUMBER 1 MIGHT HAVE ARISEN AS A UNIQUE COGNITIVE THOUGHT IN YOUR MIND/ CONSCIOUSNESS.THEN AS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN ANOTHER NURSE/AUNTIE IN THE VICINITY OF YOUR MOTHER, NUMBER 2 MIGHT HAVE ORIGINATED IN YOUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS. BUT THIS ARITHMETIC THOUGHT IS UNIVERSAL AND UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THIS ARISES EQUALLY AND UNIVERSALLY IN ALL SANE LIVING ORGANISMS, AT LEAST HUMANS. ABOUT ANIMALS, I DON'T KNOW.<br /><br />HAD YOU OPENED YOUR EYES IN A VACCINE DEVOID OF ANY OBJECTIVE PHENOMENAL OBJECT ABD PASSED YOUR ENTIRE LIFE IN THAT VACUUM, MIGHT BE NUMBER 1, 2, 3,...COULD NEVER WOULD HAVE TAKEN BIRTH IN YOUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am not sure I understand “objective phenomenal object”. If it is phenomenal, it is first person, or subjective. At most it is first person plural, like with the consequence of mechanism, but also from QM-without-collapse, where populations of machines are duplicated “together” so that they share the first person indeterminacy, making it looking objective but is still subjective. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<br /><br />> At least, with mechanism, the dreams obeys laws, and it leads to a sort of measurable degrees of relativity.Quantum mechanics seems to confirms we belong to a very solid sharable type of dream.<br /><br />I PROPOSE THAT IS NOT THE DREAMS. WHICH OBEYS LAWS. BUT LAWS GOVERNING THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICALITY FIND THEIR EXPRESSION IN NUMBERS, ARITHMETIC AND COMPUTATIONS.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I do not assume physicality. If the physics in the head really depart from the observation, then I will consider the possibility of primary matter, but today’s evidences is that there is no discrepancy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<br />I STOP AT THIS STAGE STAGE SINCE IT HAS ALREADY BECOME TOO LONG AND I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TYPE LONG MESSAGES ON CELLPHONE.</blockquote>
<div>
OK, best,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bruno</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<br /><br />VINOD SEHGAL<br />><br />><br />><br />> SO YOUR ASSUMPTION OF 2 PLUS 2 -- 4 IS CONTINGENT ON FOLLOWING<br />><br />> I) EXISTENCE OF SOME PRIOR CONSCIOUSNESS<br />><br />><br />> That is correct, at the meta-level. Mechanism, in the quasi-operational sense of saying “yes” to the digitalist doctor, assume not just consciousness, but a sort of invariance for local transformation of what supports the corresponding computations.<br />> We can be neutral long before trying to identify the cosmic consciousness with any thing.<br />><br />><br />><br />><br />> II) YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH SOME DISCRETENESS PERTAINING TO ONTOLOGY OF ANY TYPE EXISTING IN NATURE.<br />><br />><br />> If Nature get a primitive ontological feature, you will need complex actual infinities to attach univocally a consciousness to that ontology. It can make sense, but it makes things much more complicated. I prefer to avoid any ontological commitment before some evidence.<br />> I give a way to test this. The idea is very simple: compare the physics in the head of all universal numbers with “Nature”.<br />><br />><br />><br />><br />> NONE OF THE NUMBERS ARE INCONCEIVABLE OUTSIDE THE ABOVE TWO VIZ CONSCIOUSNESS AND DISCRETENESS.<br />><br />><br />> I guess you mean CONCEIVABLE.<br />> The Digital Mechanist hypothesis relates consciousness and discreteness in a way which explains the numbers real experience of the illusion of the continuum (including the physical qualla and quanta) and of its lawful local persistence.<br />> You must understand that the mathematician thought the natural numbers were simpler than the real numbers, but after Gödel we understand that we understand nothing. The main reason is due to the mess brought by the universal numbers. And it is worst from the first person perspective related to the numbers involved in the universal relation, as they are indeterminate on infinitely many computations.<br />> I am open to the idea that only some Nature can solve the consciousness/matter relation problem, but then it will have to do it through non Turing emulable means, nor using the infinities already met by the first person associated to the universal number in arithmetic.<br />> All what I say is that this is testable, and somehow Everett formulation of QM, and Einstein formulation of GR confirms up to now this Pythagorean theology. I think.<br />><br />><br />><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> iii) In the absence of any discrete physical ontology, numbers lose any meaning.<br />>><br />>> Why? On the contrary, we can explain in all details why numbers brings meaning to their relation, by their highly sophisticated theology that they have already provided to us, even if it is throughout difficult math papers.<br />><br />> ALL YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS ARE BORNE OUT OF THE PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN YOU AND YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF DISCRETENESS IN NATURE.<br />><br />><br />> The theory is given by its axioms and rules. Its origin is not part of it.<br />> Its origin is double.<br />> It is contingent for the here and now, and it is a theorem of arithmetic, for the out of time and space, by (again) Gödel’s arithmetization of the metamathematics, through some digital machine (of the declarative type) embedding itself in arithmetic. The “theory” of the logician are digital machines, sort of “toy-mathematicians” which appears to have a quite rich and testable theology.<br />><br />><br />><br />><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> It is true that numbers are unique in the sense that they are equally applicable to the discrete ontology of any type -- 1 tree, 1 proton, 1 apple etc but it is also true that they should definitely pertain to some discrete ontology.<br />>><br />>> Yes, the infinite set {0, 1, 2, 3, …}. The mind and the matter comes from their relations.<br />><br />> THE INFINITE SET OF 1,2,3,4, ...IS BORN IN OUR MINDS AS SOME ASSUMPTIONS SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY<br />> I) HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF 1,2,3,4,... DISCRETE OBJECTS IN NATURE<br />><br />> Us? Yes with “us” = the humans. Not really with “us” the universal numbers.<br />> Nature and humans are the phenomenological product of infinitely many arithmetical relations.<br />> So, once we assume the natural numbers, with their elementary laws, everything else is either redundant, or a falsity. (Again, when we assume Mechanism: this is a meta-theorem).<br />><br />><br />><br />> II) IDENTIFIED THESE OBJECTS THRU SOME UNIQUE COGNITIVE MECHANISM.<br />><br />><br />> *all* cognitive mechanism are implemented, in the sense of Church and Turing, in elementary arithmetic.<br />><br />><br />><br />><br />> THIS IS THIS UNIQUE COGNITIVE MECHANISM OF IDENTIFYING THE DISCRETE OBJECTS WHICH APPEARS THRU NUMBERS AS A DEFAULT.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> When a number 1 or a relation 1+1=2 arise in mind ( 1+1=2 is also a universal assumption produced in minds), immediately question arises as to the number 1 or relation 1+1 pertains to what? 1 tree or 1 apple or 1 protons.<br />>><br />>> “1+1=2” is produced in the mind, but that does not imply that 1+1 would be different from 2 is they were no mind.<br />><br />> BUT FOR THE MIND, THERE CAN'T BE ANY EXISTENCE OF 1 OR 1 PLUS 1 --2. SO THERE CAN'T BE ANY QUESTION OF 1 PLUS 1 EQUAL OR DIFFERENT THAN 2. OUTSIDE OF OUR MIND,<br />><br />> Why?<br />> It is simpler to make a theory of mind from elementary arithmetic, knowing that it is Turing universal, than justifying that 1+1=2 by the psychology. Related to neural nets having evolve for long period after an asteroid smash their predators. The long explanation, if made more formal will be shown using already the assumption of the number relations.<br />><br />><br />><br />> THERE MAY EXIST SOME DISCRETE OBJECTS.<br />><br />> You mean in Nature? But if Nature is the criteria of truth, then all you need is to assume a non-computationalist theory of mind.<br />> I am a Platonist: I am quite skeptical about what I don’t see, but I am even much more skeptical about what I can see.<br />><br />><br />> BUT HOW MANY THESE OBJECTS? THIS CAN'T EXIST IN NATURE ON ITS OWN. THIS WILL TAKE BIRTH WHEN OUR MINDS WILL START IDENTIFYING WITH THE DISCRETE OBJECTS. ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THR DISCRETE OBJECTS BY OUR MIND, NUMBERS WILL ARISE IN OUR MINDS AS PART OF SOME UNIQUE COGNITIVE THOUGHT.<br />><br />><br />> No problem, but you will need special infinities in both mind and matter, and that is quite speculative to me.<br />> Note that I use the numbers because people are familiar with them. I could use any Turing universal system instead, for the basic ontology (the primitive terms). With the combinators, the “theory of everything” is even shorter:<br />> Kxy = x<br />> Sxyz = xz(yz)<br />> See my previews post, but it is not important. Just that I want people idolasing the numbers, like some pythagoricians did. From the two equations above, I can also prove the existence of all computations, and of the universal combinators and actually of the universal numbers, etc.<br />> I told you that eventually “cosmic consciousness” and “arithmetic” are deeply related, but it is dangerous to assert it without much caution, as those relations can be proved to be part of the non-communicable by the self-referentially correct machine. We can’t enforce an idea which can only be experienced, or we will prevent it. But even here I say too much. It all belongs to G* minus G. G* \ G captures what is true only without saying, which is a vast space for any universal machine/person.<br />> Best regards,<br />> Bruno<br />><br />><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> Had there been no discrete object like a tree or apple or protons, number 1 would have also never taken birth in our consciousness/mind. Without our consciousness/minds and discrete objects, number 1 or 2, number 2 could never have come into existence.<br />>><br />>> There is no proton, or hangs like that, except in our mind (our = us the Löbian number). It is easier to explain the illusion of the proton from mathematics and the mechanist theory of mind, than to explain what is a number in term of protons.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> iv) So numbers automatically come into existence as part of some of our unique cognitive<br />>> capability when our conscious minds have an interface with the discrete physical ontology of any type.<br />>><br />>> That is consistent with non-mechanism, but many tings are consistent then. That is the problem of non-mechanism. It explains too much things, and start from the very difficult things.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> This is on the similar lines that a poem burst out from the mind/heart of a poet when his conscious minds have an interface with some beautiful flower or a river or any other natural scene. But here there is the difference While poem arises in the conscious hearts/minds of only a selected few. Numbers arise universally in the minds of all and that too in the same manner. In this way, number is a unique and universal cognitive capability<br />>><br />>> I am glad you say this.<br />>><br />>><br />>> v) Just image the existence of some says 10 trees in a jungle. Trees or jungle don't have any concept of 10 (trees) in itself. So there is no number 10 by itself. When a conscious observer passes thru the jungle that he ( his consciosuness.conscious minds) has an interface with the trees that number 10 arises in his mind. There is all the likelihood that if the person is quite illiterate that number 10 may not come into existence at all.<br />>><br />>> OK. But the tree is what I want to derive from the numbers.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> To say that number 10 existed even without 10 physical trees and conscious minds.consciousness is an absurd since for the existence of anything i) some ontological 'substance: is required<br />>><br />>> I don’t see why. I asked you before, but saying that a material ontology is needed is just an act of faith toward Aristotle, or dualist Sankia.<br />>><br />>><br />>> and numbers per se lack any ontological substance<br />>><br />>> With helps to explain that ontological substance exists only in the mind of the (Turing) universal numbers. You need to be aware that arithmetic contains all computations, and not just their description, but the true relations making them into computations.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> ii) To authenticate or establish the existence of anything, consciousness/conscious minds are required and numbers lack any consciousness.conscious minds.<br />>><br />>> I agree. But something can exist without being authenticate by a conscious being: example: the numbers. Even if the entire physical universe disappear (which makes no sense as it is a product of the number, but let us say) 1+1 is till equal to 2, even if we can no more torture the kids with them.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> In view of above, the fundamentality of numbers without conscious minds and discrete physicality is logically ruled out.<br />>><br />>> Certainly not. They are rules out from the metaphysics of Aristotle only, but that is why I insist to come back to Plato. There are no evidence for a material ontology, only for a material phenomenology, and then with computationalism, the material phenomenology cannot assume primary matter, as that notion has no more meaning.<br />>> We are coherent Vinod. We just make quite different assumption. I assume that the brain functions like a machine, and you assume the contrary. But there will no conscious robot in your theory, because they will offer you my refutation, and it will be correct if you are willing to accept that they are conscious.<br />>> Bruno<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> Vinod Sehgal<br />>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ralph Frost <<a href="mailto:ralph.frost@gmail.com" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">ralph.frost@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br />>><br />>> Dear Bruno,<br />>> The Lobian machines are in agreement. .-)<br />>> Where you write, """And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).""", and Googling your breadcrumb of "boolean topoi", to get to another similarly named thread: <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/foundations-of-mathematics/The-quest-for-rigour#ref412262" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.britannica.com/topic/foundations-of-mathematics/The-quest-for-rigour#ref412262</a> ....<br />>> Roughly, if all boolean topoi are Lobian, then, since magnetic tetrahedron ~are a constructed boolean topos, you get (have given) the proof you say you and the other Lobians need. <br />>> This carries over, on a good day according to my ~slipshod logic, to nested structured~duality, by virtue of standard boolean labeling being considered as [true,false] where as the underlying [attraction,repulsion] is present in the formative, foundational ~magnetic tetrahedral analog math. Both are or reflect a similar or roughly equivalent (structured) duality, but use slightly different terms and conjure different but mostly equal concepts within the various linguistic communities. <br />>> I would go out a little further on the thin ice to point out that our human ability to assess true from false (particularly after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil), is highly over-rated. We greatly admire what is true, or claim to, yet ourselves and our surroundings are also deeply nested repulsive and attractive structures and generally, we cannot tell the difference between the two with great certainty. About the only absolute we can find is that repulsion is ~truly attraction with one-half spin (and vise versa). Yet, we can observe and agree that, say, balanced attractive-repulsive units within a state, such as n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, are more stable and self-organizing than other states, and thus, both externally on the tabletop, and internally within similar (sp^3 hybridized) carbon-water-based units, will, to us (who are doing internal representations and assessments in the cwb units) always "make more sense" to us and/or will persist, as we like to call it, as "true", more so than units being unstable and "~false". Considering attraction as love, and perhaps depending on one's faith, we also still find ourselves nested within one ~spin-structured attractive field.<br />>><br />>> Here, of course, I am winging it just based on the assumption or the *feel* that magnetic tetrahedra are boolean topoi and both are instances of nested structured~duality. <br />>> I take these liberties, in part because of things I read on the Internet, for instance, "To a modern logician, a mathematical structure is precisely this: a set of abstract entities with relations between them." attributed to Max Tegmark in <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/</a> .<br />>> Here he advocates picking a structure (set of abstract entities) and one or more dualities (relations between them), which qualifies, close enough, as constructing yet another instance of nested structured~duality. <br />>> Similar connections are with notions of Donald H. Hoffman as in The Atlantic: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/</a> <br />>> and with notions of Andy Clark <a href="https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10404" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10404</a> on Predictive coding and our uses of storing 'information', etc., in the structure of our bodies and in the environment. <br />>> Considering these persons' perspectives, along with noting the typical instances of "simple machines" in classical physics, vaguely, I may be beginning to see some sense developing in how it is that working through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron (n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4) provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states and also a feel for the pattern(s) in our make-up which allow us to bobble along, and survive in the local variable mass-density. <br />>> Again, call it a non-classical simple machine, or a poor man's unified field ~equation and/or an initial (analog math) ~equation of quantum gravity, but there is some empirical validity that comes via analog math expression that is simply not available, or not available/developed yet, via the abstract math trade route. <br />>> The first step is to establish physical intuition and spark creative imagination.<br />>> Thanks for your help.<br />>> Best regards,<br />>> Ralph Frost, Ph.D.<br />>> Changing the scientific paradigm.<br />>> <a href="https://magnetictetrahedra.com/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</a><br />>> Focus on the breath.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:44:42 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:<br />>><br />>> On 15 Feb 2018, at 04:21, Ralph Frost <<a href="mailto:ralph...@gmail.com" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">ralph...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br />>> Bruno,<br />>> Thanks for your reply and insights. I somewhat grasp the idea that from your perspective, I would ~require or accept a substitution level ~below sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding.<br />>><br />>> From the perspective of Mechanism, yes. That would follow from other hypothesis, including physical assumption or not.<br />>> Some real number are not computable, you always add a non computable element to Shcroedinger equation, or quicker in the wave e^iHt, by using a H based on a non computable number. Amazingly perhaps, such modification does not change the physical appearances. If you change the linearity: the appearances will change drastically (both just with mechanism and QM-(without collapse).<br />>> Some might doubt your sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level (of substitution) and requires the much more expensive strings-branes level, and with 10^(10^100) decimals accurate, and this for the local cluster of galaxies.<br />>> Now, a curious facts is that the natural numbers, just in virtue of their true arithmetical relations do mimic those approximations, at all levels allowing a digitalisation, and indeed, the “real experience” is not obtained by any-one emulations of those approximations, but by the infinitely many one realised in virtue of 2+2=4 & Co.<br />>><br />>><br />>> However, I still have an impression that the instance of nested structured~duality that you are working with in your mechanism/substitution storyline involves assumptions about numbers and arithmetic as ~fundamentals which actually are not correct or true, or true enough to support your proposals.<br />>><br />>> If you take the time to study the details, you should understand that I start from the Digital Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science, and deduce from that that arithmetic is enough. Elementary arithmetic is sufficient and necessary, although you can effectively start from any universal machinery. Technically, with my students, I start from many different universal machinery, to avoid the idolatry of any of them.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> This certainly could be my abstract math-ignorance biases showing, but my impression is numbers and number theories are like a type of specialized, relational language which is very handy for approximating sustenance needs.<br />>><br />>> Before Gödel we thought we could secure the Infinite, used in analysis, set theories, algebra, physics, by solid constructions using only (finite) numbers.<br />>> After Gödel we realize that we have to use the help of the infinite to keep calm and control of the number themselves.<br />>> The pythagorean heaven is full of storms, turbulence, unbounded complexity and unbounded degrees of unsolvability.<br />>> Analysis, and somehow physics are simplifications of the number reality. A sort of projective view of arithmetic as seen from inside, and from an 1p view.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> As well, ALL of the numerical relations present in nature, from my perspective or in my opinion, are 100% entangled with and arise from ~physical arrangements.<br />>><br />>> You have of course the right to assume this, but usually the numbers are conceived in a much easier and precise way, not involving physics, but involving some laws of thought (logic) we can agree on that subject, like with the Robinson axioms I gave you already.<br />>> One of my goal is to understand the term physical from simpler things that I can conceive, and the computationalist hypothesis provides an opportunity to test a theory which explains the physical appearances without assuming a physical universe.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> That is, like particle-wave, numbers can not be peeled away into an idealized separate 'numbers' realm or category -- separated from the artifacts they associate with or relate to.<br />>><br />>> That is true, but the “causality” or “explainability” is simpler from going to natural numbers to their beautiful dreams and nightmares, than to go from anything extracted from the appearances, except repeatability itself, to explain the numbers. In my opinion.<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> People certainly do it, and to great advantage, but this ability is a feature of reality<br />>><br />>> Which one? At some point, any serious metaphysics must provides its theory in a universally accepted language, which means in either first order logic, or interpreted in a theory admitting itself an interpretation in first order or second order logic.<br />>> And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).<br />>><br />>><br />>> being nested structured~duality and where people can create instances of nested structured~duality even to the extremes.<br />>><br />>> ?<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> ymmv (your mileage may vary), on this notion. <br />>><br />>> I am an extremely simple mind. “Nested structured-duality” means almost everything to me without adding some precision, especially once you said it is primitive. You lost me there.<br />>> I have to go. I might try to answer some point below, but be patient for possible delays. We might win some times if you study well the reasoning in 8 steps. I claim nothing but consequences of mechanism. Eventually, the physical science makes much more sense viewed as an internal projection in arithmetic. (Sometimes I guess that Number Theory will be the “winner”, but that is not necessarily the case. Yet it would happen if the prime numbers mimic, from the 1p we can associate to them (assuming a number of thing) a quantum computer, like it seems to mimic already a “quantum chaotic regime”.<br />>> To be continued.<br />>> Best,<br />>> Bruno<br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>><br />>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <<a href="mailto:mar...@ulb.ac.be" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">mar...@ulb.ac.be</a>> wrote:<br />>><br />>> On 11 Feb 2018, at 13:40, Ralph Frost <<a href="mailto:ralph...@gmail.com" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">ralph...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br />>> Hi, Bruno,<br />>> What Google says about "mechanism philosophy" is """Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities is not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts. “""<br />>><br />>> That is not too bad.Of course “natural wholes” is a bit vague, but the idea is there. The essence of being a machine, or having a body being a machine, is that we can be fixed though substitution of parts.<br />>> Biology has always been my source of inspiration for mechanism, as biological bodies replace their constituents all the time. Few atoms last for more than seven years in the body, according to some sources.<br />>><br />>> [rf] You see it as "relace their parts", I see it as "sustain structure" or "sustain nested structured~duality", 0r 'sustain structural-energetics", which, I suppose, has more of a relational flare. Also, there is the difference, I think, in biological organisms where organisms are running a synergetic transformation of both "replacing parts" AND "collecting energy". That is, in the process of collecting energy, in our aerobic biological case, here on the flip-side of photosynthesis, ~we necessarily have a complementary ~flow of replacement parts, and, in my storyline, as we also sustain an internal structurally coded representation (approximation) of relevant features of surroundings.<br />>> Machine mechanism, OTOH, I see as focused on replacing worn mechanisms while separately locating/ acquiring charged batteries. So the two functions are both non-integrated replacements. The two are different.<br />>><br />>> Is that the storyline you assume when you say you "assume mechanism”?<br />>><br />>> Yes.<br />>><br />>> It is one instance of nested structured~duality. <br />>><br />>> Can you give me an instance of something which is not a nested structured-duality, and explain why? Sometimes it looks you apply the term to thing, but here you apply it to a believe and I fell lost in my attempt to grasp what you mean.<br />>><br />>> [rf] First, I do apply it to "things" and "beliefs" because I underst<br />><br />> --<br />> ----------------------------<br />> Fifth International Conference<br />> Science and Scientist - 2017<br />> August 18—19, 2017<br />> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal<br />> <a href="http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017</a><br />> <br />> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: <a href="http://scienceandscientist.org/donate" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://scienceandscientist.org/donate</a><br />> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)<br />> <br />> Report Archi To view this discussion on the web visit<br />> For more options, visit</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-63661874534817460022018-02-21T06:35:00.003-05:002018-02-21T06:40:06.201-05:00Bio-dark matter as ~sp^3 center connector<span style="font-size: 13px;">Hey, Philip,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">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...")</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">...Probably, as you have been trying to express for a few years...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Good luck!</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Best regards,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Ralph Frost, Ph.D.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Changing the scientific paradigm.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, <medinuclear> wrote :</medinuclear></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">[Ralph Frost]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">“ Phillip, Your mention of magnetic influences having ~positive effects on people having depressed, bi-polar, or perhaps acutely paranoid schizophrenic impressions reminded me of thoughts I periodically have had about my own earlier experiences decades ago -- in close and consistent proximity with subtly changing and oscillating magnetic fields and changing patterns of magnetic fields…… I am not convinced, yet, that I should immediately pitch Frost-brand MagneticTetrahedra as a type of a cure for that type mental/emotional illness, but one day I might. It apparently is a good approximation of nested structured~duality and the underlying general principle and a good lead into seeing "consciousness" for what it is: nested structured coding closely coupled with energy collection/conservation”.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">[Philip Benjamin]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Your experiences “in close and consistent proximity with subtly changing and oscillating magnetic fields and changing patterns of magnetic fields” should be taken seriously. There is a plethora of information from around the globe with Stanley Koren’s God-Helmet and similar studies, especially by neuropsychologist Michael Persinger et al in Canada. “Nested structured coding closely coupled with energy collection/conservation” is only a philosophical claim. What is nested structure made of, is a scientific question. If there is any such invisible structure, science today has no choice other than bio dark-matter with bio dark-matter chemistry.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"> The Freudian postulate of Id, Ego, Super Ego is also a nested structure—a triune nest. Probably he may have adapted the “spirit, soul, body” identified in the Tanya as “Nefesh Elokit, Nefesh HaBehamit and body” (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361897/jewish/The-Soul-and-the-Afterlife.htm). The soul enters the womb at the time of conception (Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 60b).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"> Weather it is The Talmud or the Tanya or the Tanakh or Tao or Puranas or Triveda or Koran if there is an invisible physical entity amenable to the rigors of scientific reasoning, that necessarily have to be made of bio dark-matter with its chemistry.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Best regards</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Philip Benjamin</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">From: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jcs-online@yahoogroups.com]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:11 PM</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Subject: RE: [jcs-online] Re: Model of Free Will, Third Level Consciousness & Process and Entanglement of Consciousness</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Phillip,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Your mention of magnetic influences having ~positive effects on people having depressed, bi-polar, or perhaps acutely paranoid schizophrenic impressions reminded me of thoughts I periodically have had about my own earlier experiences decades ago -- in close and consistent proximity with subtly changing and oscillating magnetic fields and changing patterns of magnetic fields. I'm not convinced, yet, that I should immediately pitch Frost-brand MagneticTetrahedra as a type of a cure for that type mental/emotional illness, but one day I might. It apparently is a good approximation of nested structured~duality and the underlying general principle and a good lead into seeing "consciousness" for what it is: nested structured coding closely coupled with energy collection/conservation.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">In such a "structural coding" storyline, the WHY, of being ~conscious of surroundings and of "self", and, even of "others", is pretty obvious. Sustaining, say, an internal ~6^n structurally coded representation of surroundings (in my trial theory, in the 10^20 water molecules per second forming in our aerobic respiration sites), where the structurally coded packets are also new, current hydrogen bonding packets which influence protein-folding and thus motility and expression, the "WHY" is to continue getting energy and materials so as to continue making moves on the gameboard, within the other levels of nested structured~duality. So-called "self-consciousness" sort of comes along automatically, within the physical and psychic boundaries of the apparatus that responds during the expressions which supply/conserve more energy flow and components for replacement parts -- so as to keep on bobbling along in the local solar fusion flux.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">The close coupling of energy collection/conservation with the structurally coding of internal representation of surroundings allows the process to be synergistic and more or less a "no-brainer". One and all has or gets the internal representation, "for free" as it is a sidebar of the respiration reaction vibrationally responding with vibrations of the surroundings, at least for core, life-sustaining features of our "first person perspective".</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Notice that what I am pointing at and calling the ~6^n internal analog language which is structurally coding packets of hydrogen bonding, serves the needs for a common 1pp language, reaching down among un-sub-conscious and the emotions.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Downstream from this, when packets unfurl and influence protein-folding sequencing, we get "words" which is the main language of our third-person perspective (3pp). (Main, but also along with non-verbal signalling, but, like here, just with words.) Thus, if we don't have the words, we don't have a sharable 3pp conversation or understanding.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Similarly, in the present challenge or observing and making up the terms and communicating the underlying principle of nested structured~duality, so as to change the dominant scientific paradigm.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Our 1pp language and core rationality, I think, and perhaps you can agree, is all geared in with the ~analog, chemical-energetic stoichiometry. I consider this analog language as the primary system and the wordful one as a less complete, secondary language. It seems to me that this characterization also fits for mathematical symbols and expressions since large fractions of their nuance arises and replicates only through the secondary wordful 3pp language. The math symbolism, of course, is closer to the primary structural coding language, but still displaced from or more incomplete in comparison to it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Over in the Hameroff-Penrose model, maybe, if you imagine it right, one may imagine hearing a low- and/or high-pitched sound like the sound one hears/feels pressing an ear against a wooden electric wire support pole during a strong winter wind. That trial theory at the lower QM level of organization, may be more like for an antenna or vibrational signal collector, but, I think I agree with you, how is that rather fixed structural support doing any relevant ciphering? Or "why-how" does some of the quantum mechanical vibrations separate from signalling to continue to manifest itself as microtubules and also do relevant service in remembering the taste of Grammie's chocolate cake or discerning that structurally coded stacks of water molecules also are what others call quales?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Perhaps there is the quantum hum or vibration in the microtubules, but what or how is that coupled to, and with what?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">The relevant question may be, "What is the connection or coupling with, or path to energy collection/conservation?"</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Maybe Roger or Stuart will supply their answer to this question here in this thread...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Best regards,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Ralph Frost, Ph.D.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Changing the scientific paradigm.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, <medinuclear> wrote :</medinuclear></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">[Philip Benjamin]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">The experiments mentioned below may solve some of the century old mysteries about the chemical effects of analgesics apropos to clinically defined “unconsciousness”, but have nothing to say about WHY anything or anybody be “CONSCIOUS” of itself or oneself or of anything else. What is oneself, to begin with? One’s Self? That is still more than a mystery!! Hoe can “Self” be something morphed in the fermions in the microtubules?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"> The subunits tubulins of microtubules are proteins. They are components of the cytoskeleton, found throughout the cytoplasm everywhere in any given living system, not specific to brain. In the final analysis microtubules are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. What is it that “quantum vibrate” in the microtubules? Are they electrons? Protons? Neutrons? The nucleus of an atom? Each tubulin? The entire microtubule?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">The beneficial effects of mechanically targeting microtubules with external vibrations, are also reported with “magnetic fields” also. Preliminary findings suggest that bipolar-disorder patients moods improve immediately after they undergo a specific MRI procedure (externally imposed strong magnetic field). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-certain-frequencies/</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Weak magnetic fields also can influence brain activity (The God Helmet experiments. http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/God_Helmet_field_strengths.htm</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;"> Suggestions about the existence of a “mystical” consciousness, derived from an experiment are not inferences or evidences. A more rational approach to explain the reality of the archetypal “Self” will be to recognize “Self” as a real invisible (dark) “body” identical/eidetic to the real visible (light) body. The only candidate available today for science is bio dark-matter with its bio dark-matter chemistry (bio dark-matter chemical bonds will be similar to their light matter counterparts, i.e. spin governed stable Duet, Octet Configurations of Particles). Resonance between the light and dark bodies will be the basis of self-awareness. Resonance is rudimentary recognition.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">How can a sequence of collapses of mathematical wave-functions of some unknown dead particles in the tubulins (dead proteins) of microtubules account for the experientially evidential reality of the existence of a “Self” within every clinically conscious or unconscious (NDE/OBE) human being?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Best regards</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Philip Benjamin</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">CC. BrainSci. God Helmet;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">These are the experimental observations suggested to corroborate derivation of Consciousness from deeper micro scale activities inside “microtubules” (brain neurons):</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">1. Recent observations of warm temperature quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons (Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD et al). Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from microtubule vibrations</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">2. Work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anaesthetics act via microtubules in brain neurons to selectively erase consciousness while maintaining non-conscious brain activities</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13px;">3. Megahertz microtubule quantum vibrations appear to slow down EEG "beat frequencies."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">4. Clinical trials of brief mechanical brain stimulation aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz transcranial ultrasound are reported to have produced subjective improvements in mood.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">5. A claim is made that such stimulation may prove useful to treat mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions including Alzheimer's disease and brain injury in the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"> [snip..]</span>Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-19719877165564470082018-01-31T08:02:00.001-05:002018-01-31T08:02:21.480-05:00Continued thread on fundamentals of mathematics (Assuming R=NSD)<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bruno,</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Some clarification regarding you saying I assume physical reality... My prior (long) reply was truncated. Perhaps just as well.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal </span><span dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><<a href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be" style="border: 0px; color: #1155cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">marchal@ulb.ac.be</a>></span> wrote:<br /><div style="border-bottom-color: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 1px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Hi Ralph,<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
..snip..</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="border-bottom-color: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 1px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
[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”.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">[rf] </span></div>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: small; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border-bottom-color: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 1px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 20px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="border-bottom-color: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 1px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I do start with the answer, but I don't "assume something physical". The difference, though, I think, is </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
(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, </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
whereas,</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
(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". </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Thus, in your comp storyline, you assume AR and aim to derive, or have your Turing devices derive ~physical reality (carbon, electron), whereas in <a name='more'></a>my NSD storyline I assume NSD and use ~physical reality/analog math, aiming toward a "model of consciousness" while verifying my (R=NSD) assumption, and doing some other things, synergistically, along the way.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Then, where you say, """<span style="border: 0px; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”."""...</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Firstly, I am assuming NSD as primary (primitive). </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-size: 17.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Secondly, magnetic tetrahedron analog math certainly seems to me to be a mechanism that is recognizable/familiar within patterns in (applied) computer science, so if there is an incompatibility, isn't it more so with the digital mechanism or due to slowness in its emulation?</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I get the vague impression that in you assuming I am starting by assuming physical reality, I am seeing "my result" as potentially already at the intermediate intersection of your ~two-step program, say, where the digital substitution step has (finally) been, or is to be achieved. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Rather than say I assume the answer/~physical reality, notice how fast my first step passed by and and then how "my analog math result" approximates the digital/comp result that your herd of Turing devices will/may/is supposed to finally settle on. Then, in my next step of the development, magnetic tetrahedron has already output physical intuition on physical reality, and, as you might logically expect from the CompSci POV, intermingling with our ~biology it describes a model of structural coding rather than, and in place of, the anticipated "model of consciousness". (Potentially relegating the term "consciousness" into the same bin containing "phlogiston".]</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So, I encourage you to notice I am not starting out assuming physical reality as primary or a primitive. I'm starting out with a different tenet or set of tenets (R=NSD), and that intersects, or more precisely, when I get around to my analog math in my second step, that analog math intersects with the end of your theory's first step, if or when, where you have evidence or ~proof of digital mechanism equivalence with physical reality (because the (proposed future) electro-mechanical-comp device inducing the substitution to occur and the person surviving). </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Thus, at that point, your Turing devices would have allegedly derived carbon, electron, and ~physical reality for you and the devices could then chew on or begin developing or outputting instances of physical intuition as "proof of consciousness" to go along with the Turing devices completing their assigned (delegated) task to scribble out a model of consciousness -- for you.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So, I am not seeing a mechanism incompatibility issue you are referring to unless you are meaning a digital mechanism incompatibility. I do see some speed or rather slowness issues with the digital mechanism, in its current state, but that likely can be improved. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Also, might I suggest that conveying increments of physical intuition might have some value as "proof of consciousness" or as an AI test/demonstration, if it is not already included in the current list? This seems to work pretty well in (~6^n) analog and it seems to me like it could or should work in clever 2^n digital. Or, perhaps that can be an intermediate or provisional digital comp test -- if you catch my drift. (And, you folks have not already passed by that marker.)</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Thoughts?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Best regards, </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Changing the scientific paradigm.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
https://magnetictetrahedra.com</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
With joy you will draw water</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-86592422500597971372018-01-24T12:03:00.000-05:002018-01-24T12:03:18.108-05:00[Sadhu Sanga] Re: Continued thread on foundations of mathematics<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Bruno, </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04 paper. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #0066be; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: underline;"><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html&source=gmail&ust=1516895927928000&usg=AFQjCNEOi9Tq99Jusm0FKx1Ay_6ENy2hOQ" href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~<wbr></wbr>marchal/publications/<wbr></wbr>SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html</a></span><span style="border: 0px; color: black; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> (<wbr></wbr>sane04)</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<b style="color: black; font-family: Times; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB">"Definition:</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Times; text-align: justify;"> Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Times; text-align: justify;">(1) yes doctor..</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Times; text-align: justify;">(2) Church thesis...</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Times; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB">3)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span dir="LTR"><i><span lang="EN-GB">Arithmetical Realism</span></i></span><span lang="EN-GB"> (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 </span><span lang="EN-GB"><b>independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> (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 </span><span lang="EN-GB">AR</span><span lang="EN-GB">, </span><span lang="EN-GB">AR</span><span lang="EN-GB">+, which asserts that <i>only</i> natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;">What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...". </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;">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.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;">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? </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;">And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;">Can you please clarify and explain?</span></div>
<span class="im" style="color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"></span><br />
<div class="yj6qo" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: Times; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: justify; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><br class="m_6199978733806849700gmail-Apple-interchange-newline" />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/<wbr></wbr>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. </span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><a name='more'></a><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">With that backstory, though, perhaps that 'conditioning explains' some of my difficulty in following along with your proposed arithmetical substitution storyline/metaphor. ...Although, you may be aiming in some different direction. In my storyline, there doesn't appear to be any need for the digital comp or substitution level for the ~mental/~self translocation since that can just go "via the electromagnetic/analog resonance" somewhat by one's will. Apparently, real yogiis or mystics can already do such transitions, and have been able to do so for a long time.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">But, like I say, you may be aiming in some different direction -- memory/~self storage and/or creating a comp control tech for charging a fee for mystic transactions as a service (MTAAS). Yes?</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="text-align: start;">Thirdly, old business -- thanks for the mention of '</span><span id="m_6199978733806849700gmail-m_-9197780095449262894docs-internal-guid-fee59f14-0380-5237-b3cb-42f93ac3db51" style="text-align: start;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to </span></span><span id="m_6199978733806849700gmail-m_-9197780095449262894docs-internal-guid-fee59f14-0381-9432-8e04-3eff4cc50128" style="text-align: start;"><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/&source=gmail&ust=1516895927928000&usg=AFQjCNHfgp6iyZZYG3Cb2-vzqEC086-w0g" href="http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.science4all.org/art<wbr></wbr>icle/self-reference/</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/&source=gmail&ust=1516895927928000&usg=AFQjCNFZzPBHU07eZbJDAvwc5bbF0KEsKA" href="https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://mathwithbaddrawings.co<wbr></wbr>m/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-<wbr></wbr>reference/</a> and some introductory logic material. </span></span></div>
<span class="im" style="color: #500050;"><div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality</span></span> where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false. Then, when reading about contradictions <span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">(inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch. </span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">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 </span>nested structured~duality. Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
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.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
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.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
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. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
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. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
Also, in your modeling I am wondering if there is one mechanism or many? Also, is delivering physical intuition an alternate measure or demonstration of effectiveness of a model or theory -- alternate to, say, formal expression or Popper-like falsifiability -- particularly for models supporting both ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes?</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
Best regards,</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: start;">
Ralph</div>
</span></div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-87895160170573370102018-01-23T21:08:00.001-05:002018-01-23T21:08:18.595-05:00[sadhu-sanga] Continued thread on foundations of mathematics<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Bruno, </span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
First, thanks for the mention of '<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to </span></span><span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="border: 0px; font-size: 14.6667px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="border: 0px; font-size: 14.6667px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality</span></span> where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false. Then, when reading about contradictions <span style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">(inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">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 </span>nested structured~duality. Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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.<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="border: 0px; font-size: 14.6667px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some comments below..</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="border: 0px; font-size: 14.6667px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="border: 0px; font-size: 14.6667px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">[Which Mechanism? How many are there? Terseness and delivering physical intuition as measures of effectiveness.]</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="border: 0px; font-size: 14.6667px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8731450498282703716#" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">ralph...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a name='more'></a><br />Dear Bruno,<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
There is quite a bit of uncertainty re what happens when we die, huh?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Indeed. But some statements can be deduce from some assumptions, so we can reason (if we have the taste for such inquiry).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
And about spiritual matters and the undecidability wrt items of faith. I guess or have read that that is why they are issues and items of faith -- because there is no rationalizing or proof or justifications. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
A proof is always given in the frame of a theory/axioms/hypothesis/finite-codes, etc.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Of course, by experience, we add plausibilities to some theories, but in the fundamental inquiries, unfortunately we can met here or there the use of violence (from the non valid use of the shrugging to the non valid use of bombs, …).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Why not food and shelter for all? I must be a hopeless/hopeful romantic. I still think there is plenty of room for many of our difficulties and challenges to just be rooted in the flaws in our initial scientific paradigm. Remediate the flaws and social, economic, environmental systems riding on the scientific paradigm will naturally improve. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It's part of the exquisite mystery. Such are matters of faith. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
A brief moment of NDE in1977 once partly convinced me of the peace and resonance of it~hopefully, when the time comes. But there is still no proof and sometimes anxiety grows. Still faith remains the size of a mustard seed. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
With Mechanism, like with the Salvia divinorum, some people understand for the first time in their life that the idea that the 3p death entails the 1p death is based on invalid argument, and suddenly, they get far more anxious. I understood that for many people, the”nothing after death” is really a form of wishful thinking. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is normal anxiety grows. Now, at some level, the uncertainty is part of life, and with mechanism there is a priori an inflation even of type of afterlife, and we have some control. I fear more the human fear of truth than truth, and in that sense I have faith, I trust the (unknown and never publicly communicable truth).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
A confession I can make is I may be or am or have been said to be woefully lacking in deducing and inferring.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That will not help you for communication. But my point was not a critic of your idea, but only that you could not deduce that they are in opposition to Mechanism, once we use the “modern” notion of Turing (universal) machines. If you are aware that you have problem with deduction, you might try just to be more cautious in negative statement. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Perhaps to clarify, I don't think I oppose mechanism/organism since I am scribbling up images of analog math in attempt to illuminate interactive structural coding patterns visualizable in stacks of ordered water and similar carbon-based widgets. I believe my concern or skepticism is more on the digital mechanism _substitution_ proposal. Perhaps I can come around to comprehend or understand Turing machines and the storyline that you advocate, but, pragmatically, once I hear about an infinity of ~calculations, or consider years or decades to acquire the requisite mathematical incantations, the pathway violates a simplicity rule -- that I have, for me -- and I seek a more visible or more tactile path. Different blind men; same elephant.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If or when there is a test of your substitution storyline, perhaps then I can grasp it.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So if some of your statements and ambiguous terminology presenting proving (or is it disproving) Mechanism/Materialism IF your consciousness could survive "digital mechanism" substitution.... relies on some unstated deduction or inference,</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is my working *hypothesis*. We never try to deduce an hypothesis. We deduce proposition from an hypothesis.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] How do you come up with a hypothesis, then, inference? Successive approximations? Lucky guesses? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
chances are that is part of why I am missing the point of your expression. It's my lack. If you can be more clear about the high points and problem you aim to solve, besides a "Matrix" sequel screenplay,</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
My work has been published before Matrix. Actually, the Novel of Daniel B. Galouye (SIMULACRON 3) use Mechanism more validly. I recommend it. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Mechanism is the hypothesis that the brain/body is a natural machine. It means basically that there is no magic, and that the relation between the relevant constituents are logical and locally causal (in a large sense of local, valid even with quantum “non-locality”). What is typical with machine is that their identity is invariant for the change of the constituents. We can argue that life has already bet on Mechanism, as we change our constitution all the time, by eating and defecating, by breathing also.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Our eating, respiring and defecating keep an energy flow going. The invariant or slow-changing parts are our structurally coded patterns. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I don’t defend that hypothesis, but show that it forces us to derive the physical laws from “machine’s theology”, which is itself derivable from pure arithmetic (thanks to Gödel’s arithmetization of meta-mathematics). Of course, this last point asks for more work. If interested I suggest you read the argument in 8 steps presented in the sane04 paper. We can discuss each step at a time online.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I'd say that back in the uncorrupted, not misunderstood garden, we discover and describe "the physical laws" and commit them to memory and pass them to offspring because doing so helps with energy collection and conservation. Theology is a bit of a separate matter.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I would appreciate it. Still, it's my lack and we DO reason differently.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Logicians are used to make precise the available laws of reasoning. That includes the use of the connective “and”, “or”, “implies”, “not”, etc. I use and reason in classical logic, but most of what I say can be shown using intuitionistic logic (where the (A or not A) rules is rejected).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I avoid metaphor and analogy. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Whereas I think analog math or modeling is the cat's meow. Go figure. I appreciate your perseverance and patience in trying to summarize your approach so I might catch a glimpse of it.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Some other points below...</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Dear Ralph,<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On 10 Jan 2018, at 09:14, Ralph Frost <<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #1155cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ralph...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Bruno, <div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
First, where you write, """My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality.""", in ~my ~logic can I revise or re-format that to: </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Reality is mechanism. (bm)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Not at all. I have proved that if my consciousness can survive a digital brain or body transplant, then whatever Reality is, it is NOT a mechanism.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You seem to have not yet well understood that if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I sort of don't see what the math has to do with it. Or, if I opt for me doing some type of intuitive-ish logic, or in my case like a deeply nested ~pattern-biochemical, fields within fields energy-structure, carbon-water-based structural coding balancing act, whereas you are really masterful at the more standard rationalistic mathematical logic, then we do certainly ~reason differently, if I can even call what ~my structural coding is as "reasoning". And I can probably see your point that you think your approach is superior along the criteria that you and your group appreciate. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Computation and computability has been discovered in mathematics. A (general purpose) computer is a physical implementation (incarnation) of a universal Turing machine, which was at the start a concept in pure mathematics (and since then we know it is even an arithmetical object that we can define with only the arithmetical notion of 0, +1, + and *. That is not completely obvious. It is done explicitly in Martin Davis Dover book “Computability and Unsolvabiliy”. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
But, back to my rather autistic/engineer-like aim though, a goal I have been seeking is to like, for instance, not to find ALL or the BEST, say, ~equations of quantum gravity, or a working trial theory of consciousness, but to scribble out an initial, approximate instance that delivers enough physical intuition to spark the new awareness.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That can be interesting. I am not criticising this. Just that it is not opposed to Mechanism. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I suppose I agree --not opposed to mechanism--, but the way I ~feel about it is that the mechanism on my path is more like enzymatic or catalytic rather than one reading and punching card decks, or a water wheel driving operation of a multi-story building full of woolen blanket looms. I shift to a different instance of nested structured~duality and the artifact provides physical intuition, ~directly, by-passing the usual dip down into the secondary abstract math. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Seems to be a different class of mechanism.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
This has led me into the analog math symbols and expressions to get the synchrony and the *feel*, and to beginning with the tetrahedral structure (rather than the xyz-cube, used, say, in Hamiltonians and elsewhere), because that pattern is (1) a different basis than the cube, and (2) rather ubiquitous within relevant atomic-molecular levels of our ontology. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If you have some link which explains what can be done and not done in their respective formalism. Eventually, with mechanism, physics (and the whole theology) will not depend on the choice for the starting universal theory.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Formalism? What formalism? The formalism is reality is nested structured~duality -- and then choose tetrahedron for structure and attraction-repulsion for duality. Then the loom spits out physical intuition.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Your recipe may work for your instance of nested structured~duality. But perhaps before you try to impose your rules beyond their domain you likely should polish and shorten your list of operations so that yours delivers similar physical intuition with an equally terse instruction set. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So, yes, I am doing a rather crude approximation of a paradigm shift as I seek a paradigm shift, and, I am encouraged by the information compression and physical intuition delivered by the initial approximation -- just by picking a different specific structure and ~duality.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In our on-going discussion here, perhaps because I point at our organic chemistry -- carbon-water-based structural coding, and "magnetic tetrahedra" as quick and dirty analog math symbols of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonds and I describe/visualize having a "free" internal representation of surroundings structurally coding in a ~6^n manner in the10^20 per second water molecules forming within our aerobic respiration reaction sites (within neurons), that those references put me in the category of "materialist", or advocating that ~we are "machines" or "cwb machines". Perhaps that is an accurate categorization although, considering reality as nested structured~duality, as nested fields within nested fields, I often think I am more focused on patterns than on materials. Referencing atoms' names refer to patterns and they are a bit like symbols, like the number-words. I suspect though that getting an internal representation in the cwb structural coding, though, which is like developing a structure-related memory back at the start of aerobic respiration and prior to development of neural networks is less panpsychist or cosmic consciousness-like than many might prefer. Yes, it's like a small, local, provincial trial theory maybe only relevant for types of solar systems like ours whose suns make carbon, etc.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Anyway, the notion of machine, and I think mechanism, as either favorable, or proveable or decidable, etc.,</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The point will be that the theory of machine is NOT decidable, and is actually highly undecidable. You need to integrate the Turing-Gödel’s amazing discovery, which is, to be short, that we know nothing about machines.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Perhaps you are right. However, you are the one focusing in on machines and considering "mind-body" as a machine. My quibble is not with machines but with what scientific paradigms develop from, or exploring different instances of nested structured~duality -- while continuing to use our current carbon-water-based structural coding units. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
MAY be a paradigm-bound quibble relating to the storyline one wants to present -- that is, one's favorite instance of --Yes, you guessed it!-- nested structured~duality. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Bruno, I am still not clear on if you use Turing universal machines to prove or disprove mechanism,</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I use it to define “Digital Mechanism”, to show that it is incompatible with physicalism/materialism, and then to derive a way to test it. Thanks to QM, evidences are given in favour of Mechanism (and thus in de-favor of (weak) materialism. We just need to come back to Plato. The ultimate reality is NOT what we see, measure, quantify, but something behind all this.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] And currently, we are structurally coding representations of all of our experiences in water-based and carbon-water-based patterns. It's happening, and we know it, but we can't see, measure or quantify all of it. And if we try to measure it it will alter it. What's the ultimate reality? What's behind all this? Life and living. Love, togetherness, connection. Attraction and attraction with one-half spin. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
but when I was watching videos on UTM's, it looks to me like they are also a mechanism (read, write, move, etc.). Is that a problem or a feature in your proofs?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
A feature.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Seems to me, therefore that your model works on unacknowledged nested structure. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Where you write: """ ...if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).""", I get the impression you are forgetting your pre-natal and subsequent developments where prior to you making any predictions, you had some experiences that, let's say, structurally coded into some types of memories. So, when we get around to "predicting", we're already initialized </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yes, the prediction are always relative to the state we are in. We have the same thing in (quantum) physics. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
-- conditioned or have a hunch or reduced set of possibilities to flounder about. So, those "infinitely many computations" are likely a feature of your abstract math model.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK, but the "abstract math model” is the one we learn at the primary school, literally. If you have no problem with 2+2=4, the rest follow from this and similar. You might intuit that the digital character of the Turing machine/computer is what is responsible in making computation equivalent with some number relation.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] You have an ability that I do not have and it sounds to me like you have adopted or imagine symbols having special powers or material attributes. When cast as numbers, +, * and a read-write-move head viewing a non-material tape, sometimes imbued, seemingly magically with the dreaming consciousness state, I don't follow the breadcrumbs. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In the "cwb organism" (which is likely a better name than cwb machine) the initial structural coding for an experience is ~automatic. It just happens. The experience just WRITES the ~6^n pattern. (Or, I suppose you can consider the WRITE at some other level or at multiple levels.) Anyway, the reference is ~given. The system "writes" it.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
As far as I can make sense of this, I do not see why this would not be amenable to number relation. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I guess I would point toward the closely coupled energy collection/conservation. Like love and marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage. So, if you are talking about ~simulating structural coding representations with number-word codes and relations, then you'd also need to simulate the energy collection/conservation. But a simulation is not equal to the ~real (cwb) thing wherein ALL of the parts and pieces have multiple synergistic connections and supportive roles. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
whereas I advocate:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Reality is nested structured~duality. (rf) ?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Which is expected when we assume Mechanism.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Is this a retro-prediction on your part? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yes. Actually I derived the semantics (many-worlds) and a part of the quantum formalism from arithmetic and mechanism (and biology at that time) before I knew anything about quantum mechanics. What the physicists qualify as weird becomes obvious. What seems normal, like the use of an Hamiltonian becomes the most difficult part to derive, and some aspect of the Hamiltonian might be “geographical” and not “physical”, in which case the physical reality would be bigger than what is usually thought.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Your "geographical" hunch may be another "denied/ignored nested structure" signal. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Also, where you write, """We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. """, I'm still chaotically unclear about your approach and theory/terminology, and like a skittish animal, take most things as threats. So if you see areas of potential agreement, that would be both good and, in my experience, rare -- unexpected -- unfamiliar, maybe unrecognizable, to me. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You need only to study a bit more logic, to see that some of your conclusion makes sense with mechanism, and are even desirable in the sense that we might (if you are correct) derive the importance of the water molecules in life and consciousness.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I get the impression that I am suggesting structure is fundamental, or adding structure with energy as fundamentals. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
But what is energy? And where does it comes from? And how that can be associated with consciousness? That are the question which interests me.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Energy is the stuff that flows through and powers ecological niches and networks. Locally, ours comes from solar fusion via photosynthesis into carbohydrates, fats and proteins that we consume and aerobically respire. I've already described how it associates with ~consciousness. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That *feels* to me like it is ~below or in support of "mechanism" and "organism" (and all the other instances of NSD). Even in your UTM, you have left-right structure. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yes, but arithmetic is typically left-right (cf 0, s(0), s(s(0)), …). But that is unimportant. The integers are also Turing universal (with + and *).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Are you really saying ordering and pre-sorting is irrelevant, inconsequential and unimportant and can be ignored? It seems to be an implicit portion of your instance of nested structured~duality. As an advocate of NSD I may need to register a formal complaint.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The basic machinery is not important, as far as it is Turing universal. I could also use rational numbers. But I cannot use the real numbers, because they are (at the first order logical level) too poor to be Turing Universal. Real numbers + trigonometrical functions is again Turing universal, but to derive physics, I prefer to not assume trigonometrical functions.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Can the real numbers be in random and/or inverse orderings?</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I encounter my wall of fog essentially as soon as when trying to ~visualize ~why one would represent counting numbers as chains of calls to an incrementor function -- successors. I am still wishing for a picture or diagram or clear example that illuminates the advantage of such an initial set of associations on the front-end of math/symbolic logic. It looks or feels like obfuscation to me. Again, pardon my persistent ignorance. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
There are many equivalent theories. You can propose another theory, if it is Turing-complete (Turing universal) it will be enough, and nothing can be added. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I likely misunderstood some of your axiom questions, but I ~think I may have a basic problem with assuming 0 (zero).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Is your problem about “assuming” or about “zero”?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] When I ponder on unity and eternal then my problem is with "zero". Like I said, for the math exercise, okay, assuming zero as the balance point or for accounting makes sense or has utility. As for logic, no doubt it's meaningful. I guess I would question the cross-system applicability to all aspects of ~our kind.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Keep in mind that I am not claiming that Mechanism is true. Just that it is premature with any current theory to assume it false. The digital machines does have a theory of consciousness and a full non trivial theology, which includes physics (and so is testable).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Because of some of my meditations on "eternal" I have also grown skeptical about "in the beginning", or "empty space". So, yes, my problem is with "zero”. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You need only to agree with statements involving zero, like to introspect yourself and agree (or not) that 4 + 0 = 4, 0 * 4 = 0, etc.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Does that block me from learning logic?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Only if you were genuinely believing statements like 4 + 0 = 5, and things of that kind.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
My theory is not really mine. It is the theory already given by the universal machines, in arithmetic. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That is, in math, yes, I get it, If I have 3 apples and I eat them, then I have zero apples. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK. Good. That is the idea. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
However, I had a (ralph) insight once that for fields, they really don't have or reach or recover from a value of zero, thus zero field strength (zero) doesn't ~exist. "If anything" the ~field just disappears, dissipates, vanishes. So I do sort of get that in the externalized abstract math and logic, zero exists and probabaly ALL that you write and theorize is completely valid in the rules of abstract math, but (according to me) it doesn't quite match up with the problems and challenges that we are actually nested within. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You assume fields. Normally they need much more mathematical assumptions to be described. With mechanism, the fields, the </div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Similarly, I think of vibrations or oscillations always between two or more states. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Me too. That should not be a problem, unless you reify the states into “material” or “divine” state, which would blur the possible simpler explanation where the “matter illusion” and/or the “divine truth” would come from.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Do you see math and logic as closer to the "divine truth"? Just asking.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Only the true but non provable part of it. Yes, I use Plato’s God, which is just Truth. That makes sense when we understand that even when we limit ourself to Arithmetical Truth, we are confronted with something which transcend us. You need to know that only a tiny part of truth is computable. The universal machine behaviour is already necessarily not entirely computable. Such machine might not stop for communicable/rational reason.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
More below….</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <span dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #1155cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">mar...@ulb.ac.be</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Hello Ralph,<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On 5 Jan 2018, at 06:10, Ralph Frost <<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #1155cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ralph...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Bruno, <div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I appreciate your patience and optimism, but I am aware of the empty gulf on my part when it comes to mathematics, logic structures, axioms and proofs. The interesting part of the conversation, if there is any, may be pretty short. I Googled and skimmed some definitions about logic and symbolic and mathematical logic... I think it has something to do with "picking a structure", so, from that ~I jump to NSD as like a root class of all logics, including irrational and dysfunctional/non-functional ones (with which I have multi-year or perhaps lifetime experiences). I sometimes appreciate/acknowledge broken or whacked out logics since, as other instances of NSD, they apparently also replicate in natural ways. Similarly, I am skeptical of ~quantum mechanical based consciousness/logic models with the thought that IF those were applicable and operational then how come we are all not instantly A LOT ~smarter, insightful, and well-reasoned than we all actually are? The proof seems to be in the pudding. Our actual ~logic structures are just not QM level perfect. As I think I said before, I observe that our core energetic ~meaning comes from the ~respiration reaction, and all the abstracted wordful logic ~reasoning comes in secondary structural coding in the downstream hydrogen-bonding/protein-folding. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
What's that -- heathen- or barbarian-level logic?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
When you correct the misuse of Gödel by Penrose or Lucas, the argument reverses itself, and shows that Gödel’s theorem actually protects the machines from the reductionist conception we did have since. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Anyway, more below....</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <span dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #1155cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">mar...@ulb.ac.be</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Dear Ralph,<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Thank you for the clarification. We might disagree enough to have an interesting conversation :)<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On 02 Jan 2018, at 06:36, Ralph Frost wrote:</div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Bruno, <div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Thanks for your reply and clarifications. I hear the words coming out of your mouth. However, while I, too, think there are other different scientific paradigms accounting for the so-called ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts, better than is done in the dominant ~physical scientific paradigm, I do not or cannot understand the instance of nested structured~duality that you view and put together or as you express it so far.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I am aware it is not that easy. You have to accompany me on the shoulders of giants (Gödel, Turing, Solovay, ...).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yet, the basic idea are rather simple. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
We will see.</div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Some comments below.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <span dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #1155cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">mar...@ulb.ac.be</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Dear Ralph,<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I think that you assume a physical reality “out there”, but at the start I am neutral. Then I explain my working hypothesis, and shows that such an existence can be tested, and I show that the test already done makes more plausible that the physical universe “is in our head”. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] First, I don't think you were 'neutral' when studying ameobas, but you changed after having one or more insights and after experiencing and mastering the abstract math and mathematical logic lingo. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Hmm... Not really. I don't like too much mention my personal feelings, but I don't remind having ever believe in primary matter. To me physics was the art of measuring numbers, inferring relation between numbers, and then verifying them, but my initial conception of reality was a dream more persistent than other dreams.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It took me time to understand that people "really believe" in what I tended to consider as a dream. The metaphysical problem was: where that dream comes from? who is the dreamer? is there a possibility of awaken? what could justify the persistence and the long stories?, why does it hurts? etc. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I'd like to hear more of the more persistent dream... Also, I must be approaching this with a two-year civil engineering technician's perspective - one example ~proves the principle. I am not advocating "primary matter", either, but chemistry and biochemistry, to me, seem pretty relevant.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK. I guess you are aware that the current paradigm is that you can reduce molecular biology and biochemistry to chemistry, and chemistry to the quantum electrodynamic itself supposed to be unifiable with all other forces (more less done except for gravitation), and most current philosophers and scientists believe/assume a fundamental physical reality (which is an assumption in metaphysics/theology, which is my domain of interest and I use the scientific method in there). </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I tend to agree that human biology is reducible, at some level of description, to quantum physics, and my point is twofold: it is that IF we assume computationalism, then the “reduction” continue, and quantum physics get reduced to the bio or psycho or Theo - logy of the Turing universal machine.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If what I understand from your idea is correct, the life of the average universal numbers would look closely to the human biochemical life.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I think the way to put it would be that something would be exceedingly flawed with your theory/approach if your modeling did not readily ~recovery lots of sp^3 hybridized, tetrahedral, ~magnetic-tetrahedral-like ordered water, "carbon-water-based" patterns. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK. I wish you are correct on this. But that is testable, in between the theories (if you can make it precise enough), and with Nature (the empirically observable).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
As well, I am saying that ~structure is fundamental, particularly tetrahedral structure, I don't know it that "computes" or turns up as a fundamental feature in the dominant physics model where QED mates with the other forces. I state it based on observation and a hunch -- it's how we are able to bobble along in the local variable mass density solar fusion flux field and survive. I don't know if structure is fundamental in the dominant scientific paradigm. Is it?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Structure? Mathematicians would say that structures are everywhere. The interesting things are in the relation between the structures. Especially the so-called morphism, or homomorphism.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Now, this can lead to an infinite labyrinth, and we can lost ourself. So I prefer to work top down, and start more or less from the mind-body problem, using the computationalist hypothesis as a working tool.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I am wondering if your computationalist tool box is initialized and predominantly xyz-cubic?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Digital machine theory is not dimensional, or 0-dimensional. xyz-cubic belongs to the dream of machine incarnated in arithmetical (not geometrical) relations. That does not mean that xyz-cubic, or something else, will not play some important role for *human consciousness* and its long and deep computations. But that must be derived somehow.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] When you say, "xyz-cubic belongs to the dream of machine incarnated in arithmetical (not geometrical) relations", are you saying that arithmetic ~owns the xyz orthogonal axes but is incapable of doing ratios of triangles features? </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Also, re: "dream of machine...", is this you projecting a human quality on the machine/math, sort of like anthropomorphizing? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If you notice, I start with the query on the common denominator of ~mental and ~physical and, due to the empirical evidence, switch to tetrahedral structure due to the pattern recognition hit. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The dominant scientific paradigm is still unaware that metaphysics and theology can be approached, at east according to *some* hypotheses, with the scientific method/attitude (which is modesty, no claim of truth, no ontological commitment, clear refutable theories (it is work demanding).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] My approach is less sophisticated. After pounding the cubic horse for ~400 years, why not explore a different structural basis and see what relationships turn up?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
No problem, as long as you do not conclude that a man with a digital brain is less human. My point was only that what you say is not proven to be incompatible with mechanism. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I haven't encountered a person with a digital brain. Have you? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me, since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy. The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes. ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books. My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] The best I can think of an approximation of a universal machine is my Nexus 5x serving as a phone and a camera and file folder (etc.,)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It looks many trucks, hoists and cranes to install at IBM their first 5 MegaBytes hard drive, and now, you can put million of these MG in your pockets. All applications are universal programmed Chips, so yes, the computers are physical implementations of Universal Machine, provably so if you accept the theses (proved equivalent) by Church, Kleene, Post, Turing, etc.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
But then, after that, in our own "carbon-water-based" instance of nested structured~duality I am aware our own systems will develop new (genetic and epigenetic) tapes adding new mixes of enzymatic systems handy for energy collection/conservation and also, in my storyline, creating new structurally coded expressions that have influence on replications. So our ~carbon-water-based (cwb) ~machine modifies its own tapes and structures and actions. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That is what the universal machine/number/word likes to do the most: to transform themselves, with respect to other probable universal number. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The nesting can be related with dreams inside dreams, but the dreams obeys the law of numbers, and limit of numbers. From inside, the nesting is truly infinite.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
But in contrast to a math duplicator, the cwb can't just materialize an imaginary oxygen molecule out of the idealied benevolent number reservoir, but in the actual internal analog structural coding we are running, we have to scavenge for an actual extra molecules so we can carry out the ~reaction(s) to completetion so that we get the water molecules involved in the internal structural coding. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Only because you take for granted, perhaps, the idea that the fundamental reality is physical. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I do not.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Is it true the remainder of your statement here is: "I consider the fundamental reality is mathematical.”? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Even arithmetical. Analysis and physics are convenient fictions by numbers trying to understand themselves (in arithmetic). But this is not a reductionism, because it is proven that from inside arithmetic, things *must* look far bigger and never completed. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The physical is fundamental, but it is only the Clothes of God. The physical is, or should, only be a tool used by God to say “hello” to Itsef.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is not the fundamentally “real” thing, which has admittedly slightly more “trivial”: the arithmetical reaiity, and, at some point, even only the semi-computable arithmetical reality.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
But the key to understand is that such a correspondence should itself never been taken for granted, and digital mechanism is a type of religion: it acts some faith. At some point any theology takes the risk of blasphemy, directly or when misunderstood. Here, the mathematics of self-reference can be helpful.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Again, try to notice that what I am saying is reality is nested structured~duality.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK. But I am a simple minded modest logician. “Nested structured-duality” is nice, but that assumes a lot of thing which needs to be made precise if we want to study the compatibility of the idea with this or that metaphysics. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] It seems to me you can get some insight by considering the nested structured~duality of logic: structure is linear/list-like; duality is true-false. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
This nested structured~duality is the common denominator, the fundamental tenet supporting ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts. You seem to want to use number-words; I lean toward using atom-molecular-pattern words. Both say, "Hi, God. How are you?". Don't they?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I want to explain the complex things from the simpler one. I do not assume a physical reality. That would be like given the answer before doing the reasoning. My interest is in theology/metaphysics.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Plus, you don't like analog math. So, you ~assume an arithmetic reality: reality is arithmetical (where you order your numbers left to right), whereas, I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I think we are getting closer.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
~My storyline just dips down into re-engineering the scientific paradigm to align a bit better with observed natural pattern -- switching from cube to tetrahedral basis; initializing with a different duality; adding nested structure as fundamental. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
What changes are you proposing? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
No changes at all. I criticised only your deduction that your theory would be incompatible with digital mechanism. Then, if your idea is correct, it should be derived from mechanism, some day. And it could accelerate the derivation of carbon based organism in arithmetic.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I hear you, but I do think you are proposing some type of conceptual change or re-arrangement of tenets. Or is it a change of faith? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
When ~you are writing down your pages of logic statements, when you need another entity, you just have your duplicator create one pulling it out of the magic hat. I mean, even in a computer the program has to allocate another byte or two of memory. But not so in your externalized logic writing/thinking.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I doubt less 2 * 3 = 6 than the idea that the Moon is a satellite of Earth, or that F=GmM/r^2. I confess. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I remember reading and copying and practicing the multiplication tables, in 3rd and 4th grade, and committing those patterns to memory, too. I'd agree, I doubt them less, as so far, remember them more than the other patterns.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Ah! Good. So there is really no problem for the understanding. You need only to do some work, or, just be cautious not deriving negative view in metaphysics to quickly.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
With respect to the arithmetical reality, a “physical" memory is only needed to remain in the physical reality, that is the normal (Gaussian) computational histories.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Do you ever still count on your fingers? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That’s where the terms “digits” and “digital” come from (latin; digits = finger). But I am a mathematician: I never count. I only dream about that :)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] The counting on fingers, to me, involves sequences of correlated or connected protein-foldings, Extending digits while speaking the number-name and perhap[s recalling a visual image. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
'Near death', the question becomes more difficult, as there are infinities of histories, and a priori you survive on the closer consistent one. Arithmetic entails there is something like “near death experiences”, and they are evidences for some arithmetical Bardo Thodol. There are complex nesting there too. (Assuming Mechanism).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] My brief experience, FWIW, which could also have been a passing fancy, is more so like a growing, peaceful resonance, like tending toward a strong attractor. Sure, the anxieties seem to prompt a bunch of recalculations, but surrendering, the path is already formed. One only need to follow. Surrendering is sometimes difficult.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I don't know if that makes a cbw Turine-like or universal, or computational, but that ~stoichiometric atomic or molecular requirement is a central distinction between the two types of devices -- as best I can tell.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It raises the interesting subject of the possible physical implementation of universal relations in 3D space, with varieties of constraints.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Where or how do you come up with this notion of 3D space? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I am a long way to explain that. I have only some technical speculation, based on the fact that the physics is given by a logic which allows a formal knot theory to develop, and 4D space-time (actually 24D-space-time) arise from some relation which should exist in that logic, but the proofs use many conjecture. Yet, there is no choice: if mechanism is correct, the 3D space must be explained from number self-reference, even if the task asks for billions years of work? As you can guess, the goal is not practical, only theological or metaphysical. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Or is the notion just originated once and then pased down in the oral/written tradition?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Do you mean distance in three orthogonal directions? What you reach out at when you extend your arms and spin around? Do you believe in empty space as a fundamental? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is fundamental, but not primitive. Space belongs to the number mind (assuming Mechanism).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Do you mean what you consider the number mind assumes ~empty space ~first prior to populating and arranging numbers?</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In the 6^n ordered water structural coding that I am pointing at the sybmols are provided "for free" as a sidebar of the respiration/energy reaction, but they don't get "written" as one of the ~six symbols by surrounding vibrations except as the molecule forms and perhaps enters into a microtubular channel. Then the next, and the next. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
No problem. Unless you use that material prematurely against the idea of mechanism and its immaterial consequences.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Why is that such a concern or consideration? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Note that classical gravitation theory is Turing universal with three bodies? Quantum field theory is Turing universal with the vacuum, i.e. with 0 bodies (!).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] So, for you are these numbers increments? Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins? </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I only ask you to refresh things that you have learn in school, and do that in an axiomatic “questioning” way. The intuition/model if the usual (N, 0, +, *) structure, that is the so called Natural Numbers. Number theorists called them the non negative integers. In school, we learn the base 10 notation for them, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9, 10, 11, … 99, 100, 101, …, but to reason about “reasoning about them” it is simpler to define them as 0, the successor of 0, the successor of the successor of 0, … and note them: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), etc.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Can you explain or demonstrate why or how, this successor notion is really an advantage? To me, writing and thinking 3 is better than tracking on s(s(s(0))) or the third successor of zero, </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
To me too. It is just a practical notation to define axiomatically the natural numbers. If you use the base two notation, the axioms will be more cumbersome, and the metamathematics (where we will study mathematically the theory and its relation with the arithmetical truth) will become unreadable. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] That sounds like either an effective psychological defense mechanism or a limiting communication tool.. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
? (It is just notation to ease the (meta)-reasoning.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Also, it seems ~we have already initiated the number line before associating s(s(s(0))) with 3. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is a just a notation, for what we already understand, usually. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The first axiom/question is: do you agree that for all number n, 0 is different from s(n)?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Second question: do you agree that (for all n, m) if s(n) = s(m), then n = m. In English: do you agree that different numbers have different successors?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The precise basic axioms will be, together with some presentation of classical logic:"</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
0 ≠ s(x)</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
x+0 = x</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
x+s(y) = s(x+y)</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
x*0=0</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x</div>
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Nothing else will be assumed. But of course, we assume Mechanism at the meta-level here. It is a consequence of Mechanism that such a theory is enough, and cannot be completed (unless for redundancy).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Can you give any possible example or explanation of Mechanism, and are you saying this is like an unending instruction set? -- NOT like my DNA, but maybe like my DNA on epigenetic modifications?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Mechanism is the idea that our bodies are (natural) machine, which means they works through finite local interaction at some description level.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I don't think this mechanism/machine holds for carbon-water-based organisms like us emersed within carbon- water - nitrogen- cycles, ecological networks and food chains, etc..</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is here that your bad deduction ability, that you mentioned, might play you a trick. Or perhaps you conceive “machine” only in its old 19th century meaning, which concerns already not your laptop computer.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Then, accepting the Church-Turing thesis, it becomes a theorem that all computations are implemented by all computers, including in elementary arithmetic. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Machines are finite objects, but they can’t avoid growing up and developing themselves through many histories. Then you have to take into account that the machine’s first person perspective is infinitely distributed on infinitely many computations, and “observably” so below their substitution level (which suggests that the substitution level is the quantum level, which is mainly an isolation notion, than a scale).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] So, what's it mean that we are not such finite machines? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That we would have infinite abilities, and that we might re-instore an identity machine-matter or mind-brain. Aristotle theology could be saved, in that case. But that would mean that we are back at square 1 for the mind-body problem.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Re: extra abilities, might those be like those ascribed to, say, Jesus, or perhaps yogiis as I may read in other threads in this forum. So, most of us are just run of the mill folks but some have and can express special, extra abilities. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Or would you just counter with those people accessing different classes of mechanism, i.e., is there just ONE finite mechanism for all of us 'machines', or different classes and categories of mechanism? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Kxy = x</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Like I wrote above, I sort of get what you are saying but I sort of think zero exists in math/logic but doesn't exist out in the wild, or in fields, etc., </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK. But for me, nothing is conceivably wilder than the arithmetical reality, up to the point of trying to explain how the apparent orders can emerge from the many-dreams realised in arithmetic.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] For that, you probably need to switch over to a different symbol set.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yes. Numbers do that all the time, relatively to each others.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You might confuse the mathematical theories and the mathematical reality. Since Gödel, we have good reason (even theorem assuming mechanism) to believe that the arithmetical reality is quite transcendent. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] There you go relying upon the unacknowledged fundamental nested structure again -- transcendent.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It follows from the simple arithmetical principles like 5 + 0 = 5 etc. (that is not obvious)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] You are right. It is not obvious (to me) as you have it written. I am attempting to point out that people including mathematicians, seems to just invoke "transcending" to a ~higher level but doing so while not acknowledging or explicitly assuming said levels of nested structure or organization to transcend to.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I see such things as indicators of reality being nested structured~duality even though people seem to say they don't have a clue what I am pointing at. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
And, I don't say this just to be reticent and difficult although it is likely part of my blank stare or apparent refusal to eagerly accept that abstract logic and math expressions completely</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The math expression does not fully express completely … the arithmetical reality. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
or wholly match up with all ~life transactions. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That might be true or false, nobody know. But it is a consequence of Digital Mechanism. I push the logic until I see an internal or an external contradictions. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So, I think I get hung up on that, again, for my quibble or hunch regarding applicability of zero outside of math/logic. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Hmm… That is applied to physics too, and economy, etc. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] ?? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Did your bank account never been equal to 0? You are lucky! </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
To be honest, I do not understand how you can think that zero has no application in math and physics. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I sort of get that zero is like a balance point in math and physics. My bank account can reach zero (or below) but that doesn't mean I can't go scrounge for food elsewhere. Vector in engineering problems can balance out. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
What I said and was thinking about was in your logic idea, the notion of being zero- or nothing-based, to me, seems in conflict with meditating on life being eternal and a unity. So, from that angle, I don't question the recipe or rules where you build up the ~logic, but I'm skeptical about the application of all the logic patterns onto our ~physical and/or life patterns. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Also, as I said before, in physics, it seems to me that when one measures and gets nothing, no response, it seems to me that like the ~field is no longer present/existent -- not so much that the parameter's value has just gone to zero which prompts me to consider that zero field strengths "don't exist".</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Define "works", please. I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Provable(x) & x”, but also for</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
IF, by the above, you are trying to say, "besides energy, structure is also fundamental", or something along that line, I might be inclined to agree with you. I guess you are are posing stuff about "consciousness" and thinking that physics, consciousness and math stack up in a certain kind of way, maybe thinking that viewing things via a universal machine as telescope the "answer" will emerge or appear and confirm the logic stack that you are following. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
~My impression, in the storyline I advocate, is focusing in on ~life as aerobic respiration reaction gets us the cwb tetrahedral nested structural coding in the 10^20 per second 6^n streams, so we grasp internal representation and expression. After that, we craft echoes for the other parts of the nested structured~duality. But, again, structure needs to be added in as a fundamental.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I look for an explanation of the origin of the physical laws, which does not put consciousness under the rug, as the average Aristotelian materialist do. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Usually Mechanism is advocated by materialist, but I try to explain this does not work. Then it is easier to explain how numbers can dream, and how some dreams can develop into stable sharable physical realities, but with no need of ontological stuff.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] So, is that all predicated on you and I being carbon-water-based organisms able to generate and modify our own look-up tables</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Universal numbers support universal number changing their own code and table. No need of water for this.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I get the impression that you seem to just assume or imagine being able to WRITE immaterial code and symbols. In my storyline, water molecules are a bit like the symbols/paper tape upon which symbols are written. So to initialize the sp^3 hybridized energy pattern, at least, and to persist it, there is a need for water.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
and adaptive action tapes as something that cannot or should not be happening? Or have you never consider it or had it put in front of you?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I do, but all universal machines are confronted with this. You just need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Smarter people than me have already done so. Where is the immaterial beef? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support] organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Like above, the reason is flawed axioms. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
? (I am saying that the axioms (mechanism) is confirmed. It makes no sense to say that a there is confirmed by having false axioms). </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You lost me here. We are not reasoning at the same level.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Where you say: """but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above""", I look at the situation and suggest, sort of, "Your powers are weak old man" (from Star Wars...), meaning that developing the mathematical/logical symbolic expression gets you the kinds of things it does, but it apparently cannot or does not or has not yet given a strong enough expression so ~you can grasp what is going on. From my perspective that would take elevating nested structure and aiming closer to replicate or emulate all of the kinds of nested structural coding that we have going on in and around our atomic-molecular ontology. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
But all of those things don't make any sense within ~your numbers-logic rules since any mention of "atom" is likely only associable with materialism. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Only if you assume that atoms are made of something primitively material, but there are no evidences for this. In fact there are never been any evidence for primitive matter. My derivation just shows that we could find indirect evidence for it, but the test does not (yet) show it. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Pardon my outburst, but I am assuming atoms are instances od nested structured~duality -- patterns; nested fields within nested fields. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Another way to consider it is, to me, it seems you are the one who also assumes that math/logic can or does model or can give accurate insights into human ~consciousness and/or ~self -- however it is said. Even though we are unity-based beings, your logic is zero-based and thus a little be out of kilter. Not quite applicable to our ~systems. I suggest this is like trying to describe fire in terms of its smoke -- like thinking backwards. When one gets down to having, let's say, a structurally coded internal representation of surroundings (with links to expression) then that is the system actually generating the externalized math/logic and physical law contents and expressions. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I do not assume that math or logic can do this or that, because that is simple to derive from the Mechanist Hypothesis. Then the math shows that the machine has the means to understand that its local physics is necessary, and comes from the arithmetical relations, and that makes Mechanism testable. By assuming a *primitive* physical reality, you just put yourself in a position where we will not been able to study simpler hypothesis, and for no reason, because your argument seems to be based on a conception of machine which is no more tenable after Turing discovery of the universal machine, or Kleene’s discovery of the partial recursive functions. To me, the discovery of the universal machine is the biggest discovery made by humanity, even if nature has made it well before (cells and brains are universal machines).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] We think differently on this. Since I do not understand Turing machines or their significance, I'm not arguing with you. I would ask you, though, to tweak your system so that it delivers physical intuition with a more terse instruction set. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Apparently, you are enamoured with the math/standard logic accomplishments/discoveries likely because you are masterful in those expressions, and, for all I (don't) know you yourself are responsible for contributing to such discoveries which IS a big thing. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In my ignorance of that, I observe "even if nature has made it well before (cells and brains are universal machines)" and attempt to point out one analog modeling way to visualize how nature does that hat trick in the tetrahedral, sp^3 hybridized carbon-water-based pattern system that we are ALL running.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
You seem to suggest my approach might be validated if only I re-configure it in formal logic symbols whereas I am getting the impression that the proof is already in the pudding re: delivering physical intuition WITHOUT dropping down into the abstract math. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
hunch is over in the la-la land of abstract math, if you need another entity you invoke a duplicator which pulls another rabbit out of the magic hat.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Not at all. The duplicator existence is a theorem derivable from the axiom I gave. You just miss Gödel’s astounding achievement of the arithmetization of metamathematics. You are not alone, despite tuns of book, this is largely ignored, but it changes a lot the possible metaphysics/theology available when assuming Mechanism.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Which mechanism, though? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I don't totally mean to demean abstract math and logic but I am trying to make the point that what we are running is all "carbon-water-based" structural coding</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I agree, but there could be a reason why. And the fact that we are emulate by a “machinery” does not make necessarily that “machinery” made of stuff, or being the most fundamental. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
With mechanism, it is very simple: ANY Turing universal machine is enough. The theology and the physics cannot depend on the choice of the ontological theory. Theology, which includes physics, becomes “machine-independent”, as the computer scientist says about laws about programs which does not depend on the chosen programming language or machine. </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Perhaps you are correct, but OTOH, "Who made you God?" -- perhaps you are not correct. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Yes, okay, different instances of nested structured~duality. But all of us here in the local region are running the carbon-water-based organism structural coding. Again, I suggest it's more to do with specific structure (structured~duality) than with mechanism.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That is possible. Many contingencies are in play in the computations in arithmetic. In the world where an asteroid did not fall on Earth some millions years ago, I am a dinosaur … Maybe there are worlds with a different Planck constant, etc. What is nice with mechanism is that we find the “absolute” physics which is the same for all universal machine, then consciousness differentiate on different histories.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] It sounds like a rich instance. How likely is it, and realistically, how long would it take ~me as a 67 year old ex-civil engineer with low aptitude for math and logic to learn and faithfully re-create ALL of your developments and contributions? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
and in that, we have to have the spare parts readily available in order to actually structurally code a somewhat complete ~thought and certainly to do a comm link so as to express it.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If your theory doesn't have, yet have, or care about having a somewhat accurate pattern match with our actual pattern matchings, then you likely don't need to be concerned with such and can continue on your own way. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On the contrary, I am all for the testing. I predicted most quantum weirdness from the assumption of mechanism, but it took me a lot of years to get the quantum logics from pure math, and the test confirms all of them. As they are different, surely we can progress.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Not to subtract from your accomplishments, but I am still curious about how I can start with five water to align four rod magnets along radii of a tetrahedron and get physical intuition on variable density multiple states. And then get more states by nesting structures -- without using much if any abstract math.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The problem is that you need math to make predictions, so that we can compare with other theories.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Abstract math? Even when the measures are terseness and delivering physical intuition?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Then, my point illustrates that the alternative “materialism” is also tested, but get no confirmation. If you invoke a metaphysical reality, like a primitively material universe, it is up to you to present evidence. All what I show is that weak materialism (the belief in primary matter) and Mechanism, (the belief that consciousness is invariant for the digital local transplant) are not compatible (contrary to what atheist materialist often defend).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Can you clarify or spread that out a bit more?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is not obvious. I am describing a result which too many years of work, but you can get the gist of it by reading the argument in 8 steps in the sane04 paper(*).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #0066be; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: underline;"><a href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html</a></span><span style="border: 0px; color: black; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> (sane04)</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Thanks. I will try to read through it again. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That's still too complicated a statement for me to follow. From my perspective I still say that you have still done all of what you say relying upon and using the carbon-water-basis ~tetrahedral-like structural coding. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
OK. But not in any fundamental way (or you have to prove this). There is no doubt that carbon is important, but with mechanism it is only necessary for our histories, or not, depending on your work or similar. Open problem. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Ok, so does this mean there ARE different mechanisms, and differing descriptions or exemplars of the different mechanisms and so a model that had a short recipe yet delivered more consistent and more increments of physical intuition would be more effective than longer, less productive mechanisms? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Also, once you acquire a match, even an approximate enough pattern match, the approach to resolving the problem changes in a somewhat disruptive manner.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Once you acquire even an approximate, ~working "internal model of consciousness", abstract math symbols and expressions and logic structures become secondary devices. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Math symbols and expressions are secondary in mathematics, but they become primary in the mathematical theory of symbols and expressions, like in logic, a bit like neurons are primary in neurophysiology, somehow. But consciousness is beyond symbols, even provably so with mechanism. Symbols are like bodies: their use is for relative communication, not for the things in itself. (Already in mathematics, but here I am aware that some people confuse mathematical theories (which uses symbols), and the mathematical reality (which does not use symbols).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I differ on that notion on symbols as primary in "mathematical theory of symbols and expressions, like in logic, a bit like neurons are primary in neurophysiology, somehow". Assume it is the day after the neuron model has been completely validated. Then you face that all your external symbols are still secondary to the primary internal structural coding (in the neural network, or in the cwb analog model, etc.,)</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br />Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Don't see why - what? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The 19th century did have a reductionist conception of machine. Since Gödel and Turing, we know that the universal machine are terrible unknown. I did not see why you said the sentence above, and I was suggesting you might use a reductionist conception of machines.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] My impression is I am not following that approach. I've taken a different path through the woods. I ~feel more like I am just taking the givens, choosing a different nested structured~duality and showing how to get a structured internal representation of surroundings nested within our ontology. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I may make reference to "machine", but I do more mean "organism" and one that is quite smeared out within our surroundings. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
From their first person conscious points of view, machines are quite smeared in the whole (non computable) arithmetical reality. I use organisms and mechanism mostly as synonymous. A machine/organism is anything working without magic, say.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] How do you grade on level of synergy or on nesting or recursion levels? Are these the same or different mechanisms or classes of mechanism, to you?</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So, yes, reduced down to organic chemistry and a handful of sp^3 hybridized ~tetrahedral-like patterns, but also smeared out amid several nested fields within nested fields.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Below our substitution level, we cannot find an underlying digital, machine. Digital mechanism predicts that we will detect an infinity of “parallel” computations, made by an infinity of different universal machine/numbers. “I am a machine” entails, by the first person indeterminacy (see my sane04 paper) that neither the physical reality, nor any form of consciousness is digitally emulable. This can be used to refuted the thesis of “digital physics”, which cannot work (with or without computationalism). We must not confuse the thesis that we are digitally emulable, and that this or that reality is digitally emulable.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] So what does it mean in your theory if we shut off/revise your oxygen supply and you lose consciousness and/or can't write logically correct statements, if all of that is substitutable with digital mechanism? </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If you limit my supply of oxygen I will die relatively to you. From my first person perspective I will survive in the computations where you don’t do that, or in any other consistent history close (in some sense related to the logic of self-reference).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is the frightening aspect of mechanism: we can’t die. But theoretical computer science (intensional number theory) suggests the existence of jumps, if not, like I say above, much more sophisticated bardo.To leave the cycle of death and rebirth is not easy.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I agree with your last statement but not from the math analysis. Moreso from reading a bit about and my own small, different varieties of religious experiences. I can ~imagine/~remember what it is/could be like. Sort of like waking up from anesthesia only it wasn't just anesthesia -- having missed the funeral in the prior world and taking up in the ~same but slightly different Everette-many-worlds place. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If you can emulate or discover that in math, that is quite an accomplishment.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Thank you. It is the easiest part actually. Read the argument in 8 steps and ask question, if interested.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Physics is not numbers, but it is the shape of arithmetic seen by the number themselves, and the result (physics) is not Turing emulable, as I said just above.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
--physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In my university, I have been understood by the engineers and the biologists, before physicists and mathematicians. I suspect you just lack a bit of theoretical computer science and/or Mathematical Logic. It is indeed not very well taught.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact, yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Or so it appears to me. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I don’t see why. And where would the calcium come from? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Are you saying you don't see why or what life and living has to do with thinking math logic thoughts?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I mean I keep my mind open to the idea that our physical universal might have life form based on different constituents and set of laws, and doubly so with mechanism, where we are at light years to get something like our three dimensional or 24 dimensional physical theories. But physics, as ontological science, is refuted, from the mechanist perspective. But physics has not been invented for doing metaphysics, so that is rather normal.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The consequence of digital mechanism are invariant for the type of machine used. If some quantum mechanical feature of calcium is needed for the mind, that is OK. Mechanism remains true even if the brain is a quantum computer. To make Mechanism false, you need to invoke strong infinities, not recoverable by the natural infinities the machine can “feel” in arithmetic. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] As above, in math you can just make things appear. In life, one is inside a more deeply nested flow. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In arithmetic, physical things can be explained as being apparently appearing. If not, you might be begging the question, and committing yourself ontologically. Better not to do that if we do metaphysics scientifically, to get the empirical tests.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I'd say you need the right structure. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Mechanism is the non constructive bet that such a right structure exists, is finitely describable relatively to some “physical” universal numbers (computer). No machine can prove that such a level exists, but we can be lucky by doing the right bet (at that level or below).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] You have disappeared behind your veil. Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism? And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yes. Faith is needed. No machine at all can know which machine she is. To say “yes” to the doctor need a leap of courage and faith. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yes, but if mechanism is correct, you will have all the vibrations needed in arithmetic. ‘Or in combinators based theories, etc.).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye? Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yes? I start from the bet that we are Turing emulable, and then shows that this points on the idea that Aristotle’s materialism is wrong, and Plato skepticism is well founded. All universal machine have a rich theology which is very close to the Vedas (I think), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and somehow, most mystical discourses.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] These same folks are also aerobic creatures running the ~same carbon-water-based structural coding. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On earth, not in heaven. But with mechanism, even heaven seems to obey to some quantum mechanics. But to explain this, I would need to explain much more material. Someday maybe.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Hey, thanks. I appreciate the "on Earth, not in heaven" distinction to clarify a bit on "carbon-water-based" as a partial or temporary "training wheels", nesting derivative. I still see some sense in sp^3 hybridized ~energy patterns in both. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Are you sure you have grasped the concept? Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion. "My model" gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I'm hung up on or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
None.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
where and for what, and also in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns but has no energy flow channel?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] I'm still not getting it. Is it more like the metaphor of being in "The Matrix”? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
It is almost exactly that: except that we are in infinitely many Matrices at once. Then our consciousness will differentiate once the matrices differentiates on different inputs or oracle (possibly non computable inputs on which the arithmetical reality dovetails).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Nested fields within nested fields. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Each time you say that, I think of the Mandelbrot set. Look at the video here which illustrates well the nesting in the nesting:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIEG0DRMZCE" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIEG0DRMZCE</a>. (6 nesting)</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJSPnF92N5E" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJSPnF92N5E</a>. (3 nesting)</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Note that such complex structure is entirely determined by a very simple equation: it is the domain of the cycling trajectories of the complex numbers z when iterating f(z) = z^2 + c, for all c in the rational-complex plane. It is an open problem if that set is Turing equivalent.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Each time I use that phrase I think of us bobbling along in the local solar fusion flux and variable mass density quantum gravity. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I'd still like to have a picture or description of a Digital Mechanism" or what to imagine as being one nested within another one.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
There vertical and horizontal nesting. Universal number mimicking universal numbers mimicking universal numbers etc. But with the self-reference you have universal numbers mimicking themselves (cf the video showing the game of life emulating the game of life), and circular “nestings”. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Like sequences of DNA coding for certain amino acid chains giving rise to catalytic or inhibitory enzymes?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
Yes, and enzymes acting on the DNA, etc.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
All the best,</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Bruno</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
And Best Regards to you,</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Ralph Frost, Ph.D. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Changing the scientific paradigm.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
https://magnetictetrahedra.com </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Ralph </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That seems to be the empty gulf.</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both. It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I guess you have been traumatised by a bad math teacher. It is alas very common. I have a vocation to cure people having had that bad experience …. Your writing, if I do not too much over-interpret them, seems to show you have the abilities required. It is actually very easy.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Mathematics is the most beautiful thing, but it is very often as a torture instrument by very bad teacher, or as a tool to discriminate people, when actually Mathematics is so large that there are parts for everybody.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I have heard about an artist of Jazz who eventually abandon Music for Mathematics by judging that Mathematics allows far more freedom, and gives far more inspiration than Music. In fact, for some mathematicians, mathematics is only beauty, but my source is in the Mystery, which can be seen as sort of beauty too.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf] Before I would blame my high school geometry teacher for me not tracking on proofs, I'd dial back to hitting my head on a rock when I was ten-ish, or simply just not having that sort of aptitude. Although I think of myself as a tactile learner, basically if I can't ~picture or sketch a diagram or something ~visular or imaginativeI probably will not understand it or have "a way in". It's my lack. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Diagrams are very good, and bad teachers are very bad. There are also personal affinities, but everyone can</div>
</div>
...</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
--<br />----------------------------<br />Fifth International Conference<br />Science and Scientist - 2017<br />August 18—19, 2017<br />Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal<br /><a href="http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017</a><br /><br />Send a Donation to Support Our Services: <a href="http://scienceandscientist.org/donate" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://scienceandscientist.org/donate</a><br />(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)<br /><br />Report Archives: <a href="http://bviscs.org/reports" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://bviscs.org/reports</a><br /><br />Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03</a><br /><br />Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138</a><br /><br />Harmonizer: <a href="http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer</a><br /><br />Darwin Under Siege: <a href="http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin</a><br /><br />Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: <a href="http://bviscs.org/" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://bviscs.org</a><br /><br />Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: <a href="http://scsiscs.org/" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://scsiscs.org</a><br /><br />Sadhu-Sanga Blog: <a href="http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga</a><br /><br />Contact Us: <a href="http://scsiscs.org/contact" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://scsiscs.org/contact</a><br />---<br />You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.<br />To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8731450498282703716#" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />To post to this group, send email to <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8731450498282703716#" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />Visit this group at <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga</a>.<br />To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c6a4b98a-c85f-4699-bdbc-50c9e53070d7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c6a4b98a-c85f-4699-bdbc-50c9e53070d7%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-34666236305990082842017-10-16T09:28:00.003-04:002017-10-16T09:28:35.886-04:00Collapsing the wave function<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Sadhu-sanga - </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/EpjvabjxXuA/70WAL5hhBAAJ</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dear Kasyap, others,</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Regarding stochasticity, I think there are also alternatives to the models and perspectives that you and others advocate or discuss. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
For instance, I believe that the dominant scientific models we all reference have developed from the root assumption of objectivity separate from subjectivity -- in the slang terms that I learned: via the so-called Cartesian subject-object split. If one wrestles that entanglement to the ground and simplies (hopefully not over-simplifying), then everything in the objective category is also ~equal to or a member of the strongly repeatable subjectivity category. That is, things that repeat strongly (consistently...) we have been educated to call "objective". ....Discern a pattern once or twice and it is just a "subjective feeling". Repeat the same "subjective feeling pattern" at several accredited, independent international science labs and we have a confirmed instance of a strongly repeatable subjectivity pattern ...that we previously have agreed upon and/or been educated to call an "objective fact" -- and probably if it's a strongly repeating pattern, call it an "objective classical physics fact".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Within the repeatable subjectivity perspective, the two-category subjective-objective system collapses into a single category of grades of repeatable subjectivity, or to the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity. This spectrum includes non-repeating, rarely repeating, stochastically repeating, periodically repeating and strongly repeating, etc., 'feels', 'measures', 'impressions'... phases. The strongly repeatable variety matches up with what we label as patterns in "classical physics", whereas the stochastically repeatable varieties may populate the "non-classical physics" realm, with some registering in the QM, xQED storylines and regions. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
For those interested, spiritual liberties may be then be seen to associate closer with rarely repeating (and/or more highly nested) situations, but still within the same single repeatable subjectivity spectrum category. I suppose 'this all' may be more like a different, more nested topological viewpoint, and focusing more directly upon repeatability rather than "stochasticity" or "measures of probabilities" along with or versus, 'always' or 'assumedly never' happening events.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">As for ontological models in science and/or "an atomic explanation for consciousness" rather than, or in addition to beginning with Bruno's "reality is arithmetic" or "reality is a universal Turing device" (or however it is properly said), the ~axiom or general principle I advocate is "reality is nested structured~duality". (All things have some structure AND have/exhibit one or more dualities ...or differences.) This principle holds for all the stuff in the standard model-physical realm and also all the stuff in the mental/descriptive realm(s). The nested aspect, also, apparently turns out to be a fundamental feature, six ways to Sunday -- that is, in many important respects. This ~axiom gives us a quick jumpstart to reality being nested fields within nested fields and to nested structural coding within nested structural coding. </span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Immediately fabricating some quick and dirty analog math via the five ways to align four rod magnets along radii of a tetrahedron [structure: tetrahedron; duality: north-south (and/or attraction-repulsion)], in short order we have n4,s3n,n2s2,ns3,s4 -- units providing physical intuition on multiple state exhibiting variable mass-density differing in increments of one-half spin.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
These five states have the look and feel of the five Debye electronegativity diagrams for tetravalent, sp^3 hybridized molecular bond patterns, as those in,say, all water, organic nitrogen and ammonia, silicates, organic carbon, and related compounds. That is, from the axiom and a ~lucky guess on initial structured~duality comes analog math reflecting the physical ontology of ourselves and our surroundings. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Yet, as we live and breathe here on the flipside of photosynthesis, aerobic creatures like ourselves respire about 160 kg of oxygen per person per year which calculates out to generating about 10^20 water molecules per second, body-wide in our distributed respiration sites. Since a water molecule has 'structured~duality' akin to an n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron (roughly tetrahedral shaped with two plus and two minus regions), then generating these molecules within an enfolding field (and here is where one important 'nesting' level occurs/shows up) means each water molecule that is formed does so in one of six (or twelve) orientations. [A tetrahedron inside a cube traces out six of the cube's twelve diagonals at a time.] This allows that a sequence of n-molecules can form in 6^n (or 12^n) different ways. Physics tells us or suggests that repeating patterns of vibrations in the surroundings should influence the orientations of the sequences of molecules forming in respiration during an experience in a consistent way. Thus, in a few steps, the same analog math that reflects our ontological make-up, combined with a little bit of nesting, also is generating an internal analog (molecular, ordered water, field-like) life-relevant, structurally coded representation of our surroundings. Aka, ~consciousness.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Somewhat interestingly, IMO, structurally coded stacks of water molecules are also packets of hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding has influential roles in both protein-formation and protein-folding. The latter is integral with motility and expression. The former relates in replication.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
As well, environmental-resonance-driven structural coding in stacks of ordered water forming in respiration sites within neurons, offer some helpful wide-area 'pre-recognition' and potential synaptic pre-alignment features. In addition, in collapsing at least some types of 'memory' down to structural coding in water molecule stacks in respiration, longer-term instances of such structural coding can be formed by incorporating the higher concentration of specially structured stacks present in the ~associated cell in the more persistent "bound water layers" in newly forming protein matrices forming in or near the associated cell. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
There appear to be some synergetic features, also, of considering 'consciousness' more in line with structural coding and closely coupled with energy collection/conservation. First, it's is a bit easier to consider that we have just respirational, metabolic, epi-genetic, genetic and maybe immunological structural coding -- beside the nested ecological, social. economic, etc., structural coding. Secondly, coupling respirational structural coding with representation and adaptive response and also with energy collection/conservation allows SOME routes to account for or modeling structurally coding enzymatic catalysis and/or inhibition, which are other structural types of adaptive/energy conservation (life sustaining) measures.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
A careful reader may notice that provisionally considering this alternate scientific ontology basically involves halting the Cartesian Cube/subject-objectmodel, which itself IS or contains its own (not quite correct subjective-objective) model of consciousness, and initiating the axiom and/or underlying general principle along with the tetrahedron/north-south instance of nested structured~duality.</div>
<div class="F0XO1GC-Db-b" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Best regards,</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Seeking a thought worthy of speech.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://magnetictetrahedra.com/" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: pointer; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://magnetictetrahedra.com</a></div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-19405181856669587402017-09-28T07:25:00.000-04:002017-09-28T07:25:14.499-04:00Collapsing the wave function<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">=============</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> (Would you hubris on that?)</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> [rf2] Also, if QM is fundamental or a close approximation of partial fundamental, wouldn't we naturally observe quantum effects or quantum-like effects at various enfolded resonance points? I mean, photovoltaics are macro-physical as are the stacked nested structured~duality of Higgs-boson detectors. So, from my perspective, stacks of magnets exhibit the alleged quant effects ~because reality is nested structured~duality (NSD). If I add extra hubris, I suppose the quantum effects actually turn out to be NSD effects, manifesting at different scales...</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Excerpt from post in </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/EpjvabjxXuA Sep 27, 2017</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">=============</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Thanks, Paul. To try to stay clear, your last expressions are marked [pw1 and my current reply is [rf2].</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-4, paul.werbos wrote:</span><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Hi, Ralph!<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Things may be confusing to others, due to the old issue of who said what. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So let me tighten a bit:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /><div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Ralph Frost <span dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8731450498282703716#" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">ralph...@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
>> Also, with that stated I am afraid I must admit to having impressions on<br />>> measurement, collapse, and ~how 'consciousness' may have gotten injected<br />>> into the physics description to begin with from features in my own rather<br />>> odd 'NSD analog model'. I sketch this out below. ....... [giving a concrete experiment example]<br />>><br />><br />><br />[pw1] PW: > I don't immediately see how true quantum mechanical effects could be in play<br />> here. Karl Pribram like you was also intrigued by the use of quantum<br />> mechanics as a kind of metaphor, of varying precision, for classical<br />> systems like general brain organization. But at this moment, I am sorry I<br />> can't say more.<br /></div>
</div>
[rf] Are the true quantum effects you refer to: tunneling,<br />confinement, exhibiting discrete energy levels (like w/ line spectra),<br />jumping from one energy level to others, influences of increments of<br />one-half spin, having two ways to express one thing, exhibiting<br />'particle-like' AND 'wave-like' behaviors? Those type of things?<br /><br /><br />[rf] I have puzzled over ~this, too. If "Quantum mechanics (QM; also known<br />as quantum physics or quantum theory), including quantum field theory,<br />is a branch of physics which is the fundamental theory of nature at<br />the small scales and energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles "<br />( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics</a> ), then how is it<br />that stacks of magnets exhibit quantum or quantum-like behaviors and<br />can exhibit and convey some appreciation for at least some of the<br />small-scale quantum effects?</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
=======</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] Because I can't afford to really dig into the example you gave this morning.. I can only guess.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] But I certainly remember folks who talk about "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" in discussing totally classical phenomena (like how government measurement of economic data can change the data themselves). SOME of the things which people discuss in concrete examples in quantum theory are actually general things which exist at a classical level. Another important example is the similarity between quantum mechanical coherence (or entanglement) and simple statistical correlation, which is quite common in the classical world as well. In fact, that's my first guess as to what might be happening in your example, but it's just a wild hunch, no specific logic involved. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] There's not that much to dig into in my prior three-four paragraph account. I recall reading years ago that magnets and magnetic fields don't have a classical definition/description, but ~only have a non-classical or quantum mechanical one. You'd likely know better on that than I. So, on my side, that item seems part of the 'explanation'. Also, in my own experiments with two handheld magnets, I observe there are two ways to obtain repulsion (differing in increments of one-half spin). That is the finding. If I do not get too anxious and resort to convention to metaphorically 'collapse the uncomfortable dualic informational wave function' and correlate or apply the ancient north-south navigational labelling/knowledge so as to make the dualic thing appear to be two separate, more well-defined and less ambiguous items, then I am perhaps someplace back in science history, as in like Faraday's era, holding evidence of spin- and structure-related wave-particle artifacts and behavior, but lacking or awaiting a bootload of important vocabulary. Yet, applying the ad hoc labelling convention is not a complete or absolute fix, which is sort of evident looking at the structured~duality of diagrams of Hall effect detectors, or considering that results would vary from planetary system to planetary system depending upon the odd or even number of enfolding magnetic fields between the two systems (or local procedural choices). </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Also, if QM is fundamental or a close approximation of partial fundamental, wouldn't we naturally observe quantum effects or quantum-like effects at various enfolded resonance points? I mean, photovoltaics are macro-physical as are the stacked nested structured~duality of Higgs-boson detectors. So, from my perspective, stacks of magnets exhibit the alleged quant effects ~because reality is nested structured~duality (NSD). If I add extra hubris, I suppose the quantum effects actually turn out to be NSD effects, manifesting at different scales...</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br />><br />[pw1] > PW: The choice of polarization angles θa and θb and θc is extremely important<br />> but not unconscious.<br /></span>[rf] Who picks, and when? Or do you mean such angles are related w/<br />other features?</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] When Clauser and Holt designed and set up the very first Bell's Theorem experiments, they set up specific sets of choices for </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
θa and θb, so that the results of the experiment would be decisive in discriminating between "quantum mechanics" and "local, causal, hidden variable theories" </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
according to the theorem they and their collaborators had proven. (I would imagine they thought about possible choices even as they proved the theorem.) To get the story more precisely than this, simply look up their paper which I cite in the arxiv papers whose URL I sent you. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
So Clauser and Holt who physically set up the experiment did physically select θa and θb for each run of the experiment, by manipulating the polarizers in their apparatus.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
For the all-angles triphoton experiment which I proposed at <a href="http://www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf</a> (published in Quantum Information Processing), I show how </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
different triple counting rates are predicted for different choices of the set of angles θa and θb and θc according to the old time-forward collapse model of the polarizer and the new time-symmetric models. When Yanhua Shih asserted he knew how to build a source of triply entangled photons (as he had in the past!), I funded him from NSF to do that experiment among others, and he chose sets of angles which could differentiate between the two prediction formulas, as shown in</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2016/02/new-experiment-as-important-as.html" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #6611cc; cursor: text; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2016/02/new-experiment-as-important-as.html</a>. I was a bit shocked when he decided not to publish his results, or even to give me full access to them, as he had promised not only to me but to NSF. Certainly the graduate student who did the work, from a village in China near Mao's birthplace, was a key player in all that.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Did they just lie or fail, badly, or discover something disruptive?</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span>[rf] Your MQED is some type of nested apparatus, isn't it? ,,,Reliant<br />upon nested structure(s) or relationships?</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] You did mention the mathematical relation between t, psi(t) and either Pr(psi(t)) or rho(t). That could be considered to be a kind of nesting, though the same applies to </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
David Deutsch's many-worlds assumptions and other versions of QED.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Like I said, reality is nested structured~duality (NSD). It's the underlying general principle. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
[rf] I think my general beef with the dominant scientific model is really a<br />lot more with it being an instance of NSD that begins with and<br />enforces the initial condition of the Cartesian XYZ-cubic notion of<br />distance in three orthogonal directions and therein instantiates the<br />imagined xyz-empty space container, with compensating epi-cycles.<br />Initial conditions influence outcomes, and just look around! Yes, it's<br />a handy approximation, but anomalies accrue into large stacks of<br />overwhelming unintended consequences.</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] Yes, all versions of QED including MQED treat "space" as a Euclidean three-dimensional space, with attached analysis to show that their predictions will</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
not violate special relativity. All people using QED quickly say it is not a theory of everything, and they support in principle the efforts to unify it with gravity and nuclear forces, though there is no consensus on how to do that. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] But there are no epicycles required by adherence to special relativity as such. It is as mathematically clear, consistent and elegant as humanity has ever produced, unless you count words which are grossly incomplete and thus unable to predict experiments. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Pardon me if I seem/ed to disrespect really fine statements made by some of your tribes' priest-kings. When I refer to epi-cycles, I'm referring to something like:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
1. Assume the xyz-cube empty space,</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
2. Oops, add absolute time,</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
3. Oops, make that relative time,</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
4. Oops, relative curvy space-time </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
5. Oops, in small-scale one-half spin related multiple states...</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Now, within that bubble or in the various valleys on those shifting paradigmatic tectonic plates I have some appreciation, vaguely, sort of, that the abstract math recipes and incantations have been and do polish up well with complementary measures made within the 3+1 and various other structures also specified within that bubble. My beef, like I said, more or less is with the Cartesian xyz-cubic empty container initial conditioning, which, from my perspective, biases and slants the gameboard in a terribly convoluted and deeply unhelpful manner. The empty container syndrome is not so accurate. The xyz-cube relations apparently is nice for abstract mathings, but the count on many life- and surroundings-significant components is wildly tilted towards tetrahedral structure as actually being 'natural'. Thus, the educational question, worse than metrification in the west, is re-orienting education to start out with tetrahedral coordination prior to adding the cubic imagery. Again, I'm talking about initial conditions being important and also starting out rather directly with a four-dimensional orientation. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf1] But, specifically, I'm referencing starting out with the analog math of the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron. This gives, n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4 -- five states exhibiting variable mass density, differing by increments of one-half spin. These five patterns also model the look and feel of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonds -- water, organic chemistry, etc., -- ourselve and our surroundings. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] One of the key issues which would drive me to something deeper than MQED or other forms of QED is the ADDITIONAL assumption that physical particles are perfect points of zero radius in "space", which does lead to a requirement for renormalization and regularization which I do view as being as ugly as epicycles.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Sort of like nesting space within space and forgetting wave-particle in all particles. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] But the other key issue is that "space" as in your last statement is not really the mathematical space assumed in MQED or in the older KQED many-worlds version. (Actually, the Feynmann and Glimm-Jaffe and Streater-Wightmann versions of QED work directly over Minkowski 3+1-D space, not 3D space.) MQED and KQED represent the space of the cosmos as an infinite dimensional Fock-Hilbert space, constructed mathematically by a kind of iteration or induction OVER the old Euclidean kind of space. If the resulting many-worlds dynamics looked natural, and if there had been no need for renormalization, I would have taken such theories more seriously as possible<br />"laws of everything", but they don't, not if you look closely at that Schrodinger equation to see what it really says. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Again, pardon my criticism, but notice the "3+1" and the resorting to nesting OVER Euclidean space and resorting to infinite-dimensional whatever... Something is amiss in the lower levels of that set of epi-cycles. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] But the best hope for a fix, as I see more and more after many years, is actually an Einsteinian kind of theory which IS grounded in curved Minkowski space</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
(easily integrated with Einstein's general relativity). That gets rid of both "epicycles". </div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] There is a kind of nesting, here, between that deeper theory and MQED, just as there is between Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Part of the Great Chain of Approximation, which is closely related to the great Chain of Being. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] I sort of think that ALL alternatives that rely upon or invoke one item of abstract math are automatically ~wrong. [Not just because I sure lack the abstract math ability to contribute in that area.] That is, look and/or feel around at ALL the instances of quantum gravity in the local region. They are ALL running in the analog math, within the nested fields within nested fields -- even within our internal primary analog math and nested structural coding. So, as soon as one invokes an abstract math symbol they've already resorted to the secondary math and invoked secondary, non- or a-synchronous representations into the model that is supposed to be a little bit representative of the on-going synchronous quantum gravity. Abstract math breaks the model. Analog math doesn't. That is 'round about way of saying again that empirical is still the proof of the pudding. Also, no doubt there are many abstract approximations.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Not that it is helpful in your quest, but the closest I might offer toward any abstract math is the story about taking the total edge length of a tetrahedron, L, and adding increments of L, using each to connect the mid-points of the prior edges of tetrahedra. The first increment creates four tetrahedra stacked about a central octahedron (within the initial tetrahedron). Adding another L, splits each of the four smaller tetrahedra each into four tetrahedra stacked about a central octahedron..... etc., on downward, or inward. If you make the rule to discard octahedral volume and only account for tetrahedral area, then adding increments (quanta), the area stays constant as the volume tends to zero. It's like a poorman's introductory incremental math model (which I attribute to R. Buckminster Fuller.) </div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br />[rf] If you had a choice AND could have both, which initial condition would<br />you choose?<br /><span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /></span></blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[pw1] Am not so clear about what you are really asking here.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Don't you mind read ill-stated phrases scrawled at wee hours? My question, I believe, is about intelligent people making choices on the initial conditions in early science education. I observe the current standard or dominant path is to start with the Cartesian cube/subject-object instance and along the STEM path, basically repeat and replicate the 380+ years of development of the ~Newtonian, relativistic, quantum electro-dynamic phases. An alternative path diverging in the woods, and certainly less traveled by -- call it STEM2, would initialize with the magnetic tetrahedra to rather instantly provide and establish physical intuition on multiple states and variable mass density, plus the patterns of self and surrounding BEFORE introducing cubic and related xyz abstract math. ...Most likely also diminishing the "empty container syndrome", and then backfilling or stepping through the classical and then non-classical science history. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] Perhaps a question to you, since you obviously fared very well along the standard path, is what might you guess if the ordering was changed in your education? Would you have been hurt by acquiring some common physical intuition on some 'quantum effects' and tetrahedral patterns at the start of your education rather than, say, later or at the end of it?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
[rf2] ....~if you had a choice AND could have both, which initial condition (magnetic tetrahedral w/ some physical intuition followed by abstract math vs. cube/subject-object with abstract math to start and perhaps some physical intuition later, or not), ...which would you choose?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Best regards,</div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Ralph</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-51090764701237438882017-07-25T14:39:00.001-04:002017-07-25T14:39:16.797-04:00sci.physics.research Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="F0XO1GC-mb-x" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="2"><div>
<span><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(17,85,204,1)" href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/sci.physics.research" style="color: rgb(3, 71, 190) !important;">sci.physics.research</a> ›</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"></td> </tr>
<tr> <td> <div class="F0XO1GC-mb-y">
<span class="F0XO1GC-mb-Y" id="t-t">Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
(07/25/2017)<br />
<br />
Interesting clarifications, Jan.
<br />
<br />Regarding agreed upon dimensions, typed algebras, decisions and
<br />adoptions of conventions, and standardization in units in terms of of T
<br />(or 1/T), doesn't all of this also expose why or how, people got/get the
<br />idea that '~consciousness' and/or observation is ~necessary/related in
<br />sorting out quantum mechanical ~results? ...That is, the ~mental-related
<br />qualities or aspects are already (sub-consciously) inserted in an
<br />earlier, previously adopted set of conventions and thus are already
<br />'nested' in the activity/experience.
<br />
<br />In the storyline I advocate and express, 'reality is nested
<br />structured~duality' which means pick a structure and pick a duality
<br />(that is, had I had a better math education, aka, in your terms: 'typed
<br />algebras'). But, with this more unified (NSD) perspective, what we also
<br />have is nested fields within nested fields, rather than just an
<br />idealized or assumed L^3 (length-cubed) container containing other
<br />collections which somehow, inexplicably pop in and out of
<br />particle-anti-particle existence.
<br />
<br />One can sort of conceptualize 1/T vibrational features in a nested
<br />fields within nested fields system, perhaps as sub-divided tetrahedra
<br />within tetrahedra, whereas it seems a bit more difficult to grasp 1/T
<br />everywhere starting with the initial condition of an un-nested L^3,
<br />cubic model.
<br />
<br />
<br />Thoughts?
<br />
<br />Best regards,
<br />Ralph Frost
<br />
<br />Reality is nested structured~duality.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:41:36 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<br />> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137> wrote:
</tjroberts137><br />
<div>
<div class="F0XO1GC-Db-a" data-blkn-colour="rgba(153,153,153,1)" id="t_q_EYIyb9FkBQAJ1" style="color: black !important;">
>
<br />>> On 7/21/17 7/21/17 7:29 PM, rockbrentwood@... wrote:
<br />>>> Physical quantities form a TYPED ALGEBRA.
<br />>>>
<br />>>> The system of types form an Abelian group with the identity 1
<br />>>> standing for the type of dimensionless quantities
<br />>>>
<br />>>> A type judgement e: T means quantity e has type T, which in dimensional
<br />>>> analysis means [e] = T.
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Addition and subtraction are subject to type-restriction: e + f and
<br />>>> e - f are only defined if e:T and f:T, in which case (e +/- f): T.
<br />>>
<br />>> OK, except there is also the concept of compatible types: cm and inches
<br />>> (in) are not equal (same type), but are compatible:
<br />>> 1cm + 1in = 3.54cm
<br />>> 1in - 1cm = .606in
<br />>> 1in / 1cm = 2.54
<br />>> 2 * 1cm = 2cm
<br />>> 1cm / 2 = 0.5cm
<br />>> convert(1in,cm) = 2.54cm
<br />>> convert(1cm,in) = 0.394in
<br />>> ... etc.
<br />>
<br />> That is just saying 'have the same dimension' in other words.
<br />> And that has just the same problem:
<br />> what is, or isn't deemed to be 'compatible'
<br />> depends on your choice of units and dimensions.
<br />>
<br />> For example, is a centimeter compatible with a nanosecond?
<br />> No, of course not, well indoctrinated kiddies will tell you
<br />> with the wisdom of 1793.
<br />> However, these days the nanosecond equals 29.9792458 cm (exactly)
<br />>
<br />> This is what your little GPS unit is doing for you:
<br />> it counts, adds, and multiplies with all those nanoseconds,
<br />> and presents the results of it all in meters or miles.
<br />> (and of course also seconds, for it solves four equations,
<br />> with four equivalent unknowns, to tell you when and where you are)
<br />>
<br />> In a very real sense the metric system came too early.
<br />> (before the relevant physics was well enough understood)
<br />> If we could start all over again
<br />> there wouldn't be a separate length unit at all.
<br />> (and E and B would have the same dimension)
<br />>
<br />> If we ever meet those fabled intelligent LGM in their UFOs
<br />> we may discover that they find our having both meters and seconds
<br />> a very quint idea indeed.
<br />> (just like sane humans find it quaint that those Americans
<br />> have both inches and miles)
<br />>
<br />> Jan
<br />
</div>
</div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-45309731469496386682017-07-09T06:19:00.004-04:002017-07-09T06:19:44.415-04:00Nested Quanta - Acquiring Knowledge -- NSD-styleNested quanta<br /><br />Hey, thanks, RLG, for the link on quantum
mysticism, which led me to then skim over the many, many
interpretations of quantum mechanics at <br /><br /><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2418" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics</a><br /><br />Quite a few, different complicated instances of NSD there... .-)<br /><br />In the quantum information theories or interpretations section, <br />the latter contained: <br /><br />"""<br />
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2420">
<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">Quantum informational</a> approaches<sup><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-35" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">[35]</a></sup> have attracted growing support.<sup><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-36" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">[36]</a></sup><sup><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-ReferenceA-5" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">[5]</a></sup> They subdivide into two kinds<sup><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-37" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">[37]</a></sup></div>
<ul id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2417">
<li id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2423">Information ontologies, such as J. A. Wheeler's "<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_from_bit" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2422" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">it from bit</a>". These approaches have been described as a revival of <a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">immaterialism</a><sup><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-38" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">[38]</a></sup></li>
<li id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2416">Interpretations
where quantum mechanics is said to <b>describe an observer's knowledge of
the world, rather than the world itsel</b>f. This approach has some
similarity with Bohr's thinking.<sup><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-39" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">[39]</a></sup>
Collapse (also known as reduction) is <b>often interpreted as an observer
acquiring information from a measurement, rather than as an objective
event</b>. These approaches have been appraised as similar to <a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">instrumentalism</a>. """</li>
</ul>
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2427">
I am intrigued by, the """...observer's knowledge of the world,
rather than the world itself.... and .... observer acquiring
information from a measurement, rather than as an objective event."""</div>
<br />
The latter prompts me to consider what it means to 'acquire information from a measurement'. <br />
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2429">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2431">
I
don't know how knowledge is considered as 'acquired' within the
dominant scientific paradigm, particularly via QM mathematical physicists
if they lack a functional model of ~consciousness. </div>
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2433">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2415">
In
the NSD storyline, however, I catch a glimpse of a "nested quantum
fields or nested quanta" imagery that seems to have recently been
extruding itself in through the cracks in my awareness. In the storyline I
advocate, 'acquiring information [from a measurement, a sensory/memory
measurement/difference, etc.,]' actually ~means building or accumulating a stack of,
say, 6^n ordered water clusters, and/or synthesizing proteins, or other organic carbon/nitrogen, etc, artifacts.
Thus, NSD has a different, and I think, more accurate, informative type of
'collapse' or 'reduction'. Moreover, people can acquire and consider the improved perspective, basically, by shifting from the abstract xyz-cubic... to the nested analog tetrahedral frame or reference.</div>
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2438">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2440">
That is, viewing things
from the tetrahedral orientation (not just the
xyz-cubic-temporal-Hilbert-etc., orientation),
~knowledge is nested stacks of sp^3 collections -- nested quanta. </div>
<br />So,
for those readers who can follow along, in the NSD/tetrahedral imagery,
what we have is various nested resonances among the various collections
and arrangements of the artifacts formed and re-forming here within the
local quantum gravitation, solar fusion flux system.<br /><br />At a base
level, we've got sp^3 hybridized arrangements nested in photosynthesis
and respiration transformations, structurally coding in ~living molecules, channeling through, say, the carbon,
phosphorus, nitrogen, etc., regenerative cycles. <br /><br />When cast or
modeled in the abstract, ill-fitting ~cubic/Hilbert recipe, we get the cloudy, probabilistic implications and
complexities (and fair amounts of confusion) in the interpretations as shown in
the link above ( <a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics" style="color: #1b38ca !important;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics</a>
). Plus, in that model folks do not yet have an actual model, much
less a common denominator model for physical artifacts PLUS 'knowledge'
and/or 'acquired knowledge'.<br /><br />However, in the tetrahedral/NSD modeling
instance, or framework, regardless of one's abstract mathematical background, we do. Due to inherent nested symmetry within the tetrahedral frame of reference -- the inherent symmetry between our ontology and our description (~epistemology) -- a more unified perspective
can and does emerge. [Echoing discoveries of R. Buckminster Fuller in the 20th century.] Reality is nested structured~duality,
and also, the base sp^3 hybridization of the local region IS tetrahedral. Thus, acquiring knowledge involves nested state change -- complimentary, energy-related nested state change.<br /><br />And, also thanks, of course, to RLG's contributions. <br /><br />So, thanks, RLG ...and to all others!<br /><br /><br /><div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2442">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none;">Best regards,</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1499462361676_2444">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none;">Ralph Frost</span></div>
<br /><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none;">Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..</span><br />
<br /><a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="http://magnetictetrahedra.com/" style="color: #1b38ca !important; text-decoration: none;"><span data-blkn-colour="rgba(17,85,204,1)" style="color: #0347be !important; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline;">http://magnetictetrahedra.com</span></a><br />
<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="http://structuredduality.blogspot.com/" style="color: #1b38ca !important; text-decoration: none;"><span data-blkn-colour="rgba(17,85,204,1)" style="color: #0347be !important; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline;">http://structuredduality.blogspot.com</span></a><br />
<br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none;">With joy you will draw water</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none;">from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3</span>Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-34597254452659867352017-06-27T09:30:00.000-04:002017-06-27T09:38:14.406-04:00TAM Detour -- Re: FWD - overview aspect of consciousnessAlfredo,<br /><br /><br />I believe you can forego your walk-about into triple aspect monism (TAM) Land if you can first just consider more of the science facts available to you.<br /><br /><br />That is, where you write:<br /><br /><br />"""The basic idea is that there is a neutral monist foundation (composed of Dynamical Energy Patterns = DEP) from which the three aspects of reality emerge: the physical, the informational and the conscious (phenomenal consciousness). Such a a three-folded reality is present in the nervous system, in the physiology, information processing patterns and feelings (the hydro-ionic wave).""", <br /><br />before you look around for, or muse about the secondary DEP's based on the conditioned notion of spatiotemporal reality, first focus in on the actual energy processes occurring in, say, astrocytes, neurons and other living cells. <br /><br />That will quickly bring you face-to-face with the structio-energetic structural codings occurring in the (Kreb's) and aerobic respiration and the electron transport cycles which, IIRC, is typically located internal to each cell in mitochondria. <br /><br />Overall, body-wide, since people respire about 160 kg of oxygen per year, this amounts to the generation of about 10^20 water molecules per second plus energy flow, plus amounts of carbon dioxide and also, varying amounts of some structural precursors. <br /><br />So, before you begin talking about supposedly helpful or informative metaphors involving just three of the ancient Greek gods, try, at least, to get to the actual end of relevant, known science.<br /><br /><br />Once you re-acquaint yourself with the on-going, known primary energy flow, you should be able, perhaps after a 2 or 3 second lag, to also become aware that variations in this primary energy supply and integrated energy conservation process also is giving some if not most dominant "dynamic energy patterns" (your DEP's). Thus, rather quickly, you and other readers can note that variations in the surroundings are directly coupled with variations in energy flow plus flow of hydrogen-bonding packets plus precursors, all of which IS variations in nested *feel*.<br /><br /><br />...All without skipping off into philosophical and metaphorical TAM Land, or, in fact, applying unnecessary secondary labels such as 'informational' or 'phenomenal consciousness'.<br /><br />If you squint, hard, at what these two secondary labels relate to, after 2 or 3 seconds, you and others may observe, both strongly relate to 'words' and 'groups of words', typically echoes, relating back to prior structio-energetic *feels*. So, that is, these two so-called fundamental categories are just nested secondary echoes of the primary structio-energetic *feel* category. Thus the TAM silk purse IS invisibly and unnecessarily woven from and about the one wrinkled pig's ear.<br /><br />FWIW, in the storyline I advocate, these secondary echoes or structural codings that we call 'words', I believe are or can be fashioned in the 6^n structural coding of dualically structured water molecules forming in respiration (in concert with experience) -- hydrogen-bonding packets -- which reflect and influence protein-folding sequences, which of course, once coordinated, ARE our expression(s). Thus, reading or writing, say, this paragraph involves some fast-paced but naturally occurring and acquired structural coding of hydrogen-bonding packets and streams linking with closely related protein-folding -- ALL OF WHICH, historically relates and associates with, for instance, sustaining or increasing energy flow and rewards.<br /><br />I surmise or speculate that the reason you may feel the need to raise the TAM veil, even though these scientific facts are right here in front of you and everyone else, is your prior adoption and continuing reliance upon the spatiotemporal (particularly the temporal) belief system, plus, you may lack the vocabulary, say, of 'structural coding' or particularly 'nested structural coding' where the 'nested' part is a fundamental tenet/quality.<br /><br />Alternatively, invoking TAM may persist for you as a previously helpful, initial habit.<br /><br />In any event, I encourage you to give our primary (Kreb's)/aerobic respiration and ETS structio-energetics 2-3 seconds of consideration and then let's us know what you think.<br /><br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Ralph Frost<br /><br /><br />Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..<br /><br /><br />http://magnetictetrahedra.com<br /><br />http://structuredduality.blogspot.com<br /><br /> With joy you will draw water<br /><br />from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3<br /><br /><br /><br />---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :<br /><br />Dear RGL, you wrote:<br /><br /><br />"You again make a good case that the neural correlates of conscious experience are brain waves (hydro-ionic waves which are ultimately waves within the electromagnetic field) and you know that such waves are subject to the hard problem. How can any wave have or enable a feeling? From reading your PDF files you do use words like “may” when hypothesizing a link and that is definitely a credit to you. One question does come up: when you write that these waves `instantiate’ feelings, in what sense do you mean? That is really puzzling, I look forward to any clarifications that you may have."<br /><br /><br />Alfredo: Many thanks for the reading and for your attention. An answer to your question requires reference to the philosophical theory (Triple-Aspect Monism = TAM) I have developed to account for the model (now called "hydro-ionic", was called the "calcium wave model" in other publications). The basic idea is that there is a neutral monist foundation (composed of Dynamical Energy Patterns = DEP) from which the three aspects of reality emerge: the physical, the informational and the conscious (phenomenal consciousness). Such a a three-folded reality is present in the nervous system, in the physiology, information processing patterns and feelings (the hydro-ionic wave). Feelings include the feedback of the wave on the other aspects, physical (e.g. psychosomatic effects) and informational (regulatory and modulatory effects). The assumption is that each kind of pattern of the hydro-ionic wave corresponds to a kind of feeling. What is a feeling in this framework? It is a temporal pattern of energy variations that corresponds to a possible combination of the DEP. When we feel, we make actual a possible combination of the "building blocks" of reality.<br /><br /><br />TAM is an ontological theory. Now I am working on the metaphysic of TAM, trying to figure the DEP and how they self-organize to generate the three-folded reality. One possible metaphor is to compare the DEP with the Gods of polytheism. Each God corresponds to one power of Nature. For instance, the Heraclitian flow or the becoming process of reality depends on the action of Chronos, the fundamental time (that induces the other times, as the relational time given by entropy increase and the subjective time of consciousness). This is of course highly speculative and attempts to explain why the hydro-ionic wave is the medium that instantiates feelings. The main argument (already present in my papers since 2010) is that this wave instantiates temporal variations of amplitude (the temporal waveform). In the 2017 paper "The Dynamical Signature..." I argue that such a temporal waveform follows a Fibonacci-like pattern, and here I add that this is the manifestation/instantiation of DEP. In other words, when we feel and the corresponding temporal wave is instantiated in our nervous system, we make a singular combination of DEP actual. This is a (possibly) new concept of phenomenality that is different from the use of the concept in Kant and in Phenomenology (there are some connections with Heidegger's concept about subjectivity being closely related with time). In Kantian terms, it is as if the apriori forms (as space and time) were DEP. I have worked with Chris Nunn comparing this approach with his proposed SoS, which relates phenomenality with temporal existence. In sum, it is an open field for philosophical and scientific interdisciplinary research.<br /><br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br /><br />AlfredoRalph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731450498282703716.post-70370008905346432592017-06-25T16:23:00.001-04:002017-06-25T16:23:30.973-04:00Structio-energetic global workspace WAS: overview aspect of consciousnessAlfredo, <br /><br />Thanks for links to recent papers. You and your group
do a good job of threading through the many layers to get down to your
'hydro-ionic' flows and also Gerald Pollack's structured water
descriptions of exclusion zones serving as boundaries and channels, and
protein configurations. I don't follow all of your perspective(s) but I
get the sense that you observe or can measure and do focus on calcium
ion clouds and gradients and properties of astrocytes that differ from
those of other types of aerobic cells. And, -- is it that you seek or
have found 2-3 second long processes there to persist as or while a
so-called 'conscious episode' resonates? Or is that the elusive goal?<br /><br />I'm
wondering if you can clarify more on that goal or supposition, or point
me directly to a page of yours where that is more clearly laid out? <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />I
can and do certainly appreciate your ideas on pulsating clouds or
gradients of calcium ions playing or being the role of so-called
'emotional feels or feelings' -- love, empathy, anxiety,
lethargy,etc., but when we get to appreciate that type of structural
coding -- whether you through your measure-able calcium ion gradients or
flows, or me through my more subtle 10^20 per second, 6^n stackings of
hydrogen bonding packets in our distributed aerobic respiration
processes closely coupled with our electron transport systems (ETS),
seeing one instance of such gradients and structural coding, I think, is
sort of a tip of the larger iceberg where the entire nested gradients
of all the nested gradients: ions on various locations of the periodic
chart, plus neurotransmitters, and also water-formed channels and
protein configurations, etc., ALL also play roles in the various feels
and distinctions.<br /><br />So, I feel what is important is the first way
one can see, experience and register such 'feeling' as linking and
arises with some sort of internal structural coding. At least I
appreciate that about the rather simple, direct way that is involved in
the process I advocate and I expect you experience the same or similar
with yours re: calcium ions, etc. I see a relation between the two in
that additions of water molecules emanating from respiration sites would
alter concentrations of calcium and other ions, and also could be the
sources of flows of specially formed ordered water clusters near by to
energy 'origins. <br /><br />From your first paper on page 15 I read """<span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;">...supplements
Baars'
theory in contending that the spatiotemporal global workspace is in the
domain of neuro-
astroglial interactions.""" On reading this, and in light of recent
posts and the deeper or more internal perspectives, I believe and
suggest it would be more helpful to see, consider and shift over to the
analog 'structio-energetic global workspace' , rather than continue to
try to mix and confuse realities as is done considering Baar's </span><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;">'spatiotemporal global workspace'.<br /><br />The
spatiotemporal realm is a top or high level construct fashioned
together well above the level of adopting tense in our languages. You,
I and other people certainly consider ourselves and others waddling
about in a spatiotemporal local or global workspace, however, our
internal workings, and thus our considerations and conceptualizations
and descriptions of our inner workings are all ciphering and functioning
totally on the structio-energetic global workspace basis and NOT within
terms of the more familiar spatiotemporal one. Our inner workings
can't afford the luxury of , and don't consider issues on such a
contrived 2nd-person 'temporal' basis.</span></span><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><br />In
the storyline I am advocating, implementing or experiencing this shift
in perspective is basically just a matter of adopting the tetrahedral
frame of reference in addition to (or reactively repealing and
replacing) the dominant Cartesian xyz-cubic low-level format
assumption. Considering the feels of 'the magnetic tetrahedron' (which
I've discussed elsewhere) adds some quick empirical proof of </span></span><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;">multiple states of </span></span>variable
mass-density and, I think, is a good way to quickly focus in on the
general and relevant patterns of sp^3 hybridization that dominate
most of our internal workings' </span></span><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;">(tetrahedral) </span></span>molecular bondings.<br /><br />After
this conceptual shift is added, or made, then it is fairly obvious that
our inner workings are running on the 'structio-energetic global
workspace' and not the spatiotemporal one. </span></span><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;">Thus t</span></span><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;">he spatiotemporal global workspace is NOT actually in the domain of neuro-
astroglial interactions</span>.</span></span><br /><br />Baar's concept is
related, and there are connections, of course, but conceptualizing in
terms of the spatiotemporal framework alone just confuses the issue. For
instance, high or low concentrations of, say, ADP or ATP or oxygen
influence the rate of Kreb's and/or electron transport system cycles.
This has influence reaching throughout the structio-energetic
workspace. Attempting to cast or conceptualize such inner workings as
items in the spatio-temporal global workspace is not accurate and thus
not so helpful. Yes, perhaps one can say, "Just do a sum on the rates or
another math function to get the (spatio)temporal measure...", but in
so doing, one is adding imaginary epi-cycles so as to sustain or imposed
the supposed applicability of one's flawed conceptual model
(spatiotemporal global workspace). It is better to bite the bullet,
make the distinction, and consider the (nested, inner, </span></span><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;">separate</span></span>) structio-energetic workspace of the inner workings.<br /><br />A
similar or analogous model-related conceptual error is involved with
the "information integration" debate. Also, probably, even the so-called
'hard problem'.<br /><br />That is. on the inner workings level, artifacts
just have or ARE structio-energetic transactions -- doing an interactive
many-body dance. Simplistically, if, for example, an excess is present,
a transaction may slow or go into stasis -- until the artifact is
consumed or transformed or diffused away in other remote and basically
'unknown' processes. The backed-up or modulated concentration gradient
is also, itself, a relevant 'integrated information' signal, and the
pattern in the gradients, in relation to other pulsations are also 'the
feels' of the combined experience. Acquiring such a holistic perspective
is one of the advantages of considering the nested structural coding
occurring in the structio~energetic global framework.<br /><br />Related to your hypothesized 2-3 second conscious episode relative, presumably to astrocyte cells, what are your thoughts or possibilities?<br /><br />Might pulse or pulse-related changes be a rather direct measure or factor?<br /><br />Also, do you conceptualize or you hope to find/measure a brain function resonance or echo which persists for 2-3 seconds?<br /><br />Or,
is it that what is needed is more like a region of
influence/connection that is "2-3seconds big" in spatial or
number-of-neurons scope, for instance wherein an ordered water channel
or channels remains OPEN for that duration wherein structurally coded
patterns can ripple along the entire surface of the channel forming a
more complex or information laden surface wave, culminating, say, in
synthesis of a protein matrix containing some of the ordered water
within the bound water matrix?<br /><br />A difficulty with such structural
coding variations is, of course, in their difficulty of measuring, say,
even ripples in multiple protein configurations, much less variations in
hydrogen-bonding within ordered water structures.<br /><br />I guess that may be why
concentration-based measures and research is so popular. The light is so
much better or at least available under those street lamps.<br /><br />In any event, thanks for your links. I wish you and your group well in your research and publications.<br /></span></span><br /><br />
<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-2ec03d29-e0d5-b139-d0cf-896f4d3325cd" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Best regards,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4527" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span id="yui_3_15_0_5_1498128846402_90" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Ralph Frost</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4525" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4508" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4507" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4510" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4505" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="http://magnetictetrahedra.com/" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4504" style="color: rgb(27, 56, 202) !important; text-decoration: none;"><span data-blkn-colour="rgba(17,85,204,1)" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4503" style="background-color: white; color: rgb(3, 71, 190) !important; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">http://magnetictetrahedra.com</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4501" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" href="http://structuredduality.blogspot.com/" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4500" style="color: rgb(27, 56, 202) !important; text-decoration: none;"><span data-blkn-colour="rgba(17,85,204,1)" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4499" style="background-color: white; color: rgb(3, 71, 190) !important; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">http://structuredduality.blogspot.com</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4512" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4537" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4536" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">With joy you will draw water</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4492" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4490" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3</span></div>
<span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="gmail-yui_3_15_0_4_1498128846402_10" style="font-family: "TimesNewRomanPSMT"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><br /><br /> </span></span><div class="ygroups-quoted" id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_4401">
<br /><br />---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, <alfredo .pereira=""> wrote :<br /><br /><div id="ygrps-yiv-2130874136">
Dear Chris and All:<div id="yui_3_15_0_2_1498128846402_3906">
<br /></div>
<div>
About
astrocytes and conscious activity, I would like to invite our
colleagues to read my recent publications that can be downloaded freely
using the links:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" data-rapid_p="1" href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315568664_The_Dynamical_Signature_of_Conscious_Processing_from_Modality-Specific_Percepts_to_Complex_Episodes" rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(27, 56, 202) !important;" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315568664_The_Dynamical_Signature_of_Conscious_Processing_from_Modality-Specific_Percepts_to_Complex_Episodes</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a data-blkn-colour="rgba(50,79,225,1)" data-rapid_p="2" href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312938888_Astroglial_hydro-ionic_waves_guided_by_the_extracellular_matrix_An_exploratory_model" rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(27, 56, 202) !important;" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312938888_Astroglial_hydro-ionic_waves_guided_by_the_extracellular_matrix_An_exploratory_model</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best Regards,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Alfredo</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</alfredo></div>
Ralph Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05172793367640153668noreply@blogger.com0