Nesting as a core feature. Was: Re: Is the universe driven by mathematics or is it driven by aesthetics

What do you think -- either/or, or both and more?

 There are many, many ways to say that there is some kind of resonance going on.  Aesthetics is one impression or expression.  Initially, when reading yanniru's question/statement, I was thinking about the mathematics, particularly the rational widgets, all being geared back into stochiometry, which is basically about fit and/or resonance and, one or my favorites: nested structure  or actually, the nested structured-duality -- if we are to paradoxically but adroitly  acquire a solid non-dual understanding of ourselves down into the technological/symbolic/transformational depths of our surroundings.

 It seems to me we might benefit by  by noticing that associations and relations do involve the nested, both and more circumstance and that the symbolism, or the conceptual model of nested structured~duality is the imagery that we seek to model the type of vibratory standing waves and  transportation needed in this neck of the quantum gravitational woods. 

 Additionally, what most often turns  out to be false are our beliefs -- our paradigmatic assumptions. Don't you think?

 Those flawed associations are merely one small (and negotiable) fraction of the local nested structured~duality.

Both AND more:  math and stochiometry -- math and energy and matter and associations and memories and protein-folding and nested fields within nested fields...

 Nesting is a core, central feature, supporting both and more.

Re: [jcs-online] RE: Re: Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Very well said, Z7.  Nested processes. No, re-animating our dead temporal  model does not make excellent sense.

Yet, would you go a step further and agree that relying upon a large useful fiction at the very heart of one's conceptual model/scientific paradigm is a rather unscientific, unhelpful  and even  disruptive, threatening  endeavor, long-term?

Assuming we are nested fields within nested fields -- variable mass densities bobbling around within the enfolding quantum-electromagnetic-gravitational fields, nested self-energized encapsulated beings endowed with motility and many other exquisite, creative abilities---- yes, we appear to occupy fixed positions within the slowly changing geologic field, ourselves and our projectiles moving about within space and time , and/or within space-time (earth and near-earth environments), but which conceptual model actually is less fictional and more apt?

The expression which I often favor, "Experience exists; time does not",  may be a tad extreme, but I see it more as an appropriate way --like smacking a rampaging steer across the forehead with a eight foot two-by-four-- just to get the beast's attention.  Wake up!

RE: Are nested structured dualities a series of dilemmas?

Tom, 

As I move  a bit through some of my developmental blocks, edging slightly ~forward through the separation of "good and bad", or not seeing something as "all good, or all bad",  this morning I awoke thinking  that the nested structured~duality  (NSD, as you once referenced it)  in the Frost model is rather like my descriptive yet complicated and evasive way of saying "unified". And,as I pondered upon the nested fractions or levels of organization, and wondered  about all our hyphenated terms: wave-particle, aware-ized energy, structured~duality, space-time, one-half, rational-intuitive, subjective-objective (or rare-strong repeatable subjectivity) ,etc.,  I found myself thinking that some dilemmas  (and perhaps dis-parities)  arise  from our attempts to frame our experience in just ONE way, usually the FIRST way that we experience, encounter, learn, associate, memorize it.  And we walk around attempting to reduce the unified complexity down to just the one way.   

Since reality is nested structured~duality --unified-- our BIG reductive efforts and   attempts fail and we register that paradigmatic conflict as a dilemma. 

RE: Are nested structured dualities a series of dilemmas?

 ---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

Ralph,

When you say "disparity" and I say "dilemma", are we talking about the same thing (in general)?

[rf11/7]  In general, I suppose, yes, Tom.   It is Marvin, though, who says disparities, and you who says dilemmas (and/or action-identities), and previously physicists who say wave-particle and previously, others [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus] who say infinitesimals-indivisibles, and then others who say subjective-objective or tao/yin-yang.   

In general, yes, we're all struggling  to express: "Glurg... yes, lots of differences giving variety and adaptation, but also  reality, our experience, is unified!" 

I am saying nested structured~dualities --more unified-- in attempt to give an approximate working expression to the root class or category. If you look closely, surprisingly enough, the trial theory I am advocating also comes with its own branch into introductory, confirming (analog) math. 

Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Thinking while moving inside and outside the box.

On waking today and before reading Verna's prior post (Sept 9, More on time http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/topics/11606 re: David Deutsch's snapshots allegedly ~moving left-to-right) -- and on day-3 of a water fast, I awoke pondering the paradigm transition: flat-to-curvy-to-nested.  

 

Verna's provocative  point, to me, was in her laying out the snapshots and then describing how we label one snapshot as 'now' and then impose  or overlay our habitual Cartesian-like left-to-right ~motion/development assumption and then get into our typical notions about the passage or flow of 'time'.  

 

In the trial theory I am advocating,  which holds that reality is nested structured~duality  or nested fields  within nested fields,  I'm getting the impression it is advantageous to consider that each snapshot (to continue on with Deutsch's/Verna's imagery)  is  predominantly pulsating ~in/out supported by/forming from the underlying nested fields within nested fields. 

 

A bacterial view of subjective/objective and, get your gestalt on

A bacterial view of subjective/objective:

Background:  View, or think back to http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html  

which is Bonnie Bassler's wonderful TED talk on How Bacteria 'Talk'. 

In that she  described that bacteria track on both specie-specific and specie-non-specific chemical signals in their environment and, if that way can distinguish, roughly, between ~self and other.    Of course, to an individual cell, this detection is very personal in that the structurally coded impressions are in various proportions to types of connections in receptor sites.   And yes, it seem quite akin to various neural and neurotransmitter connections.  Doesn't it?

Me-you. Self-other.  Safety-threat.  All not far from the subjective-objective duality or complimentarity. 

Get your gestalt on:

In the trial theory I am advocating, so the story goes, our cells run the respiration reaction and generate  stacks and sequences of the ~six possible states of water molecules being formed in the reaction, reflective of conditions in the surrounds.   Now, if one is sensitive enough one can first imagine feeling and then, with some tree-hugging practice, *feel* the various feels that associate with the various  structurally coded stacks that are always forming.  Go ahead. Try it. 

Bonnie Bassler's TED Talk - How Bacteria Talk

This is an incredible TED Talk.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html  

Take a few minutes to watch and ponder.