Re: [jcs-online] Re: re wtf universal computation
Errol,
FYI, just to refresh your recollection, in your earlier Dec 19th post you wrote: "[EM]When does free will occur timewise? It takes a finite amount of time for electro-chemicals to cross the synaptic cleft."
So, your "timewise" inquiry, to me, is you bringing up time first.
Also,
to me, it is you exposing some of the ingrained, embedded temporal
assumption(s) in the dominant scientific paradigm that seem to guide or
support your and others' --Is it rightly called?-- fatalistic thinking,
including your rationalizations wrt to free will as a no-show. Or,
perhaps how you see it, more fairly, is in your storyline you think you
adequately and accurately define reality and behavior in terms of
genetics and environmental experience alone, thus with with no need or
room for free will. And, within that gameboard, Errol, you do do a
consistent job repeating your mantra.
From my perspective,
where reality is nested structured~duality (NSD), and on a more applied
level: nested structural coding, I notice that even Darwin points out
that environmental conditions influence genetics, that is, these various
structural codings are nested and intertwined. Yet, in your model, I
don't see where you acknowledge even that small the inherent nesting
and thus, to me. it looks like your model is not of the reality we
inhabit and thus your conclusions about the existence, or not, of free
will strike me as hollow and/or motivated by other, less rational or
scientific objectives.
As for your questions about influencing
or changing one's genetics, current events in genetic engineering give
an affirmative or developing answer. As well, people can or do
influence or change their sons' and daughters' and grand-children's
genetics. Legalistically, that's not changing my individual genetics...
or is it?
Considering the nesting between environmental
conditions and genetic changes, it does appear that we all can follow
an intuition to move out of one valley or climate to others where
different foods and resources exist, all of which induce other nested
changes.
More comments below...
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Friday, September 9, 2016
How NSD accounts for perception
[From jsc-online, September 6, 2016]
JR3: Quite a vague statement Ralph. The questions about how we perceive events is still in play. How does NSD account for perception?
[rf] I currently think that in presenting an alternative way to conceptualize reality (both the physical and the mental regions) -- besides, or in addition to the way folks do within the cube/subject-object trial theory and its epicycles, that NSD is like a second, and actually broader and more accurate perspective. In that, I see it more like another tool.
Does NSD actually account for perception? Let's face one fact. First, the dominant cube/subject-object instance of NSD obviously doesn't or hasn't so far. Do you disagree? And this is after, let's say, a huge number of incredibly intelligent people working hundreds of millions of lifetimes on the project.
That fact sort of indicates that there's something amiss at the roots of the cube/subject-object model. Or it indicates that to me.
Stepping off that cliff, the logical thing is to try ANY other instance of nested structured~duality. You, JR3, run your aware-ized energy; Serge runs his IIS[] and dis-dec-as... instance; Hameroff (abandons ordered water) and goes with Penrose toward microtubules resonating in quantum gravity; on and on and on. Many, many, many views of the elephant; ALL instances of NSD.
In my storyline, there is not much intelligence in getting it started. I asked a variation of questions posed by R. Buckminster Fuller: What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets? It turns out what you get is a handheld variable mass density, one-half spin-related multiple-state artifact. Oops, physical intuition of modern scientific features in one move on the gameboard, but without the arduous abstract mathematics pre-requisites.
Looking into this finding, one discovers (or, makes up) the underlying general principle of structured duality -- things have structure and have or exhibit one or more dualities or differences -- or similar terminology that most people don't like.
But, there you have it: reality is nested structured~duality, coupled with noticing the ~6^n structural coding implicitly available in the 10^20 tetrahedral water molecules generated per second within our respiration. So this gets experience structurally coding hydrogen bonding packets intimately related with our energy collection/conservation -- which makes sense because that is what the so-called consciousness is tasked with or supposed to do -- assist with growth and sustenance. So, we are down to genetic, epi-genetic and metabolic structural coding, including enzymatic structural coding that all play rather direct roles in energy conservation and expression (protein-folding).
Then, when or IF we can break with the tradition of assuming empty space within the incrementally stacked cubic framework, and somehow transition to beginning with a single tetrahedron and then adding increments of the same total edge length, such that the second and subsequent increments connect the midpoints of all tetrahedral edges, the new 'NSD' model has tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra... all the way down.
So, now kids are learning a multiple-state nested fields within nested fields, incrementing/quantum level model from day one (theoretically) and, though not perfect, the 'math' matches up with the HUGE fraction of our tetrahedral-structured self and surroundings as well as the 6^n structural coding in the tetrahedral units making up our being.
In this way, NSD gives us a different instance of NSD to consider (tetrahedron/north-south) and with that a slightly more coherent view of our reality.
In providing the different view, it also facilitates our shifting back and forth between the two instances which, I think, sheds some light on how we perceive and how perception is related to the model (s) we employ.
JR3: Quite a vague statement Ralph. The questions about how we perceive events is still in play. How does NSD account for perception?
[rf] I currently think that in presenting an alternative way to conceptualize reality (both the physical and the mental regions) -- besides, or in addition to the way folks do within the cube/subject-object trial theory and its epicycles, that NSD is like a second, and actually broader and more accurate perspective. In that, I see it more like another tool.
Does NSD actually account for perception? Let's face one fact. First, the dominant cube/subject-object instance of NSD obviously doesn't or hasn't so far. Do you disagree? And this is after, let's say, a huge number of incredibly intelligent people working hundreds of millions of lifetimes on the project.
That fact sort of indicates that there's something amiss at the roots of the cube/subject-object model. Or it indicates that to me.
Stepping off that cliff, the logical thing is to try ANY other instance of nested structured~duality. You, JR3, run your aware-ized energy; Serge runs his IIS[] and dis-dec-as... instance; Hameroff (abandons ordered water) and goes with Penrose toward microtubules resonating in quantum gravity; on and on and on. Many, many, many views of the elephant; ALL instances of NSD.
In my storyline, there is not much intelligence in getting it started. I asked a variation of questions posed by R. Buckminster Fuller: What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets? It turns out what you get is a handheld variable mass density, one-half spin-related multiple-state artifact. Oops, physical intuition of modern scientific features in one move on the gameboard, but without the arduous abstract mathematics pre-requisites.
Looking into this finding, one discovers (or, makes up) the underlying general principle of structured duality -- things have structure and have or exhibit one or more dualities or differences -- or similar terminology that most people don't like.
But, there you have it: reality is nested structured~duality, coupled with noticing the ~6^n structural coding implicitly available in the 10^20 tetrahedral water molecules generated per second within our respiration. So this gets experience structurally coding hydrogen bonding packets intimately related with our energy collection/conservation -- which makes sense because that is what the so-called consciousness is tasked with or supposed to do -- assist with growth and sustenance. So, we are down to genetic, epi-genetic and metabolic structural coding, including enzymatic structural coding that all play rather direct roles in energy conservation and expression (protein-folding).
Then, when or IF we can break with the tradition of assuming empty space within the incrementally stacked cubic framework, and somehow transition to beginning with a single tetrahedron and then adding increments of the same total edge length, such that the second and subsequent increments connect the midpoints of all tetrahedral edges, the new 'NSD' model has tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra... all the way down.
So, now kids are learning a multiple-state nested fields within nested fields, incrementing/quantum level model from day one (theoretically) and, though not perfect, the 'math' matches up with the HUGE fraction of our tetrahedral-structured self and surroundings as well as the 6^n structural coding in the tetrahedral units making up our being.
In this way, NSD gives us a different instance of NSD to consider (tetrahedron/north-south) and with that a slightly more coherent view of our reality.
In providing the different view, it also facilitates our shifting back and forth between the two instances which, I think, sheds some light on how we perceive and how perception is related to the model (s) we employ.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Can Gauge Symmetry Be Understood Conceptually?
On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 3:56:58 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> Is there a way to explain gauge symmetry/gauge invariance conceptually,
> i.e., without mathematics or any abstract constructs.
>
> This would require a pictorial representation involving known physical
> objects, their observable motions, and non-abstract dynamic/geometric
> reasoning.
>
> Is this possible?
Robert,
Others may disagree, but I think
that expression is actually
a fairly straightforward thing
to put on the table. Doing so
though, involves expanding
the problem statement or
expression so as to also
illustrate (approximately)
the symmetry/invariance
with abstract mathematics.
(That is, to also show the
symmetry that accounts,
albeit, perhaps only intuitively,
for the unreasonable
effectiveness of mathematics.)
> Is there a way to explain gauge symmetry/gauge invariance conceptually,
> i.e., without mathematics or any abstract constructs.
>
> This would require a pictorial representation involving known physical
> objects, their observable motions, and non-abstract dynamic/geometric
> reasoning.
>
> Is this possible?
Robert,
Others may disagree, but I think
that expression is actually
a fairly straightforward thing
to put on the table. Doing so
though, involves expanding
the problem statement or
expression so as to also
illustrate (approximately)
the symmetry/invariance
with abstract mathematics.
(That is, to also show the
symmetry that accounts,
albeit, perhaps only intuitively,
for the unreasonable
effectiveness of mathematics.)
Friday, July 1, 2016
Re: Understanding reality in order to understand consciousness
Serge,
Is
my assertion (changing our understanding of reality -- changing
scientific tenets/paradigms -- FIRST; is a prerequisite to developing
an effective model of consciousness) comforting to you and in line with
your thinking, or is that approach in conflict with your rationality
and logic and thus cannot be allowed to co-exist with your approach and
system?
Comforting or in conflict?
...
...
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
Ralph Frost on June 28, 2016 wrote:
>On another level, the meta-theory IS the underlying general principle
>of nested structured~duality (NSD). In my approach, reality is NSD.
>If I were trying to populate some of your many categories I might say
>the the MT and GS and AT .. levels are all NSD.
.
[S.P.]
Can you, please, consider any example from real life and demonstrate
how your "underlying general principle of nested structured~duality
(NSD)" works?
[rf]
How it works? Generally, I expect one off-the-cuff answer to that
question is it "works" via or through nested structural coding, which
perhaps you and other readers can think of as resonance. Consider the
statement of the basic principle: all things have some structure and
have and/or exhibit one or more sets of differences (dualities). The
'nested' aspect of the different levels of organization (nested
structure) promotes variations in influences and interactions. On the
physical side of things, perhaps you might want to consider the
spherical/in-out instance of NSD presented in, for instance:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Albert-Einstein-Principles-Physics.htm
On the ~mental side of the fence, perhaps you and other readers can
reflect upon pattern recognition within different contexts and also
within different paradigmatic models or belief systems.
In
the real life experiences of changing paradigms, there come moments or
periods just before the shift where, let's say, two models (or instances
of nested structured~duality) fit the same sets of experiences or
measures (or instances of nested structured~duality). Having the
various aspects of the puzzle and the descriptions and potential
outcomes all in the same category (instances of NSD) simplifies the
analytical tasks that participants face making it somewhat easier to
first conceptualize or imagine alternative paradigmatic instances [they
are, after all, just different instances of NSD], and then for
participants to assess which alternative is more general/more terse than
others -- have greater load-carrying capacity. Again, having both
physical artifacts and phenomena as well as mental/descriptive artifacts
within the same single category allows for some productive descriptive,
conceptual, analytical efficiencies which are simply not available in
less unified, more verbose models.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Understanding reality first in order to understand consciousness.
-- To build an effective model of consciousness, first, redefine
reality, that is, change scientific paradigms. And, of course, the challenge is seeing what is unseen, and saying what previously has no expression. (Ralph Frost, 06/21/2016)
In the quest to develop a so-called science of consciousness, in hindsight I notice that the tact I've taken (or was led or stumbled into) is to first re-define reality.
Psychotic and grandiose as that sounds and is, it turns out that in the "consciousness movement" there is already some logic and history with that approach. That is, briefly, the entire panpsychic enterprise engages in that approach -- of re-defining reality in terms of, or as "consciousness", or in variations of "consciousness units" (or monads, etc.) Also, implied in the on-going debate about physical versus non-physical which is, of course, embedded and locked in due to the prevailing adoption of the definition of (physical) reality in terms of our familiar physical units. Logic also tells us that IF the prevailing scientific paradigm were robust enough and accurate enough, the job would already have been completed decades ago and would NOT be discussed today or in the various ways and terms which it is.
So, there is all this evidence --or are they just indications?-- which call for opening door number two -- for revising the scientific paradigm for real -- for re-defining reality first. Once that step is taken, people can migrate to the so-called transcendent level and then the lights can go on on the new expressions which will become the science(s) of consciousness.
As an added impetus, the split-brained nature of the dominant quantum-relativistic (physical) scientific model itself continues to send disquieting signals throughout the fabric of reality. The disquieting signals have echoes throughout economic, environmental, species diversity indices, educational, social and cultural networks. Yes, it is time to change the global scientific paradigm.
And, of course, the challenge is seeing what is unseen, and saying what previously has no expression.
One view of the story line I am advocating might have it that, like was my experience, all one needs to do is start in with analog math, observe the principle and add the re-definition. That is, play around with magnetic tetrahedra so as to acquire the physical intuition and learn the principle of structured~duality firsthand, and then notice that reality is nested structured~duality.
All enclosed in one empirically backed paragraph.
Enjoy.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
http://frostscientific.com Coming soon: Paradigm transition and lifelong learning all for for $7
In the quest to develop a so-called science of consciousness, in hindsight I notice that the tact I've taken (or was led or stumbled into) is to first re-define reality.
Psychotic and grandiose as that sounds and is, it turns out that in the "consciousness movement" there is already some logic and history with that approach. That is, briefly, the entire panpsychic enterprise engages in that approach -- of re-defining reality in terms of, or as "consciousness", or in variations of "consciousness units" (or monads, etc.) Also, implied in the on-going debate about physical versus non-physical which is, of course, embedded and locked in due to the prevailing adoption of the definition of (physical) reality in terms of our familiar physical units. Logic also tells us that IF the prevailing scientific paradigm were robust enough and accurate enough, the job would already have been completed decades ago and would NOT be discussed today or in the various ways and terms which it is.
So, there is all this evidence --or are they just indications?-- which call for opening door number two -- for revising the scientific paradigm for real -- for re-defining reality first. Once that step is taken, people can migrate to the so-called transcendent level and then the lights can go on on the new expressions which will become the science(s) of consciousness.
As an added impetus, the split-brained nature of the dominant quantum-relativistic (physical) scientific model itself continues to send disquieting signals throughout the fabric of reality. The disquieting signals have echoes throughout economic, environmental, species diversity indices, educational, social and cultural networks. Yes, it is time to change the global scientific paradigm.
And, of course, the challenge is seeing what is unseen, and saying what previously has no expression.
One view of the story line I am advocating might have it that, like was my experience, all one needs to do is start in with analog math, observe the principle and add the re-definition. That is, play around with magnetic tetrahedra so as to acquire the physical intuition and learn the principle of structured~duality firsthand, and then notice that reality is nested structured~duality.
All enclosed in one empirically backed paragraph.
Enjoy.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
http://frostscientific.com Coming soon: Paradigm transition and lifelong learning all for for $7
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies
JR3,
Regarding your well-intentioned attempts and question about why bite the hand that feeds you -- or other such queries, I think what PB may be doing is, say, laying rhetorical or alternate-paradigm logical groundwork to support the (his) ~answer: [dark matter/energy, biophotons, etc.] In order to make that ~conclusion, when stated, effective, it may seem best in some perspectives to maximize confusion/uncertainty about ~self and mind-body etc.
Thus, clarifying 'self' or presenting obvious self facts and relations is not that helpful. -- For instance, each one of our selves does have influential parents or caregivers (in varying degrees) who taught us how to protein-fold words in our languages and we go on to structurally code other, sometimes new and sometimes awesome protein-foldings to convey other new influences and perspectives. Amid this also, all exists as mystery, folded and compounded within nested fields within nested fields, gradients of circulating energy, gradients of nested structured~duality -- structured differences reflecting and refracting, etc., from various interactive surfaces. One developing perspective MAY be the dark-light oscillations.
In the story line I articulate and advocate, solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies, as I was taught/learned, in the mostly tetrahedral sp^3-hybridized molecular bonding in our so-called "organic chemistry". Now, today, comes this mild insight that we call it sp^3 HYBRIDIZED because of our initialization with the cubic orientation. We start out with the cubic framework and then discover that we must HYBRIDIZE (adjust) the cubic orientations of 1s and 3p electron groupings to match with (natural, mostly tetrahedral) measured bond angles. Had our science started out with tetrahedral structural coordination to begin with, it's likely we would have some substantially different concepts and impressions about 'hybridization' and types of chemistries and the ~significance or specialness of our "organic, resonance stabilized bondings". This is one example where choice of framework (coordinate system) is not relativistically equal but does actually influence STEM-related outcomes, concepts and beliefs.
Regarding your well-intentioned attempts and question about why bite the hand that feeds you -- or other such queries, I think what PB may be doing is, say, laying rhetorical or alternate-paradigm logical groundwork to support the (his) ~answer: [dark matter/energy, biophotons, etc.] In order to make that ~conclusion, when stated, effective, it may seem best in some perspectives to maximize confusion/uncertainty about ~self and mind-body etc.
Thus, clarifying 'self' or presenting obvious self facts and relations is not that helpful. -- For instance, each one of our selves does have influential parents or caregivers (in varying degrees) who taught us how to protein-fold words in our languages and we go on to structurally code other, sometimes new and sometimes awesome protein-foldings to convey other new influences and perspectives. Amid this also, all exists as mystery, folded and compounded within nested fields within nested fields, gradients of circulating energy, gradients of nested structured~duality -- structured differences reflecting and refracting, etc., from various interactive surfaces. One developing perspective MAY be the dark-light oscillations.
In the story line I articulate and advocate, solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies, as I was taught/learned, in the mostly tetrahedral sp^3-hybridized molecular bonding in our so-called "organic chemistry". Now, today, comes this mild insight that we call it sp^3 HYBRIDIZED because of our initialization with the cubic orientation. We start out with the cubic framework and then discover that we must HYBRIDIZE (adjust) the cubic orientations of 1s and 3p electron groupings to match with (natural, mostly tetrahedral) measured bond angles. Had our science started out with tetrahedral structural coordination to begin with, it's likely we would have some substantially different concepts and impressions about 'hybridization' and types of chemistries and the ~significance or specialness of our "organic, resonance stabilized bondings". This is one example where choice of framework (coordinate system) is not relativistically equal but does actually influence STEM-related outcomes, concepts and beliefs.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
sci.physics.research › A Better Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?
> time T will Have a different probability
> at T', think of radioactive decay,
> which is contextuality.
>
> The goal of MWI, which is similar
> with Bohm's QM formalism, is that
> QM is unitary "all the way down,"
> including during measurements. This more
> generally also means decoherence of
> the density matrix. Observers and apparatus
> are ultimately quantum mechanical, but we
> have still this "gap" in our descriptions.
> This is particularly if we are to follow
> Bohr's dictum that experimental outcomes
> must be classical.
>
> LC
One way to hold with this Bohr dictum
and also earnestly face, I guess it is
the paradox or conflict arising with
the Kochen-Specker theorem, as you write
above, Lawrence, of, among other
requirements, needing or expecting
an odd nine whereas the standard or
accepted mathematical formulation
only provides an even eight, is
summarized below.
Hopefully, readers can pardon my
non-standard notation which
I will claim here today are
largely required by both
constraints.
1. The solution, let's say, begins with
eight unit vectors pointing outward
from a center point to the vertices
of a cube.
2. The next step is to sequentially,
perhaps imaginatively,
one-half rotate, oscillate or
re-orient each of the eight
unit vectors, end-for-end, so as
to form the nine, let's call them,
'states', of this eight-unit-vector
cube.
> at T', think of radioactive decay,
> which is contextuality.
>
> The goal of MWI, which is similar
> with Bohm's QM formalism, is that
> QM is unitary "all the way down,"
> including during measurements. This more
> generally also means decoherence of
> the density matrix. Observers and apparatus
> are ultimately quantum mechanical, but we
> have still this "gap" in our descriptions.
> This is particularly if we are to follow
> Bohr's dictum that experimental outcomes
> must be classical.
>
> LC
One way to hold with this Bohr dictum
and also earnestly face, I guess it is
the paradox or conflict arising with
the Kochen-Specker theorem, as you write
above, Lawrence, of, among other
requirements, needing or expecting
an odd nine whereas the standard or
accepted mathematical formulation
only provides an even eight, is
summarized below.
Hopefully, readers can pardon my
non-standard notation which
I will claim here today are
largely required by both
constraints.
1. The solution, let's say, begins with
eight unit vectors pointing outward
from a center point to the vertices
of a cube.
2. The next step is to sequentially,
perhaps imaginatively,
one-half rotate, oscillate or
re-orient each of the eight
unit vectors, end-for-end, so as
to form the nine, let's call them,
'states', of this eight-unit-vector
cube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)