Continued thread on fundamentals of mathematics (Assuming R=NSD)

Bruno,

Some clarification  regarding you saying I assume physical reality... My prior (long) reply was truncated. Perhaps just as well.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

..snip..

[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”.

[rf]  

I do start with the answer, but I don't "assume something physical".  The difference, though, I think, is 

(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,  

whereas,

(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". 

Thus, in your comp storyline, you assume AR and aim to derive, or have your Turing devices derive  ~physical reality (carbon, electron), whereas in

[Sadhu Sanga] Re: Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

Bruno, 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (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 independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (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 AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...".  

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.

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?   

And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?

Can you please clarify and explain?

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/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.   

[sadhu-sanga] Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

Bruno, 

First, thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false.   Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

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 nested structured~duality.  Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Some comments below..

[Which Mechanism? How many are there? Terseness and delivering physical intuition as measures of effectiveness.]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Collapsing the wave function

Sadhu-sanga - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/EpjvabjxXuA/70WAL5hhBAAJ


Dear  Kasyap, others,

Regarding stochasticity,  I think there are also alternatives to the models and perspectives that you and others advocate or discuss. 

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".

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.   

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.

Collapsing the wave function

=============
 (Would you hubris on that?)

 [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...

Excerpt from post in  https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/EpjvabjxXuA   Sep 27, 2017
=============

sci.physics.research Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis

sci.physics.research ›

Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis

(07/25/2017)

Interesting clarifications, Jan.

Regarding agreed upon dimensions, typed algebras, decisions and
adoptions of conventions, and standardization in units in terms of of T
(or 1/T), doesn't all of this also expose why or how, people got/get the
idea that '~consciousness' and/or observation is ~necessary/related in
sorting out quantum mechanical ~results? ...That is, the ~mental-related
qualities or aspects are already (sub-consciously) inserted in an
earlier, previously adopted set of conventions and thus are already
'nested' in the activity/experience.

In the storyline I advocate and express, 'reality is nested
structured~duality' which means pick a structure and pick a duality
(that is, had I had a better math education, aka, in your terms: 'typed
algebras'). But, with this more unified (NSD) perspective, what we also
have is nested fields within nested fields, rather than just an
idealized or assumed L^3 (length-cubed) container containing other
collections which somehow, inexplicably pop in and out of
particle-anti-particle existence.

One can sort of conceptualize 1/T vibrational features in a nested
fields within nested fields system, perhaps as sub-divided tetrahedra
within tetrahedra, whereas it seems a bit more difficult to grasp 1/T
everywhere starting with the initial condition of an un-nested L^3,
cubic model.


Thoughts?

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

Reality is nested structured~duality.

Nested Quanta - Acquiring Knowledge -- NSD-style

Nested quanta

Hey, thanks, RLG, for the link on quantum mysticism,  which led me to then skim over the many, many interpretations of quantum mechanics at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Quite a few, different complicated  instances of NSD there... .-)

In the quantum information theories or interpretations section,
the latter contained:

"""

Quantum informational approaches^[35] have attracted growing support.^[36][5] They subdivide into two kinds^[37]

• Information ontologies, such as J. A. Wheeler's "it from bit". These approaches have been described as a revival of immaterialism^[38]
• Interpretations where quantum mechanics is said to describe an observer's knowledge of the world, rather than the world itself. This approach has some similarity with Bohr's thinking.^[39] Collapse (also known as reduction) is often interpreted as an observer acquiring information from a measurement, rather than as an objective event. These approaches have been appraised as similar to instrumentalism. """

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."""

The latter prompts me to consider what it means to 'acquire information from a measurement'. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics ). 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'.

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.

And, also thanks, of course, to RLG's contributions. 

So, thanks, RLG  ...and to all others!

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..

http://magnetictetrahedra.com
http://structuredduality.blogspot.com


With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3