Re: Time again- Einstein's nesting problem

Dear Jo, Verna, and all,

Pardon me if I go out on a limb in this post but some of what you are both saying sets Einstein's nesting problem up like a golf ball on a tee, and assuming my poor one-eyed depth perception allows it, I'd like to club at it with a baseball bat.

Taking the longer background view, we're traveling a path where Descartes idealized space in the image of the cube then Newton and navigational history added absolute time.  Einstein and others came along to qualify that time  is relative and merged time with space just  as others peered into the fabric a bit more to discern some of the multiple quantum states.

Very roughly, here we all are, using a faster version of the global Guggenheim printing press, and, locally, here in the jcs-online niche we are trying to factor in and/or illuminate the what and how of ~consciousness  within modern science.

In the storyline I am advocating, here on the cusp of quantum gravity, there is an almost unspeakable underlying general principle supporting reality being nested fields within nested fields.  And notice that this image is different and meant to be, let's call it, "inward" from our familiar views where time or space-time  is a so-called fundamental dimension.

To get to and consider Einstein's nesting problem(s), though,  we first need to shift over to reality being nested fields within nested fields and then look a little closer at what he keeps claiming are  clocks, yardsticks and  observers and observers' frames of reference.

Do you see the problem or opportunity yet?

As nested fields within nested fields, the observer has a different energy and frequency from the clock but the observer also contains the idealized distinctions or associations (nested fields within nested fields) of "clock" and "time" and "observer".

The Frost model

Cooler than a case of Gatorade(tm).

The Frost model -- was :Re: A Quote

--- In general_theory@yahoogroups.com, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:
>
> 
> Ralph Frost on Wed, Jul 24, 2013 wrote:
> >Nested structured~duality; nested structural coding; nested fields 
> >within nested fields.
> .
> [S.P.] You forgot to mention the "nested structured frequency". 

[ralph]Yeah, thanks, Serge.  Since my synonyms may multiply and because frost is one of the most powerful crystallizing forces of nature, we may just need to switch over to and call a spade a spade -- the Frost model.

> So, it is how you see Reality, it is your meta-theory. Well. Now, please, demonstrate what applied theory can be constructed within the limits of your meta-theory.

[ralph] The imagery, the conceptual model generally comes out as "reality is nested structured~duality". I don't feel the need to capitalize reality, but that's neither here or there -- not a big thing. Or is it?

Or, I suppose for some it may be more informative to track on reality being nested fields within nested fields. It is a slightly more unified, more robust step up from dominant western scientific storyline.

>  I mean, what phenomena or processes you are able or going to explain. For instance, how your epistemological framework can help in explaining the mechanisms of perception, experiencing or knowing something?
> .
> With respect,
> Serge Patlavskiy
>

[ralph] I've been over this ground before but the general pattern, for instance, explains and accounts for the western cube/subject-object model, and the eastern tao/yin-yang paradigm.  The principle is the metadigm -- the model for all paradigms:  pick a structure; pick one or more ~dualities or differences and work outward to the limits of the initial procedural choices.

Your meta-theory instance is a pretty good example of yet another  a nested structured~duality, from my perspective. As is Craig's and Joseph's, and I suppose, Randi's, etc.

And, on the perception, experiencing or knowing something fronts, the principle underlies and is a decent common denominator for both the physical and the ~menatl/non-physical realms which dovetails nicely into getting our internal analog representations of our surroundings going within our mostly tetrahedral-shaped tructural coding in the 10^20 water molecules per second in our respiration and associated protein-folding expressions.  

So, in this storyline, there's just a few basic things to learn, and if one has difficulties, they can always acquire the deeper physical intuition simply by playing around with the magnetic tetrahedral analog math.  That is, the Frost model has some fairly decent, fairly unified ~mathematical-empirical connections.   That is, it's NOT founded just on  words but can also  be learned through doing. 


One advantage to settling in on reality being, say, nested structured~duality, or nested fields within nested fields is doing so allows one to organize or ~fold all the stuff in the physical and the mental realms down into the single  common denominator package.  This is what we'd hope for and expect to encounter in working with any of the more unified general principles.

Getting to this level of physical intuition (but via the analog rather than the abstract math route) is actually pretty shocking and also disruptive.  Also,  look back at the distance we have traveled. Way back in the distance is the crack in the western scientific paradigm shield wall. Through the crack, within the western trial theory, reality is allegedly  space and time or space-time and energy-matter and there is NO common denominator.   Along the Frost model trial, objectivity turns out to be strongly repeating subjectivity  and the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity emerges from within Descartes introductory subject-object approximation. 

All of this is terribly disruptive. Entire populations of incredibly intelligent and creative people have much of  their professional identities integrated within the Cartesian cube/subject-object instance of structured~duality, and here I am uttering the unspeakable, almost out loud.  The Cartesian cube/subject-object instance of structured~duality, after 370+ years guiding the initial phase of the scientific method, is passe. Get over it. Switch to seeing reality as nested fields within nested fields. Get on with it.

How very, very gauche of me.  

And yet, here we all are. 


So, yeah, Serge, these are some of the meanings the terms above provide and convey.   

Think about it and then take action.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wellls of salvation.

Re: News: Researchers identify [calcium] 'switch' for long-term memo

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Alfredo Pereira Júnior wrote:
>
> Dear Ralph:
>
> Many thanks for your forwarding of these news. The results confirm the
> roles of inter-cellular calcium (in water solutions). A very good
> review (with free access to full text) is Greer PE and Greenberg ME
> (2008) From Synapse to Nucleus: Calcium-Dependent Gene Transcription
> in the Control of Synapse Development and Function. Neuron 59 (6):
> 846–860.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alfredo Pereira Jr.
>

You're certainly welcome, Alfredo.

I appreciated that the summary pointed to longer-term memory development involving protein formation which reflects the structural coding storyline that I am advocating.

Also, am I interpreting that summary properly in thinking the authors measured/are referring to localized increases in concentration of calcium ions, which is different from the alleged quantum signaling in calcium waves in or near the gial cells that you are interested in?

Along with the nested fields within nested fields storyline that I am advocating,  I think it is worthwhile to emphasize that where there's calcium ion concentration changes, there's also changes in hydration and the 'concentration' (and structural coding) of water molecules.   So, it's not JUST the one thing -- a single element -- but, as Tom Mandel and other also emphasize, it's the entire system, the entire dynamic.  Thus my emphasis on the motif of nested fields within nested fields, nested structural frequency(ies), and nested structural coding.

Principle of structured frequency

Principle of structured frequency

Think of it as a derivative or as a special principle emerging from the general principle of structured~duality:Reality, nested fields within nested fields,  function in tune with the underlying principle of structured~frequency.

Similarly, the spectrum of subjectivity which is all about the frequency of nested repeating subjectivity. Similarly with pattern recognition and memory. Similarly with  elements in the periodic table and the standard model.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

En-Joy!

Re: Nested Monadologly

Hey, Serge,

Thanks for your helpful questions. I address some of them below, and yet I'm beginning to understand that you and I may have ~style, value,  interest, and framework differences that make for very difficult communication.  I presently  characterize these as  a clashes of intuition  with intellect, brevity contrasted with verbosity, simplicity within complexity, and perhaps differences in  intended audiences, goals, etc.  Yet, also, I'm getting the impression that a core issue here relates to the backward compatibility on conventional subject-object or subjectivity-objectivity orientation that each of us desire or require and/or have already integrated into our respective theoretical/explanatory expressions.

I get the impression from what I read or your model that you are invested in retaining subject-object and/or subjectivity-objectivity categories, values, and/or limits as somewhat scientifically sacrosanct.  And now here I am where I reduce subjectivity-objectivity to yet another instance of duality and then expose objectivity to be a strongly repeating form of subjectivity, therein slightly disrupting one of the ~370-year old western philosophical mores (the accepted traditional customs).   Recently, I am starting to see the sense in labeling adherence to this custom as some type of an addiction or co-addiction, that is, an unhelpful or hurtful dependence.

How very gauche of me. Yet it's another one of those dirty jobs that does have to get done. 

Senary logic and some old Science News

Recent discussions in jcs-online and general_theory re: Shannon information,  prompted me to read a bit  about his insights and contributions:

"Claude Elwood Shannon is considered as the founding father of electronic communications age. He is an American mathematical engineer, whose work on technical and engineering problems within the communications industry, laying the groundwork for both the computer industry and telecommunications. After Shannon noticed the similarity between Boolean algebra and the telephone switching circuits, he applied Boolean algebra to electrical systems at the Massachusetts Institute of technology (MIT) in 1940. Later he joined the staff of Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1942. While working at Bell Laboratories, he formulated a theory explaining the communication of information and worked on the problem of most efficiently transmitting information. The mathematical theory of communication was the climax of Shannon's mathematical and engineering investigations. The concept of entropy was an important feature of Shannon's theory, which he demonstrated to be equivalent to a shortage in the information content (a degree of uncertainty) in a message."  http://www.nyu.edu/pages/linguistics/courses/v610003/shan.html

In thinking (for the first time) about his notion of entropy being a shortage in the information content (a degree of uncertainty) in a message, and also about his focus being on binary digits, having the "two" truth values, I had an epiphany, of a sort, actually a couple, where (1) in thinking, yes, we are always faced with a shortage, or what feels more like a hole which we are always trying to fill, or arrange into a flow channel, where we have a question and seek an answer (or need to create an invention).  And (2),  binary digits  seem to also just have ONE "truth" value: true; the other being false.  And (3), uncertainty (or Shannon's type of entropy as a measure of the uncertainty) is deeply related to yes-no and also maybe.  That is,  Shannon (among many other things) noticed that in the developing Boolean perspective during the 1940's, there is, for instance, yes and no, but then ALSO, lots of maybe, or uncertainty, or adding the technical jargon-term: entropy as a measure of the amount of maybe.