There are many challenges in a paradigm transition related to language or expression, many of which, like habits, preferences, prejudices, interpretations and other structural coding, are also deeply ingrained in participants. The challenge in the present transition is a bit more complicated in that migrating to the improved trial theory minimally makes a step in revealing how mental and physical patterns and artifacts ride along on the same underlying, unifying general principle. Getting to that new ground involves learning at least one or two new words -- new language acquisition -- and that step -- learning a new language -- is usually pretty difficult for all of us.
Your representation as 'nested hierarchies' of what I actually emphasize [magnetic tetrahedra, the principle of structured~duality, structural coding, nested fields within nested fields], in the storyline I am advocating is a somewhat fair, but also somewhat misleading characterization. The hierarchies imagery is somewhat descriptive and may be excellent for linking back toward abstract math expressions of fractals or holograms. But the term falls down just a bit when defining all of reality as nested hierarchies. Yeah, it sort of works, but not as well, or as independently as actually crossing the boundary to all of reality being nested structured~duality. I suspect many readers can catch this nuance since the new term is sufficiently open to contain the expanded terrain whereas 'nested hierarchies' is already a bit too limited for that task.
As for languages in which evidentiality is obligatory such as Turkish, Tibetan, Bulgarian, Quechua, Tariana and Korean, there are apparently (...from a quick skim of http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hyams/papers/2013%20Rett%20Hyams%20and%20Winans.pdf.pdf ) various ways to encode (to structure) various evidence markers in languages, including markers or inflections in verbs. It's a bit interesting to think that a Tibetan child may acquire the extra inferential support needed for such ~complications (from my English bias) as young as by age two and then naturally attempt to exhibit a modified form of that evidentiality into a second language such as English. That occurence might point out the likely advantages of learning one language prior to learning another, say, for instance as in learning the states of a magnetic tetrahedron prior to trying to learn quantum mechanics...
It's also a bit interesting to consider that science appears to have developed or at least propagated well within languages where the obligation for evidence is NOT embedded within the language structure itself but, in the case of science, requires explicit associations and markers such as experimental results, footnotes, bibliographies or hyperlinks.
As for your preference for nested hierarchies to be cast into fractal abstract mathematics, after the fact where folks migrate across the paradigm bridge, I can vaguely imagine such a specialization would be useful, particularly for all those who have ability and a preference for abstract mathematics -- similar James Maxwell's abstractions five decades after Michael Faraday's discoveries. Fractals surely may be one way to go, but when it comes down to this transition, what about all of the rest of mathematical physics and other instances of nested structured~duality? Why pick just fractals? And, realistically (if I may even used that word), the actual abstract math is already cast in going from tiling and nesting organic molecules into the highly idealized magnetic tetrahedron. The 'answer' that we seek first is in the analog math, not in the secondary or tertiary abstract math expressions. The abstract math is just too weak to spark the shift in awareness.
You MIGHT be able to follow this if you first skim through the pictures in http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/egyptian.html on Archimedean Tilings and Egyptian Fractions by John Baez. The various tilings generally involve patterns having a particular common length. While multicolored, the patterns are just a superficial or two-dimensional coding. What we have within us, however, are multi-dimensional artifacts structurally coding in a nested fashion in, say, our genetics, respiration, and our anabolic and catabolic metabolism. That's where all our analog math is running. That more complicated internal analog tiling is embodied or hinted at in the magnetic tetrahedron. that is where the analog math begins and it is empirical so a participant immediately acquires some physical intuition, particularly, directly on spin, charge and orbital position.
A couple of steps later, one appreciates states, structural coding within respiration, nested fields within nested fields, and bobbling along within the quantum gravitational fusion flux. That's the power of the analog math.
Contrast the flow of physical intuition from the analog math expression with what flow naturally from the modern day monadology.
As as a co-founder of the differential and integral calculus, I would think Leibniz's focus on monads co-related with or would have been strongly motivated by him developing SOME way to rationalize why tiny differences and increments fit and functioned so nicely within abstract mathematical expressions.
In this present section of the journey where we encounter electrons as halon, spinor and orbiton fields, nested within other fields giving a richer account for the double-slit experiement, perhaps we begin to get some sense for the secondary abstract math arising from the primary, internal analog math. How these mathons will square with monons (or monads) remains to be fully appreciated and experienced.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
http://frostscientific.com
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
----
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment