Thursday, August 14, 2014

Paradigm Transition Support

Dear Joseph,

Again, let me say that I don't yet track on what your specific worries actually are relating to me advocating a more unified trial scientific theory where reality: both the physical and mental artifacts and realms,  is nested structured~duality. 

From your statements below, it appears to me that you somehow have a fear that you or other individuals will somehow "lose yourself", if you or others even become familiar with, understand or begin to think of reality, the physical and mental realms, in terms of the single tenet -- as nested structured~duality. 

I can clearly imagine that other people would not like to "become Ralph", nor would I recommend it. But why on Earth would you endeavor to make up such a false  frightening tale or suggest that such a  thing could even occur? To "become Ralph" would take people having   the complete same set and sequences of all my experiences. That ship has sailed and everyone else is already happily, or not, sailing about on their own winds.    I think it is wonderfully pleasant that God knits each of us together in different, special, completely unique ways.  Don't you? 

The basic point of intersection that I advocate, offer,  and share, basically goes back to the single right hemispheric-like question:  the novelty of "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets?".   A few steps into that, one discovers nested structured~duality underneath and supporting things in the animate and inanimate realms.  It's a rather neat realization and experiment. More unified.  A thought worthy of speech.   Anyone can explore it.

As for your frightening tales, my speculation, presently, based on the signals you are giving off, is you personally feel quite threatened by  the storyline and paradigm shift that I am advocating.    Since you are casting the issue over into threats against identity, it seems somewhat logical to me that  you, yourself are having some identity concerns and issues yourself.    

I can sort of see it, if you fancy yourself as an advocate or  believer of  some panpsychism, and my trial theory   and beliefs do allow for panpsychism but not in it as having or being a fundamental or top-level position. That might feel threatening to you.  I mean,  let's say that you do believe or have been convinced into believing, say, in panpsychism and consciousness as fundamental, as in the David Chalmers TED talk.  Then, I suppose I can see why you'd feel a bit threatened since the change in tenet  I am advocating, just within the scientific paradigm level of organization, innovatively disrupts that belief and, within the protein-folding, could feel like an ontological threat. 

Okay. That would be something awesome for you to sit with, wouldn't it?   I mean, personal fundamental tenets are protein-foldings, too.   So it certainly WOULD feel like something, particularly, when discovered as a necessary change via disruptive innovation.  That is, the change would feel threatening when a person  had previously adopted and reinforced an erroneous  belief and position.  Undergoing the paradigm transition would involve  unwinding prior protein-folding and synthesis, while or as synthesizing and folding the new and improved patterns.  

But, if you look closer, Joseph, intelligent people do this sort of transition throughout life. This shift is, after all,  just a rather small paradigm transition shifting from being embedded in just cube/subject-object out into the more deeply nested structured~duality -- guided by the analog math.    It's just a rather small change in the scientific paradigm.   Yes, some slow and gentle changes in protein-folding are involved, but people's identities and spiritual beliefs remain intact.   What's not to like?

But, let's look deeper...

Monday, August 4, 2014

Traveling at -C: More on Higgs within electromagnetic

If you are open for one moment's speculation, consider the speed of light as equal to zero and then have all the other levels of organization travelling at, call it, negative or minus velocities. That is, neutrinos are pretty close to zero, electrons, are a little slower.... and so on, untill out here in the bulk classical region we are humming along at a smooth, -299,792,458 m/s.       E=mC^2 still ~works, sort of,  and everything we know about still "travels slower than the speed of light", like the rule and measurements says things should occur. The conceptuality, though, is a little bit different.

Obviously, totally, 100% obviously, we all are very, very disgruntled about even trying to think in terms of a minus velocity. However, we also don't have any difficulty with some things being slower than others. And, at the same time, we are moderately aware that the existences of the different particles and their respective "speeds" are centrally conditioned within the particles' level of organization and reality's nested structure or nested symmetries. So we get back to, not space and time, but to nested fields within nested fields: Higgs within electromagnetic  The troublesome,  and the quirky negative sign then turns out to signal the paradigmatic problem that arises when trying to press a nested system into flawed tenets within a non-nested model.

Paradigm Transition Support

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