Friday, December 18, 2015

Space as a part of abstract math and consciousness.

Merry Christmas to everyone in the global  classroom!

It's that season again. Time for buying and giving and opening shiny new gifts and figuring out or adapting to  upgraded new technologies.

Here we are 380+ years into the initial phase of the western scientific paradigm and, on the pessimistic or perhaps realistic side,  wow! --   the secondary effects of flaws in our scientific paradigm are totally getting to us.   

But let's look to the gifts 

In a ~continuation of a recently posted  disruptive thought,  what I am presently observing is space (and consequently spacetime) are not an actual portion and accurate feature of the ~thing itself but are actually artifacts of abstract math and consciousness. What we have is the thing itself and our paradigmatic description of the thing itself.

This is a tricky notion to cast into words and I am certain many might want to claim that sifting and sorting the pile of artifacts and assumptions in this way needs to be shouted down, but it seems hugely worthwhile to make  and register this clarification.

The issue arises when considering  reality as nested fields within nested fields rather than in the traditional view of artifacts contained within empty space. 

The idea is that the belief of "space" or "empty space" as fundamental obviously does not hold up under physical measurements. Consider uncertainty of position and momentum, and even the so-called "space-time" relativity.  These measurements actually agree better with the NSD/nested fields within nested field imagery than with the traditional "empty-space" assumption.

Peering into this crack in the dominant paradigm shield wall, one way to view this long-standing and significant belief of space as fundamental  is to re-assign empty space as a portion or feature of our abstract mental/mathematical construct. This is bit like peeling off a layer of wallpaper or shaving away a thin membrane from the "thing itself" category and applying it to the adjacent "description of the thing itself" category.

Like realizing that "experience exists; time does not", re-allocating "space as a part of abstract math consciousness; not fundamental to and within the thing itself", is a category error  adjustment which facilitates the present shift in the western scientific paradigm.

Think about it.
Merry Christmas to all.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

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

Friday, November 13, 2015

Re: Time is a created experience (jcs-online)

JR3,  (jcs-online)

Another, laconic way to express this scientific truth is "Experience exists; time does not".

It's a tough nut to crack, and a difficult pill to swallow when one's scientific tenets and paradigm are just slightly out of kilter. A miss is as good as a mile, and even though  here in 2015 the Cartesian-Newtonian-quantum-relativistic paradigm is a wonderful set of epi-cycles making up our current initial scientific approximation, it also has a few too many fundamental flaws in it which absolutely require adjustment/correction.

What's worse, though, is as the news comes to light and the new dawn begins to break, the emerging improvement, while a huge and general improvement, it is still, as it only can be, a disruptive improvement in fit. It's better, but not perfect and we all have to come to grips with that fact.  This unsettling news is apparent to or at least available to everyone in the global classroom. We get to see it.  It is like we all get to look into this second Copenhagen interpretation and become more deeply aware of  science and to choose between imperfect, uncertain approximations.

Science during paradigm shifts is especially wonderful.  Don't you think?

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Re: [general_theory] NSD, Time, Eternity and Space

Maurice wrote: What is happening in those muscles and nerves is completely hidden from my experience.

[rf] ...Well, your level of unconsciousness/lack of description/abstraction is  also paradigm-bound. And, its hidden nature remains only  as long as the internal workings of your paradigm deliver sufficient results. 

Hey, Maurice,

I think I am taking issue with your: "It is simply that knowledge must begin from a content to be known. Unless there is something to think about we do not gain knowledge at all. Experience supplies this content as disconnected facts and thinking connects them in manifold ways to produce knowledge."

That is, I'm beginning to notice that there is an important  difference in ~focus and illumination depending on whether  I/we ~think via the dominant fact/knowledge-oriented Neuron model/motif or via what I am referencing as the energy-survival centered NSD/structural coding model -- the model/trial theory that I am advocating. 

While each of us digest our last meals, notice that our central, primary  issue is all about acquiring sufficient  energy (and materials), and, to a far lesser  or secondary extent, on acquiring knowledge useful in predicting where food, danger and other correlate of persistence may be found next.  The cart does not come completely before the horse.  Possibly, rational extroverts might dispute this energy-centered perspective -- but they'd still need energy to do so.

That is, loosely, as you illustrate below, in the conventional way within the neuron model/motif we measure and assess in terms of wordful facts and certain collections of fact_word_webs called 'knowledge'.  It's like using a particular currency or high level credits system in one type of economy.  We "see" in terms of facts and knowledge, or at least our rational-egoic selves see in accord with that type of model.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Re: Is there only one consciousness?


The way I'd encourage you and other readers to consider it is: reality is nested structured~duality.  Then consider the previously stated instances of nested structured~duality. Please pardon me for not writing just that in the earlier post.

In this manner, readers can face the new generalization squarely. It's true, one may then  immediately erupt into the insecurity and awkwardness that is hidden in the claim: "But WHAT is nested structured~duality??", but that is the challenge of the initial step in all paradigm transitions -- participants DO face the prospect of learning a new generalization.   I would think people on the path to uncovering an improved general theory would likely welcome such a life-long learning prospect. 

With "reality is nested structured~duality" as statement #1, then we encounter the statements or expressions that we or others have experienced and learned and shared which are based in, or form parts of other, prior paradigms.    That is, then  we encounter or bring up things like "both physical and mental aspects", and/or "subjective and objective aspects", and/or "phenomenal and noumenal" which have their origins in prior paradigms -- prior instances of nested structured~duality.  

You and other readers may benefit by thinking of the new generalization as a previously hidden or unknown or unspoken category. Given the newly expressed term, the previously unknown cateory comes into being.   Then the improved generalization processes can proceed.  

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Changing the scientific paradigm.

Ah, the nested structured~duality of it all.

In a different recent thread about subjectivity and objectivity in Yahoo-groups -- General Theory, if you notice, we talk about the subjective world and the objective world.  As well, in this thread, we/people bring up the distinctions of physical reality and mental reality, or non-physical reality.  

If you notice:  objective and subjective,  and physical and mental, are qualifiers or adjectives  of world or reality.  So, if you notice, what we are mud-wrestling with in these two linguistic snake pits also turns out to be two other instances of structured~duality: 


I can  make this clarifying observation and make such an  innovatively disruptive statement because in the trial theory I advocate: reality, both the physical and the mental realms, is (nested) structured~duality.  That is, the two regions are one -- unified. Having, myself, migrated somewhat into this new perspective, I am on the look-out for  such inherent features and I find them... because they are inherent. As readers can observe, the compact, more unified paradigmatic generality of nested structured~duality (NSD) continues to provide benefits.

Why is this the case, though?   

It's just the way things are. Reality is nested fields within nested fields. What we face and experience is one world; many descriptions.  To wit: subjective-objective, or physical mental/non-physical.  Thus, the challenge we face in moving "toward a science of consciousness" really is on the descriptive, linguistic side -- coming up with new words and/or new arrangements of expressions that do a better, more compact job of  DESCRIBING the one world  ...that has many facets and many descriptions. 

Sunday, July 19, 2015

[general_theory] Objectivity versus subjectivity

Hey, Errol,

It's Sunday. I just finished livestream from where I also enjoy hearing my oldest  son play keyboard.  The message, one I truly need to hear and heed,  was on justice, mercy and faith, also, on becoming trustworthy, looking out for and being FOR people; Love God Love our neighbors -- asks: how we are  in our relationship with God and how we are in relationship with people.  The latter sounds like the positive sentiment you express/ed in a recent post in this thread encouraging good relations between people (minimizing the judgements and hypocrisy that people and our organizations also have the tendency to express).

 I am somewhat mesmerized by JR3's mantra on love-fear, or how fear grows from love,etc., yet I wonder  where that rather new age imagery can get us?  How does that acknowledge and honor  God?

I say, mesmerized, but more so, I don't quite buy that "I/we are God" mainly because that has not been my experience.  Also, if you consider the cycles and food chains and patterns of metamorphoses within nature, from our perspective, how reasonable is it that we get to our position and assume that the (nesting) pattern stops and that, AFTER we hear the original story,  ~we conclude that we, individually and separately  are the beginning and end?   

For my money, and my soul, that self-centered transposition is simply not true.  Of course, I admit that in 1980 I turned to and did that thing you may have heard about:   accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Yes, I can also acknowledge the apparent irrationality of such an action.  But also, consequently, since then, over the long term  I have seen and experienced changes in my life and behavior that align within the accounts presented by other followers of Christ.   So, irrational or not, from my experience, there is truth in the belief and in the expectation and inclination and the commitment, however weak and vacillating, as in my case, my implementation of it is. 

It is also true, since the two roads do diverge in the woods, that to experiment with the other consciousness study alternative, I'd need to recant and/or make a different decision or set of decisions. And even then, if you can entertain God as yet another ~objective truth,  another level of nested fields within nested fields, then WHAT one individual decides can also be a bit irrelevant. That is, our particular level of organization is important in the nested fields within nested fields, but ours is  not necessarily or certainly yet in control of all reality, particularly from beginning to end.

So the entire matter of faith is a challenging horse of a different color and love, I believe, is a many-splendored thing. 

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Re: Consciousness is and is not experience.

Dear Joseph,   [jcs-online 7/9/2015]

Is it just me, or is there a so-called disturbance in the force? ...of late, in the last 4 to 6 months?

Besides other stuff going on with me, I have had the odd perceptions recently that goes a bit like....   a realization that not that it is "perfect" or "right", but that transitionally and even for longer, that the nested structural coding/nested fields within nested fields  storyline I am advocating, turns out to be ~right enough, or workable, perhaps just because of its laconic, tactile compactness, low cost,  and alternate but still rather understandable 6^n nested logic and rationality.   ....Close enough for an initial real-time global paradigm transition trial. 

Talk about a hideously surprising and   terrifying fear of success!  Anyway, I suppose time will tell, sooner or later.... or not.

In any event, regarding our various extremist beliefs that you brought up,   I am going to guess that a very, very large fraction of the angry young adult men acting within ISIS-like structural codings -- belief-behaviorial patterns -- have huge and devastating histories of intense personal and family grief and loss -- basically, suffering losses chronically over years, decades, or perhaps generations.  Collateral damage from our drone attacks surely can not help. [But, also, check on this: Islamic State - ISIS origin story ]

It doesn't help much even if my guess here is correct. Then the situation just becomes very, very, very sad, devastating, grievous.   At that point, about the only non-violent alternative or remedy for that underlying accumulation, that I can suggest for young men with pain-filled personal and family history would be something like  WDA's "Restore Your Heart" grief and pain processing programs [1] .   Don't get me too wrong there, yes, I'm speaking from my Christian experience with RYH groups but even though Jesus is alright with Islamic followers, I'm not starting out saying our ISIS brothers should pony up and join a Christian grief processing small group. I assume, or at least certainly hope that Islamic organizations already  have their own equivalent or better non-violent grief processing group support systems.   (Though, it wouldn't hurt our angry young and older men in this country, to pony up and process their own pain rather than act it out in their ways.)

Monday, June 29, 2015

A few thoughts on paradigm mechanics.

It is one thing to hypothesize about negotiating and successfully navigating through the various initial paradigm mechanical twists and turns involved in transitioning from the initial phase of the western scientific method into the more unified  scientific perspective.  It's quite another thing, though, to actually do it.  The task, or key aspects of it, seemingly are too big to bear, or, at least to bear and acknowledge.  Envisioning the potential and need for paradigm change is pretty simple and straightforward.  Discerning and communicating specifics of first steps on the new principle, tenets, computational symbolics and math are quite another. 

Based on the shift in signals I am experiencing recently, I am now assuming I have been somewhat successful in the initial definitions and communications.  My impression is there is a "disturbance in the force", so to speak. The tenor in rejections coming my way has shifted.  The Big Picture image of transitioning from Descartes' 375 year-old cube/subject-object model to the newly emerged nested fields within nested fields model is something now more than speculative or overly speculative. It's no longer potential.

In June of 2015, the western scientific paradigm transition is now fully underway.

In this immediate, what might be called the slightly awkward provisional, transitional phase, there are a few very serious issues for participants to periodically consider.   One large issue is the rather  large tangle of western science and western religions, particularly, with most people's conception of  the western cultures "being Christian".  

Is the West REALLY Christian, as in solidly, predominantly loving and giving Christ-followers?   Or, are we just money and resource grubbing western science   believers?  The issue we face is one of mistaken identity. A certain part of the jihad, or at least some critical thinking needs to be applied directly within the dominant western scientific paradigm.    That is the problematic,  slightly unbalanced, slightly misguided world-directing global influential belief system.  Generally, we don't give that obvious  issue much thought, however,  that is where the easy-picking low-hanging fruit is for us.

Because it is an initial phase one scientific paradigm, it is destined for change. That's obvious.   We are just not very experienced in implementing changes, on-the-fly, in our  365-24-7 global real-time scientific paradigm.

That is where Frost Scientific and paradigm mechanics have come in to play.

Would you like to participate in the paradigm transition?

Saturday, May 30, 2015

True or false, or approximate enough? Considering Donald Hoffman's modeling

There is another advantage in noticing that reality is nested multiple states within nested multiple states within nested fields within nested fields -- or more simply, that  reality is nested structured~duality.

Basically, this additional new-found advantage is that such a more unified new perspective supports and is in good alignment  with Donald Hoffman's and others' findings that  "perception is non-veridical".   (See, for instance: "" or other of Donald Hoffman's publications since 2008.)

How or why might this be important?    Here's and example revealing more of the perspective. 

I read in a recent jcs-online post something to the effect of: "[blah-blah-blah, some argument(s)] ... therefore realism is false".   

At issue is not the quality or apparent perfection of the argument supporting the conclusion  that "realism is false",  but that given other times, or other orators having, let's say, newly effable (expressible)  or different counter-arguments,  readers have also been alternatively informed that, say, "realism is true", or "idealism is true (or false)", etc.  And on and on within all the various -isms for which the familiar logical true-false states are said or believed to be valid assessments. 

The issue, though, is that  with visual perception being non-veridical,  as Hoffman presents,  I observe that (secondary) thoughtful, wordful (verbal)  philosophical constructions can obviously be no less non-verdical.   Thus, potentially, open-minded readers may begin to get the impression that what we face  is not the assumed classical assessments of the naive, (2^n) true or false states and conditions.  What we actually face is our non-veridical, non-classical, more robust, higher dimensional nested approximations.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

The philosophy of structural coding


Thanks for your questions. 

I think I  do make progress on a few of the items you say you don't yet understand about realty being nested structured~duality and reality being unified in accord with the underlying general principle of  structured~duality.
However, before that I would like to back up to characteristics of rational compared with intuitive thinking/communication,  and begin by asking readers to glance at and register the contents at particularly the 2nd and 3rd pairs in the bullet list.

Secondly, I understand "structured~duality" to be an intuitive term coined after a period of physical, sensory experimentation with magnetic tetrahedra (balancing,  *feeling* spins and the shapes of magnetic fields)   and concurrently a period of intense ineffability. No doubt the term: "struictured~duality"  is an imperfect, approximate term, particularly from a strongly left-brained or strictly rational perspective. 

Overall, when I consider the rational/intuitive characteristics of looks at differences/looks at similarities, I get the impression that looking at similarities would be the likely path for coming up with a more unified, different arrangement of paradoxical elements and features.  Yet, also, such a useful expression might not translate well, as RLG might say: into ordinary English. I would advise curious people to NOT try to take it  apart into separate parts but instead, to consder it more in the class as with wave-particle or the non-classical states that are considered within classical collections of matter.

But, let's see if we can make progress...

---In, wrote :

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

This week's find's in nested structured~duality - March 25,2015


"The means of argument – the three Ls, language, logic and linearity – are all ultimately under left-hemisphere control, so that the cards are heavily stacked in favour of our conscious discourse enforcing the world view re-presented in the hemisphere which speaks, the left hemisphere, rather than the world that is present to the right hemisphere." -- Iain McGilchrist "The Master and His Emissary" (6070/17484 in Kindle version)

Also,  McGilchrist continues with:

"It is also most easily expressible, because of language's lying in the left hemisphere: it has a voice. But the laws of non-contradiction, and of the excluded middle, which have to rule in the left hemisphere because of the way it construes the nature of the world, do not hold sway in the right hemisphere, which construes the world as inherently giving rise to what the left hemisphere calls paradox and ambiguity.

This is much like the problem of the analytic versus holistic understanding of what a metaphor is: to one hemisphere a perhaps beautiful, but ultimately irrelevant, lie; to the other the only path to truth."

"What the left hemisphere calls paradox and ambiguity" my right hemisphere voices as reality being nested structured~duality and presents in the various artistic multiple states of  repulsively balanced magnetictetrahedra.

That is, paradox is a minority opinion. -|slides|0

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

Paradigm Transition  Support
[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

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

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Colored Fog

---In, wrote :

>Our native language (mother tongue) has a profound impact on us in that the way we live and perceive the world depends heavily on the logic our native language is based upon. So, I still cannot see any logic in holding a steering wheel by right hand and changing the gears by left hand (as Englishmen do). My logic tells me that there must be "17, March, 2015 " instead of "March 17, 2015", and so on. So, any ideas how to unify the logic we use?

[rf]  Bo(th) and more, Serge.

The challenge, as I see it and express in my terms as "seek a thought worthy of speech", or, "in order to understand understanding we first need to acquire the new common (tactile) physical intuition that reality is nested structured~duality, or nested fields within nested fields, and/or for all to bone up on doing analyses via nested structural coding", is we are destined to discover and agree upon a NEW (common) expression.   We are, after all, coming to a new understanding.

Iain McGilchrist says  some of it in a helpful way. "The polarity between 'objective' and 'subjective' points of view is a creation of the left hemisphere's analytical disposition. In reality there can be neither absolutely, only a choice between a betweenness which acknowledges itself, and one which denies its own nature."  [McGilchrist, Ian, 'The Master and His Emissary', at 5919 or ~34% on Nexus7 Kindle version]

Here he (or I) echo ~my impression that "objectivity is just a strongly repeating form of repeatable subjectivity". Or, similarly, that impressions are passed from the right hemisphere to the left where the left resurrects and applies the blinding wordful associations that we all  cherish.  

Yet, in the case that you ask about, notice that what is involved in acquiring the new understanding (of understanding, or as many would say, of consciousness) is the challenge IS for the left, right or left-right to make up and integrate the new term and expression. ...The one that fits the gap in the anomalous cavity of  our growing 'cerebral canopy'.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Re: [jcs-online] Philosophy of structural coding -- WAS: Philosophy of mind

---In, wrote :


JR3: I give you credit for introducing a paradigm which DOES give a functional and useful account of the patterns of consciousness creation. You are right to claim credit for that. But, it is not a full account. It is useful in the theoretical sense, but not in the practical sense. Consciousness is a tool we use. You have a partial blueprint for making a hammer, but no full implementable production blueprint, and no description of how to use it.

[rf] Thanks for the credit, but please don't be so hasty, jr3.  As you admit to seeing the theoretical sense then the practical sense has already overwhelmed your global sensibilities. Also notice that while you reference structured~duality, you also are shying away from referencing the more practical structural coding of and within the nested fields within nested fields.   

Moreover, while I suspect the quibble will resonate for at least a week or two,  that reality IS nested structured~duality supports  you retaining your security blanket structurally coded in your terms as "patterns of consciousness creation", while at the underlying level what we have is patterns of structural coding. 

Like I said, it may be very difficult to pry grasping fingers loose from the blanket of consciousness such that the preconceptions are released and one considers the huge expanse of plain old  structural coding.  It's a large shock to encounter all at once.  I encourage everyone to take as much time as they need in making the transition.

As for my incomplete blueprint, hey, Rome wasn't built in a day and Copernicus didn't give a complete account of all the heavenly bodies either. But he did introduce an improvement in how to see and consider nesting levels and how the nested fields within nested fields are nested.  

You may want to continue holding on to "consciousness creation", and that may have value (even though I don't see or appreciate it).  However,  please notice that when the so-called consciousness creation impression AND description emerge and propagate, you are always referencing , using and conveying more variations in structural coding and in the impressions and the wordful impressions, more protein-folding -- more structural coding. So, you really may need to whittle down and refine your blanket statement so that you reveal what, if any, essence you may be grasping for in that term. 

Monday, February 23, 2015

Philosophy of structural coding -- WAS: Philosophy of mind

Productively entertaining a scientific paradigm which DOES give a functional and useful, more unified account of both physical and non-physical/other classes of patterns has quite interesting consequences.

One odd outcome is that terms like "consciousness" and "mind" may quickly be relegated into the same category as that containing phlogiston.

Such a development is a doubly awkward turn of events for people invested in, say. "philosophy of mind", or attending conferences entitled, "Toward a Science of Consciousness", or even in the present case of posting articles in JCS-Online (Journal of *Consciousness* Studies). As the "science of consciousness" comes into focus, "mind" and "consciousness" become archaic and rather fictitious or old-world references. The transition has surreal qualities. Moreover, the emerging perspective is essentially universally unpopular and repulsive, particularly as the new paradigm first comes to light.

With this backdrop, now consider that with reality more accurately framed in the new tenets of nested structured~duality, philosophy of mind within the old paradigm resolves into philosophy of structural coding in the new one. We further discover ourselves always working a science of structural coding whenever we try to articulate expressions toward a science of consciousness. And this occurs whether we take a Cartesian or Leibnitzian slant. We always pick some structure and also some set or sets of dualities and/or differences, and build our models outward from there.

Think about it and observe that it does resolve.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Paradigm Transition Support
[fSci] -- Frost Scientific

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

Friday, February 13, 2015

Mind/brain :: Right/Left Hemisphere functions -- Evidence of mind?

I have recently been wondering, "Is there any evidence of mind?", or is it another article of faith?   If there is evidence,  what is in the list?  Any thoughts?

Also, as I ponder slowly through Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and His Emissary",  I continue to note that much of the long-winded, anxious left-hemispheric chatter  about the clear supremacy of mind in the mind-body  debate is also more like a categorical error couched in an inaccurate, archaic poorly framed   and somewhat imaginary rationalization.    Along the line of McGilchrist's storyline, again,  it is the left hemispheric-type functions claiming supremacy for its own dear sweet self-ideal in a back-handed manner, basically, so it appears, on the grounds of hat and vocabulary size.  

"Words, words, words!" the left hemisphere shouts, "With my words I am the center and knower of ALL!"

Yet, as McGilchrist illustrates, the wordful, and therefore always protein-folded left-hemispheric functions are nested and nurtured  within the hydrogen-bonded impressions of the right hemispheric functions.   And both are further nested within the enfolding nested fields within nested fields.

So, again,  "What is the evidence of mind?

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Paradigm Transition  Support
[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

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

Mind/brain :: Right/Left Hemisphere functions -- Evidence of mind?

I have recently been wondering, "Is there any evidence of mind?", or is it another article of faith?   If there is evidence,  what is in the list?  Any thoughts?

Also, as I ponder slowly through Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and His Emissary",  I continue to note that much of the long-winded, anxious left-hemispheric chatter  about the clear supremacy of mind in the mind-body  debate is also more like a categorical error couched in an inaccurate, archaic poorly framed   and somewhat imaginary rationalization.    Along the line of McGilchrist's storyline, again,  it is the left hemispheric-type functions claiming supremacy for its own dear sweet self-ideal in a back-handed manner, basically, so it appears, on the grounds of hat and vocabulary size.  

"Words, words, words!" the left hemisphere shouts, "With my words I am the center and knower of ALL!"

Yet, as McGilchrist illustrates, the wordful, and therefore always protein-folded left-hemispheric functions are nested and nurtured  within the hydrogen-bonded impressions of the right hemispheric functions.   And both are further nested within the enfolding nested fields within nested fields.

So, again,  "What is the evidence of mind?

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Paradigm Transition  Support

[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Re: Leibniz on spacetime

---In, wrote :
Yes, somebody may think that we can account for consciousness only within the limits of Modern Physics. But what to do with others who are confident that to account for consciousness we have to construct a Science of Consciousness first hand? Do these people have their right for existence and a place where they could be able to exchange ideas?
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
The issue is, before the paradigm transition in science, things pretty much look  as presently: disjointed, confused, paradoxical, split, incoherent, contradictory, etc. 
After the paradigm transition in science, the perspective is different and folks don't necessarily have to whine and squabble about physical versus non-physical.   Think of it more like another adjustment akin to Copernicus  making an appropriate adjustment in nesting level.  
Then, soon in the near-Earth future, when folks really start to track on making just the one simple shift to analog math, all mediated via interactive, hands-on tactile "measurements/perturbations" (aka, experimental proof),  then there is this HUGE unfolding physical intuition where, nested multiple states literally and figuratively spring from the simple analog math to yield  reality as nested structured~duality -- reality as nested fields within nested fields.
Running the ~same analog math in the structural coding of our respiration and metabolics is all frosting on the cake. It's cool, undeniable. We get to remember that we first learned to read unsilently and then were cautioned to read silently and not continue to outwardly protein-fold our lips.  
So, after the paradigm transition in science we have new ~physical science AND a new science of consciousness.    Both, though, are more nested structural coding, more nested structured~duality.. 
Do you get the picture?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Paradigm Transition  Support
[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

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

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

The one, the whole and/or the given?

Though I expect the  monodic filibuster will continue a while longer, some readers may remember that present science does have the "both and more" character of things having at least both  wave-like and particle-like natures. When considering the many-body nested fields within nested fields system rumbling along in all its quantum gravitational glory, holding each of us gently within,  if one takes the wave-like view, at points of ~intersection of the nested fields within nested fields it's not difficult to visualize just one isolated but completely interconnected node. 

Stacking various combinations of more nodes together in  resonant systems, one can imagine, begets arrangements of nested fields we call protons, neutrons and electrons and planets, solar systems, galaxies. And within the finely-tuned pockets of the carbon- and water-based cycles and systems, we, in particular, run interdependent resonances within which are, naturally, somewhat accurate internal representations reflective of our enfolding surroundings.  These internal representations are structurally coded, also, within our segments of the  nested fields within nested fields -- separate but connections sets of modes.

We might like to think, or certainly our left-hemispheric functions DO like to think that WE create/d ALL of it but while that may be the case for our wordful descriptions,  our wordful, protein-folded descriptions are always relative-to- ambiguous and also incomplete. We do create what we create which is a wonderful privilege, but we have not created and do not create all of the given. While we have some room and freedom to move around, within the given we are also dependent beings.   

Keeping one eye open to this nested fields within nested fields view, I think, is always helpful.  Potentially, it is a sufficiently large enough blessing simply to be able to consider and enjoy the view without having to demand complete yet misinformed ownership.

Think about it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Paradigm Transition  Support
[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

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