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 :

Ralph Frost on May 21, 2015 wrote:
> I suspect some of the other overall differences between our
>approaches arise from differences in our respective different
>experiences and reliances on rational and/or intuitive tendencies
>or faculties.   Hopefully, I will get some incredibly terrible first
>drafts of some web videos completed in the next few weeks
>exemplifying features and some of the terms at Magnetic
>Tetrahedra -- Putting global science education in the palm of
>your hand.
[S.P.] From your site we read:
"the underlying principle of structured duality: things have some structure AND have or exhibit one or more dualities or differences."
Here is what I do not understand:
1) To have "structure" means to be composed of structure-less elementary elements which are in certain (and only possible in this concrete case) relation with each other. From this follows that the elementary structure-less elements cannot be already called "things" according to your definition. For example, let us take a hydrogen atom -- what we will call "a thing" here: a nucleus, an electron, or what?
[rf] I could say, "Well of course, if you staunchly believe 'structure means composed of structure-less... therefore... etc, etc', then I can understand why you do not understand. My impression is there are exceptions to the rule you start off with.  But more to the point, what I intend is things-have-structure-AND-have/exhibit-duality, where the dashes between words are meant to signify a unified inseparability.  The important thing is structureANDduality merged together in a single interactive, complementary connection.   So, the idea or implication in the words of the 'definition' is, "go look for exceptions to this rule".  The physical stuff fits as does  mental/paradigmatic.  That's sufficiently general enough to chew on for a while.

[S.P.] 2) The phrase "a thing exhibits differences" is totally out of my understanding. I understand the phrase: "this thing differs from that thing". I mean that to talk about "a difference", we must consider, at least, two things. If we have a proton, what "differences" it has: differences with another proton, or differences with itself? How a "proton" can differ from "that same proton"? And what sense/logic/reason is in the very asking of such a question?
[rf]  I'm going to bet that you do understand or can figure out: "a thing exhibits similarities...". Also, consider a strawberry exhibits some pretty obvious differences from the rest of the strawberry patch.  Or, consider the developing features of "dark matter". It has similar gravitational features but exhibits differences, minimally, in visibility compared with regular matter.

Also, you do need to understand that in the model I am advocating and working with you on here,  reality IS nested structured~duality.  So what we are talking about here is differences and exhibiting differences in the nested structured~duality -- in the nested structural coding -- in the nested fields within nested fields. 

As for the "sense", I suspect  there might not be much  much sense in the dominant paradigm but my hunch is such variation does have utility in the emerging scientific paradigm where reality is nested structured~duality, or in the generic  nested fields within nested fields.  With one eye, participants notice how 'everything is the same/similar/unified'. With the other eye, we note differences in the nested structured~duality and/or ways where various segments exhibit differences, for instance, in structural coding, compared with surroundings.  Unified but also differentiable -- distinctive.  This type of distinction comes in handy when doing or ramping up to doing inter-dimensional transport.

....For me, being explicit about pointing out exhibiting differences seems ~fair and necessary, since it gives a more complete picture of the spectral pair:  of  similarities -- differences.  YMMV on this. (Your mileage may vary on this.)

In _my_ experience, long ago in the 1980's, I noticed that magnetic field strength can and does  "go to zero" and so, actually, my class of bipolar polyhedral structures (using my ancient terminology) are or can be seen as the super-set which also contain ALL (non-polar) polyhedral structures.  [This insight has something to do with Plato rolling over in his grave.]  At that time I was also considering differences or imbalances of, like, electrons, or such at different ends of various linear  materials, infintesimal though such differences might be. 

So, there is a tie-back, albeit a tenuous one,  into the tactile analog math and earlier developments.

[S.P.] 3) Why you equate the words "dualities" and "differences"? Why "differences" cannot be, say, "trialities"? Also, for me, "to have" and "to exhibit" are not synonymous words. For example, I may have something, but I will never exhibit this. Sometimes, I do not even know that I have something. Why "having" must necessarily presume "exhibiting"?
[rf] I don't equate, nor project or presume these two as synonymous  It's more like 'extend'.   Both and more.   As for trialities,  I likely would say that those can be achieved in a step-wise fashion just with dualities, similar to curling dimensions tightly for one duality pair and relating that tight pair to another 'duality' feature.  A 'triality', to me, would point at something like a three-ended stick which either simply does not compute, or would push me over toward, say, the various (triangular) faces of the outer binary (or magnetic) tetrahedron.   If you are already reporting comprehension difficulties understanding the transition into nested structured~duality, what are  chances on understanding structured~trialities, structured~tetralities, etc., and/or the outer magnetic tetrahedra?

When a reader practices what I would consider to be appropriate scientific reading comprehension,  the reader's left-brain would be to first submit an authentic,  respectful request to the reader's right-brain to please scan for and report back  on all the occurrences which are in line with "things-have-structure-and-have-or-exhibit-dualities-or-differences", considering domains of, say, all the known physical and mental plus paradigmatic realms.  [A thought is some structural dual or representation of some other dualic structure.  One thought; groups of thoughs; thus all paradigms.]

When I went through this exercise,

[S.P.] 4) Is consciousness a thing? If not, then it is not clear how your "principle of structured duality" can be "docked" to the very problem of consciousness studies.
[rf] Accepting that  it may be a few years premature or too innovatively disruptive to migrate directly to structural coding and to concurrently relegate the multifaceted term of consciousness to the same category as contains phlogiston, a more gradual transition is as follows.

1. Reality is nested structured~duality.
a. Physical reality is nested structured~duality.
b. Consciousness is nested structured~duality.

Thus, if one wants to paddle around in the pool, consciousness is structured~duality and when one refers to consciousness studies, one is talking about structured~duality studies so the principle fits in directly.  

Get it?

Alternatively, yes consciousness is a thing, but things are, in the emerging paradigm,  also structured~dualities, so consciousness: yours, mine, RLG's, Descartes', Penrose's and Hameroff's... are  various structured~dualities. So, again, the principle fits in nicely with such studies.

Another way to think about this entire transition is to notice there  is the overall major transition in the scientific paradigm which we face and which is on-going.  Then, separately, or within that large paradigm transition in let's call them the hard sciences,  is the much smaller, so-called easy/hard problems of consciousness studies. 

Do you anticipate where I am going?

In one fairly rational approach,  Option A:  (1) people fiddle around  with the smaller, inner "easy and hard problems of consciousness",  and probably impose some slightly worthless tenet of consciousness being innately fundamental. As Dennet says, "Then what?"     Separately  (2) other people extrude some upgrade to the hard sciences paradigm, and then (3) other people squint and notice, say,  the underlying unifying general principle and then  they impose a third or fourth disruptive transition in science to perhaps get a slightly more coherent , more unified model.

Alternatively,  the thing is, interestingly enough the current dominant scientific paradigm already suffers the complaint from within and without that it is either a tad bit or else excessively overly physical. Similarly, complaints of it from consciousness studies circles echo  a similar death-to-materialism refrain.  This agreement  leads to a special opportunity -- the likelihood of success along Option B: (1) hack a rough intuitive upgrade of the major scientific paradigm  to a less materialist slant and solve the two simultaneous paradigm mechanics ~equations  in just the one step.   Then, (2) refine the rough hack into something more genteel.   On disruption followed by refinement.

Do the energy conservation math on both options and see what you think.

Thus, reality is nested structured~duality.

[S.P.] 5) Is your "principle of structured duality" applicable to a real "thing" (as the element of Noumenal Reality), or to the "model of a thing" we construct in our mind (as the element of our version of Phenomenal Reality)?
[rf] Yes. Both, and more.    Physical and mental.  Philosophical and experimental.   Noumenal and phenomenal.  The real thing, model of the real thing and mental model.   One pattern.

[S.P.] Next we read:
"Magnetic tetrahedra are non-classical simple machines."
As a physicist, I know very well what are simple machines -- they are used to achieve mechanical advantage. But I have never heard about "non-classical simple machines" (must be due to the lack of my education). What do you mean by this? Can you demonstrate how your device called "magnetic tetrahedron" works? Does it exist only for educational purposes? Which relation it has to consciousness studies?
Serge Patlavskiy

[rf]  Now there's a term I haven't heard or thought of in a long, long while.  To grasp what I mean by this phrase, think of a non-classical simple machine as another  non-classical exemplar.

Generally, we have the non-classical quantum gravitational and/or quantum relativistic realms. The exemplars of the balanced equation(s) of quantum gravity are initially all physical and/or analog. (My impression is it is very unlikely that abstract mathematical expressions of the equation of quantum gravity exist.   That is, dropping down into abstract math symbolism and expressions is simply too alien, too broken and too slow to initially spark and sustain an initial general understanding of quantum gravity.  Not so in the analog math, though.

However, if one looks around one already sees we are bobbling along within the local quantum gravitational field. So the real advanced analog math problem is  not identifying an exemplar, but merely identifying  the FIRST instance or exemplar of quantum gravity.  looks around,

Generally speaking, people are a pretty good exemplar or instance of the equation.  They store and use energy and attraction-repulsion to move about in the quantum gravitational field.   After that, one would likely focus in on the sp3-hybridized molecular bonding patterns.  Magnetic tetrahedra are a crude, more like an artistic expression where only two of the five primary states or isomers exhibit variable mass-density, and the  things themselves exhibit multiple states differing from one another in increments of one-half spin. 

As for your final questions, I think those are answered above.

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

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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment