Sunday, December 16, 2018

Before words?

 (Scientific Basic Of Consciousness Google-Groups - Dec 16, 2018)

John, others, 

In follow-up to the question of how migrating to NSD/magnetic tetrahedra catalyzes acquisition of physical intuition... Kant's Transcendental Idealism seems relevant.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism allegedly says space and time are subjective items ~forming our intuition.  Maybe others can clarify or correct if I misinterpret or add too much of my bias. See:

...the idea here is, NSD turns out to be a more accurate basis of our intuition and our physical intuition.   Our intuition is not formed of "space and time" but of "nested structured~duality". The magnetic tetrahedral analog math is a close enough approximation of the real thing so as to be able to deliver the improved yield.

Whether ~this ~refutes T.I., or just drills down through and replaces "space and time" with "nested structured~duality"  is not clear to me today and may be irrelevant. Both approximations are necessary and/or helpful.The bigger issue of switching to a more deeply, fundamentally nested  model, I think, overrides most other considerations.  That is, NSD and/or its spectrum of repeatable subjectivity (SORS) soundly disrupts the familiar or popular subjective-objective method of assessing or  of conceptualizing and categorizing, so various items, even on Kant's gameboard, get shifted around.

That is, he is saying (or I am interpreting wildly from skimming the Wikipedia article), that we have one apparently objective model founded on objects moving about within space and time -- which itself is like a flat nesting image: objects within space (and/or time).

But then he fashions together a ladder and climbs up to view "Transcendental Idealism" to notice that that flat objective model is mysteriously nested within  or emerging from our intuition which appears to be formed of subjective "space" and "time".   But (I assume or project) no where does he notice the fundamental, but simplified  nested ~structure that he is also  relying upon. (OR, he's relying on the spiritual nesting and does not consider it necessary or perhaps possible to make it scientifically explicit.)

Anyway, he's sketching out a problematic nesting and inaccurate structure problem compounded  with a related missing spectrum of repeatable subjectivity problem. It's excellent for an initial approximation or one in the succession of approximations, but at some point it reaches its limits and folds away.

Best regards,

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 5:15 PM Ralph Frost wrote:
Dear John,

In attempt to summarize or clarify further from this morning's post,  if or once a reader can provisionally consider "reality being nested structured~duality",  what is structured turns out to be different instances of structured~duality (as one word) -- one instance for the so-called thing itself and some other instances for  all the various communicable descriptions of the thing itself.

People have the tendency or ability discover, create, stack and/or balance  these instances of nested structured~duality, which, of course, just creates other instances of nested structured~duality.

Thus, if you notice, on the "physical" side as in the standard model scaled on up to nebulae and universal levels, that everything is all fairly obviously "nested structured~duality" -- patterns of various pluses and minuses leaning against each other generating other patterns. 

What's a little more difficult to observe or grasp, or perhaps it is too unsettling, threatening or frightening as one considers doing it,  is that everything on the "non-physical" or "mental" side is also nested structured~duality.  One thought is some sort of artifact representing or reflecting some other associated set of similar artifacts. Ditto for groups of thoughts and thus for all paradigms. If a participant sits  with the feel of abstract mathematics for a long while, or plays around with or just considers analog math of magnetic tetrahedra for a short while, most readers can probably, also appreciate  the rather unified,  nested cognitive, affective, emotional and environmental resonance.   

Thus, nested structured~duality   turns out to be the underlying general principle; the underlying common denominator. 

I am pretty sure, John, that without  adding or glimpsing the new  vocabulary,  there is no  other such easy way to understand and describe reality.   Also,  I am noting that my experience is that I "accidentally" migrated  into a different paradigm by creating and playing around with magnetic tetrahedra, which I now claim as a very  good exemplar of "general" nested structured~duality and claim magnetic tetrahedra as a valuable type of analog math.   Again, with this, I just picked a different structure and, in retrospect,  "magnets as  the duality".  After that "accident", as I've repeated several times before, rather instantly, the analog math generates physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states, as well as the rough look and feel for  the five Debye electronegativity patterns making up a huge fraction of our own living, breathing, thinking, feeling molecular bonding structures and that of much of our supportive, sustaining surroundings.

So, while you or others steeped in mastery in abstract math and productive within the dominant scientific paradigm may rightly view my "tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion" instance as a tiny toy paradigm,  the terse reformulation still provides the instant physical intuition that Feynman once wrote about as a potential development for a small minority of students after  decades of mastering abstract mathematics and intensive mentoring in advanced empirical sciences.

What accounts for that curious and compact result?  The analog model closely approximates the model we are and that we use to use to model the model.

Lastly, repeating for an initial time something that is recently dawning on me,  in the dominant scientific paradigm,  subjective-objective categorizations and attraction-repulsion register as "duals" or "dualities". In the NSD storyline,  objectivity is also strongly repeatable subjectivity (exposing the multiple segments of the more unified spectrum of repeatably subjectivity. Similarly, repulsion (at least in magnetics) is also attraction with one-half spin.  Both of these examples are revisions in the "structured~duality". In one paradigm, we ~see and conceptualize things in one way, perhaps littered with anomalies that we don't think of as anomalies.  In the alternate paradigm, we ~see and conceptualize things as anomalies that resolve in a different, more rational, more unified way.

I am pretty sure  wave-particle resolves similarly, as properties of NSD (the environment, the lab, the test case, the experimenter, the theory, the results and the interpretation)  also, ALL   being nested fields within nested fields.  This is intuitively hooked with the "position-momentum" anomaly which really does hark back to initializing the model by assuming or projecting empty space and  XYZ-space, aka, "position" as a fundamental or quasi-fundamental -- when it is not.  The cubic deformation is apparently a great driver for abstract math development and detailed initial approximation, but it is a flawed, improperly nested instance for understanding reality and developing physical intuition rapidly.

Does any of this help to intervene with your struggling with the terminology of NSD?

I am grateful for your, and others'   effort, good humor  and patience.  Thank  you.

Best regards,

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:54 PM John Jay Kineman <> wrote:

Still struggling with the terminology of NSD, it occurred to me that the first two terms are adjectives and the third, duality, is also suggestive of a modifier - dual what?  So these are three qualities of something unspecified.

In wave/particle duality it is well defined as dual formalisms, i.e. Different laws. Laws are structure of dynamics. So NSD in this case translates to "nested structured dual mathematical structure", which might come close to holons depending on the structure of the nesting of wave/particle duality in this specific case.

For general mind-body duality, that is a category duality. The structure of the body category is dynamical/material. The structure of the mind category is debatable. In QM we had a probability structure, but now there are other proposals. So I would also wonder what the structure of the duality is in NSD.

Is there a simple way to explain what is being structured?


No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment