Duality and "Bipolar Polyhedral Structures

[Bruno Marchal] But how do you relate that with you experience? You have not yet told me what is the duality in the nested structured duality. You need to try to explain this without using the terms “nested”, nor “duality”. You seem not trying to explain. 

[rf] Try this. Think of 'duality' as a pointer to 'quanta' or 'multiple states', and consider that such quantum features are and must be  inserted first in the foundationation of mathematics (even in arithmetic), rather than as a somewhat magical add-on after a classical, non-quantum, introductory prepi-cycle. In my first pass through this terrain back in 1975-1982 -- in the Bad Old Days, back in the Reagan eras,  I was imagining building a tetrahedron using four rod magnets. With my wife's metal-working help I soldered a center connector together and then played around with the five states of the inner magnetic tetrahedron.   Tetra- implies poly- and inner implies outer, so in a couple of moves on the gameboard I was considering the states of all inner and outer "bipolar polyhedral structures" (bps).  So, if you follow, I upgraded the term from 'bipolar' to 'duality'.  Originally, though, I came around to noticing that even forgetting about magnets and just making a structure out of anything, to my way of thinking there would always be a tiny, maybe what mathematicians might call "infinitesimal difference" between one end (half) of a radii or edge. One half could have a few more electrons or photons or quanta on one half than the other,  So the ends are different, similar to what is overtly present with magnets, but now more subtle, tending to the point of practically indistinguishable.

That's the original meaning/origin of "duality" as in "nested structured~duality", to me.  That's why I sometimes qualify it a "difference", and it could be a difference or duality in many different traits of features.

In the last few weeks, I have remembered that I used to think that ALL structures, even the highly idealized ones, are ~actually 'bipolar polyhedral structures' existing or having multiple states.  That is, that there are not the two categories: {regular, bipolar},  but just the one category: {bipolar}.  

Continued thread on the foundations of mathematics

Thanks, Bruno, for trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

On 4 Mar 2018, at 10:44, Ralph Frost <ralph.frost@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I reply here below in attempt to convey to you an understanding of my term "nested structured~duality". 

Scroll down  a ways, below UTOPIA  to [rf Mar 4]...

Bio-dark matter as ~sp^3 center connector

Hey, Philip,

Regarding your statement below of 'invisible nested structure', being made of dark matter/bio-dark matter,  I can somewhat relate to your proposal by pointing at what I call the center connector - the brass-wire-tube (or plexiglas) construction that I use to align and ~hold four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron that I use in my magnetic tetrahedral analog math.  Without some such structure  or tensegrity the magnets would just collapse into a tight ground-state, non-3d pile.  With it, the three dimensional (tetrahedral) structure persists.

The analogy of such an aligning structure, I believe, would or could or might  extend ~down to the ~tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level of organic molecules (see images -- https://magnetictetrahedra.com/images/phpshow.php?newGD&slides&2 ) wherein,  potentially, in the storyline you propose, collections of bio-dark matter would or could  be serving as like  "center connectors" maintaining the flexible, within limits, mostly tetrahedral arrangements and inverting/reactive structures of the related (bio) atoms/collections.

I mean,  potentially, as 'center connector', might be one way to visualize how ~light and ~dark matters might be ~working together potentially giving life its special properties.    (Also, serving as some poetic account for: "...made in our image...")

I guess this proposed insertion of dark matter at that level might raise questions or issues, too, relating somewhat to quantum mechanics since QM calculations, I believe, presently calculate/predict the tetrahedral - sp^3 hybridized and similar types of adaptive structures also found empirically in, say, crystallography, etc., but supposedly just calculated from (assumed) properties of the "light-matter-only" regular chemistry atoms or their sub-atom particles and forces.

I suppose then, also,  ~dark matter could or might or would have to take on some further types of structural coding roles that we (that is, mathematicians) presently and traditionally  might visualize and think of as being "~purely mathematical structures" and/or related to logic, mathematical logic, etc.  ...as well as giving some account for all the many instances of nested structured~duality  found in, and making up, say, philosophies of mathematics, or in all the various philosophies in general, which seem to oscillate or partition  between  mental/mathematical and/or physical  --   invisible  and visible/sensible  realms or fractions.   The same might also give some account of Wigner's 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematics.

IF dark matter et. al., is or becomes a happening thing, then it seems it ought to be spread out in various places and niches and would have influences in key  levels of organization and phenomena than just in the astrophysical expansion, or as Paul Werbos says, the noospheric level.

...Probably, as you have been trying to express for a few years...

Continued thread on fundamentals of mathematics (Assuming R=NSD)

Bruno,

Some clarification  regarding you saying I assume physical reality... My prior (long) reply was truncated. Perhaps just as well.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

..snip..

[bm] It [the approach/trial theory rf advocates] assumes something physical, which is what I want to explain without assuming this. From my view, you start with the answer. Your idea might help to pursue my investigation, but you would need to make it much more precise. If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”.

[rf]  

I do start with the answer, but I don't "assume something physical".  The difference, though, I think, is 

(1) you are assuming math and logic artifacts (~mental things) so you can logically derive ~physical things as features of the arithmetic reality as ~proved/able if someone survives the comp/digital mechanism substitution... while you also delegate to supposedly friendly and humane Turing devices for them to scribble out  the or an associated model of consciousness,  

whereas,

(2)  I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality  (R=NSD),  which prompts me to start with a specific structured~duality and then scribble out analog math that  ~verifies the assumption  by/while demonstrating the capacity to convey physical intuition about physical reality and our ontology while also  illuminating structural coding as an improved  replacement for (substitution of) the term and features we previously labeled and know as "consciousness". 

Thus, in your comp storyline, you assume AR and aim to derive, or have your Turing devices derive  ~physical reality (carbon, electron), whereas in

[Sadhu Sanga] Re: Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

Bruno, 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...".  

Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning?   I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion,  when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation. Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing...  to me  it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.

Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations, and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?   

And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?

Can you please clarify and explain?

Secondly,  your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions.  Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously.  Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multiple-perspective -- which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each.    In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/air traffic control  communications channels, and, seemed quite important "to folks" I ~observed in co-linked control/monitoring rooms...   All, quite imaginative.   After a while,  in part since I couldn't figure out how to collect any back pay for services rendered, I got therapy for some underlying emotional tensions, became a bit more productive and retired from the "service" - turned away from that activity.  The guided imagery of your teleportation steps, though, seems quite familiar or along similar lines, except for   being less along the typical "wires and waves through walls" ~schizophrenic ideation.   

[sadhu-sanga] Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

Bruno, 

First, thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false.   Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies. Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality.  Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set".  Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD's.

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider.

Some comments below..

[Which Mechanism? How many are there? Terseness and delivering physical intuition as measures of effectiveness.]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Collapsing the wave function

Sadhu-sanga - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/EpjvabjxXuA/70WAL5hhBAAJ


Dear  Kasyap, others,

Regarding stochasticity,  I think there are also alternatives to the models and perspectives that you and others advocate or discuss. 

For instance, I believe that the dominant scientific models we all reference have developed  from the root assumption of  objectivity separate from subjectivity -- in the slang terms that I learned: via the so-called Cartesian subject-object split.  If one wrestles that entanglement to the ground and simplies (hopefully not over-simplifying),  then everything in the objective category is also ~equal to or a member of  the strongly repeatable subjectivity category. That is, things that repeat strongly (consistently...) we have been educated  to call "objective".   ....Discern a pattern once or twice and it is just a "subjective feeling". Repeat the same "subjective feeling pattern" at several accredited, independent international science labs and we have a confirmed  instance of a strongly repeatable subjectivity pattern  ...that we previously have agreed upon and/or been educated  to call an "objective fact" -- and probably if it's a strongly repeating pattern, call it an  "objective classical physics fact".

Within the repeatable subjectivity perspective,  the two-category subjective-objective system collapses into a single category of grades of repeatable subjectivity, or to the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity.  This spectrum includes non-repeating, rarely repeating, stochastically repeating, periodically repeating and strongly repeating, etc., 'feels', 'measures',  'impressions'... phases.   The strongly repeatable variety matches up with what we label as patterns in "classical physics", whereas the stochastically repeatable varieties may populate the "non-classical physics" realm, with some registering in the QM, xQED storylines and regions.   

For those interested, spiritual liberties may be then be seen to associate closer with rarely repeating (and/or more highly nested) situations, but still within the same single repeatable subjectivity spectrum category.  I suppose 'this all' may be more like a different, more nested topological viewpoint, and focusing more directly upon repeatability rather than "stochasticity" or "measures of probabilities" along with or versus, 'always' or 'assumedly never' happening events.