Can you help with a math problem?

Can you help with a math problem?

One of the apparent weaknesses of the paradigm change storyline (see: http:\\frostscientific.com ) that I am advocating is, when I say people need to "begin with tetrahedron", rather than with the XYZ-cube,   that is NOT an easy sell on several counts.  First off, ALL of us are who are able to read these sentences have already been indoctrinated  or educated or initialized into the cube-first orientation.  And there generally is really no going back, completely, for us.  We start with what's given.  So the best WE may be able to do do is perhaps just  ADD tetrahedron to our thinking and nest it somehow  as primary within our engrained cubism.

Secondly,  though,  there is the large matter of calculation and so-called coorelation with rationality.  In our traditional cube-first initializations, we are intensely satisfied  with observing that a stack of 3 blocks wide by 3 blocks long always involves 9 blocks. And if we stack these three layers deep there are  27 blocks which is also  9 plus 9 plus 9, three times nine and also three cubed.  So, the cubic orientation  comes with this rather inherent counting math flowing quite directly from its basic cubic structure.  The patterns are so rational, efficient and useful.  Everybody likes them.

But when when crawl through the opening in the dominant paradigm shield wall and we saunter  over

Re: [jcs-online] More Clarifications

---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

For Ralph,

That was dispositional rather than positional Ralph, so it is dynamic structure - but that suits us both I suspect. Quite interesting that it could be read as positional in fact, in the context of Higgs, as you say.

[ralphfrost wrote:] Yes, dis-positional. I see that, but, then and now, I rather disregard the prefix.     Within the unfolding storyline of higgs within electromagnetic -- nested fields within nested fields -- mass/inertial influences are obviously ~structural -- positional, but as we cast those field influences over into the interactive (higgs) field, and take another look as Heisenberg's uncertainty of position and momentum, we get a slightly clarified view of how come there is the so-called uncertainty.  Thus disposition and position  rest as nested fields within nested fields -- more nested structured~duality.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

 

On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:40, <ralph@...>

 wrote:

I appreciate your clarification of  mass as positional (like energy).  Positional has nice structured ring to it. 

Re: [jcs-online] Prime knots of WHAT?

Dear Chris, 

Nice job on presenting one, or of resurrecting your complicated abstract math echo of nested structural coding.  It doesn't seem naive to me and I hope you can remember it. For abstract math aficionados who presently think backwards and inside-out (from the analog math perspective) such a translation may be of considerable significance, helping to catch some of those  men in the net.

The so-called 1D - 3D characterizations and  numbers of degrees of freedom  and topological constraints (relating to properties), though,  are just a rather old-world way way of thinking about, pointing at and attempting to simplify our actual reality of nested fields within nested fields. Interactions occur within containments -- ~many ~body interactions...  Ditto, old-world (but very, very helpful)  for the various named abstract math features such as Riemann zeta function, braids, knots and eigenstates. 

Prime knots of ‘subjective accompaniments of complex energy eigenstates’ is still a rather lofty and, I think,  disconnected obfuscation of  attraction and repulsion in stacks and sequences of the underlying, and in one view, the 6^n, 10^20 per second internal analog math. Might you be trying to point at knots of 'prime feelings'?  

 

There are knots on many levels. Glibly, these may be seen in  the respirational water layer, bound water-protein matrices, xRNA, genetics and epi-genetics, perhaps in the synaptics and up through protein-folding into the tenuous standing waves in our functional and dysfunctional inter-personal and group dynamics, whether archetypally influenced  or not.

 

Re: Languages -- including analog math.

Chris,   [jcs-online]

There are many challenges in  a paradigm transition related to language or expression, many of which, like habits, preferences, prejudices, interpretations and other structural coding,  are also deeply ingrained in participants.   The challenge in the present transition is a bit more complicated in that migrating to the improved trial theory minimally makes a step in revealing  how  mental and physical patterns and artifacts ride along on the same underlying, unifying  general principle.  Getting to that new ground involves learning at least one or two new words -- new language acquisition --  and that  step -- learning a new language -- is  usually pretty difficult for all of us. 

Your representation as 'nested hierarchies' of what I actually emphasize [magnetic tetrahedra, the principle of structured~duality, structural coding, nested fields within nested fields], in the storyline I am advocating  is a somewhat fair, but also  somewhat  misleading characterization.  The hierarchies imagery is somewhat descriptive and may be excellent for linking back toward abstract math expressions of fractals or holograms. But the term falls down just a bit when defining all of reality as nested hierarchies.  Yeah, it sort of works, but not as well, or as independently  as actually crossing the boundary to all of reality being nested structured~duality.    I suspect many readers can catch this nuance since the new term is sufficiently open to contain the expanded terrain whereas 'nested hierarchies' is already  a bit too limited for that task. 

 

Higgs within electromagnetic, etc.

Dear Jo,   (jcs-online)

Where you wrote: "For a token mode there are no knowable values distributed in time and space in this sense, because these 'values&#39; are probabilities for getting a value at a place and time and if you get it at one place and time there are no values at other places and times."...

[ralph wrote] Much of this multi-generational confusion    clears up by shifting to viewing reality as (pulsating) nested fields within nested fields.  

I mean, that's part of where the difficulty arises when folks assume or isolate out  the alleged separate  'space' or the 'time' ~fields, or make their measures against that erroneous assumption -- and then run into the dynamical difficulties you outline.   

Viewing the entire showboat as the dynamic (aka, pulsating) nested fields within nested fields, or the dynamic nested structural coding, then  the space and the time are just more of the structural coding -- not hard and fast actual solidified dimensions.  Again, the structured~duality is the underlying tenet, not space and time, or even space-time.

Within such an improved emerging paradigmatic perspective, then one can begin to track on L-monads, monads, fields, mode of a field, ensembles, matter-energy transformations, emergence and the elusive qualities of non-classical dynamics supporting classical physics,  -- Higgs within electromagnetic, etc.

The issue at hand is paradigmatic, requiring a change in underlying tenet(s).   'Mode of a field' is great, but not quite general enough.  The space, time and space-time need to dissipate and dissolve into the underlying nested structured~duality. 

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

----

RE: [jcs-online] Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Hi ralph

Penrose and Hameroff didn't provide us with
a scientific account of consiousness,
they only gave us the contents of consiousness.

But consciousness= subject + object.

They only gave us the object, not the subject.

Only Plato and Leibniz give us both.

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

Hey, Roger Clough, 

I believe there is at least one other perspective on this subjective-objective elephant that you may not yet be  considering.

When we drill down through the tectonic plates  of both the western and the eastern paradigmatic expressions, what we encounter through and through are various instances of the underlying nested structured~duality. The eastern tradition sports the Tao/yin-yang patterns and our western scientific  tradition sports, roughly, the ~cube/subject-object instance, or variations on that theme.   To build a paradigm  ...pick a structure and pick a duality or sets of dualities, then work outward from there.   Plato does it. Leibniz does it.  Hameroff and Penrose do it. You do it. I do it. 

From this more unified vantage point, then when we look squarely at  subjective + objective, what we discover is objective things are instances, mostly, of the strongly repeatable subjectivity, blurring into the stochastic repeatibility.  This repeatability  is one of the most exquisite and uplifting impressions which comes  along with stumbling onto a new objective scientific discovery. The first occurrence of it is a hugely pregnant affair which then is found to repeat, first, within trials of the person discovering the pattern first, and next in the experience of others who discover  or are informed of the ~new scientific discovery.  The pattern repeats. The generality holds and expands.  Yet, in the early going all that each participant has is a strange, odd, usually poorly effable subjective feeling.  In fact, that is always all we get and have, but in the case of the strongly repeating patterns, after a while, we all like, or have been taught within the western tradition to label them as OBJECTIVE experiences.  

As you perhaps may now see, if you did not before,  there is  just the one type of experience --what likely is best thought of as a spectrum of repeatable subjectivity.   Crudely then, along and within this path of divine union, we might consider different categories such as  none (unique,solitary), rarely, stochastically, and strongly  repeating subjective experiences.    Thus,(rarely repeatable) spiritual is, as most  everyone also says, nested within the physical, etc.

 

 

As for your notion that  "Penrose and Hameroff didn't provide us with

a scientific account of consciousness,",  I disagree.   It looks to me like they are doing an admirable job of projecting, articulating and defending a mostly rationally founded trial theory of consciousness, and/or attempting to sketch in boundaries of science containing

Try NOT to think about it.

...That is, our internal analog 'math'  develops and replicates in particular patterns. 

This alternative imagery arises from the rather strong  trial theory I am advocating that within neurons (cells), within the cytoskeleton,  we and all our living cells are running the respiration reaction in the on-going effort to harvest electron flow and to maintain stabilizing resonance. In the process of that reaction, we're  each respiring 160 kg per year of oxygen and consequently generating 10^20 water molecules per second, body-wide,  in a large number of distributed respiration sites.  Water molecules are tetrahedral-like with two positive and two negative regions (at the four vertices), and so, as each water molecule forms in the respiration site, it can do so in one of, say, six orientations within the enfolding field.  A sequence of, say, 12 molecules can then form in 6^12 or about  2.2 billion ways.   Since physics says, roughly, that everything influences everything else, repeating vibrations from our surroundings really ought to influence the formation of similar or the same sequences in the 6^n patterns of water molecules. Thus, structural coding within hydrogen bonding packets forming  within our respiration sites can naturally develop as an internal representation of our surroundings.    Since hydrogen-bonding has some influence within protein-folding and protein-folding is, for us, motility and expression,   such an internal representation would always inherently feel like something, even when unconscious.   Reinforce or structural code stacks of cellular water clusted within the matrices of newly forming proteins or xRNA chains and the representation of the external influence, and/or responses to the pattern become stronger, more persistent and interactive.

Since  this respiration/structural coding process is synergistically related with energy flow, any and all improvements in structural coding which improve energy conservation would have a selective advantage.  Consider enzymatic catalysis and the natural selection of, or migration to more general, more unified  trial scientific theories. 

Try NOT to think about it.