Archive

Archive for the ‘math’ Category

Non-Well-Founded Identity Principle

September 16, 2013 6 comments

Non-Well-Founded Identity Principle

In an effort to clarify this concept, I wanted to add an update:

Edit 11/02/2018

The point of the Non-Well-Founded Identity principle is to characterize identity in a way which I propose is more accurate and makes fewer presumptions. Rather than following our scientific impulses to define all things in single, final ways, we can step back and instead integrate the full spectrum of epistemological and ontological nuances into our descriptions of math, logic, and science. What I propose here with the Non-Well-Founded Identity Principle is a redefinition of the identity principle to one which factors in the reality of perception, which I propose is not only a bottom up construction, but also a diffraction from the totality down. Unlike artificial intelligence, natural intelligence is kind of prism which opens up the ‘light’ of consciousness to its deeper nature, using both analytical steps and intuitive synthesis.

Rather than saying A=A (that everything is itself), I suggest that every phenomenon is:

  • A spectrum of presentations/qualities/properties which can be said to be bounded on two ends.
  • On one end, all things are bounded by a conserved identity. They are simply what they appear to be in whatever perspective and context they appear.
  • On the other end, all things are a spectrum of resemblances/similarities/associations/dissimilarities that can be navigated poetically and reveal profound dimensions that echo the totality of experience.

In other words, rather than A=A, I propose instead that A equals a spectrum that runs from self equivalence (A=A) to a second spectrum of similarities that ultimately include diametric dissimilarity, i.e. running from A=A to A~!=A.

A= {the spectrum of identity running from A to (a nested spectrum of identity running from almost totally A to almost totally not A)}

This idea is extended further below so that “A” as a unit of identity is replaced by sense itself, so that any sense experience is a spectrum that runs from experience of a purely particular experience to the nested spectrum that runs from all particular experiences to all experiences to the particular experiences that define the sense spectrum itself.

End of update.

Beginning of previous article:

 

Here’s a crazy little number that I like to call the Non-Well-Founded Identity Principle. It woke my boiling brain up a few times last night, so I present it now in its raw state of lunacy.

The idea here is “For All A, A equals the integral between A and (the integral between A and not A)”.

This represents a refinement of trivial identity, A=A, to reflect the grounding of all propositions in the Absolute inertial frame of pansensitivity. The nested integral specifies that all integrations are themselves defined as that which is not disintegrated. Any object, subject, or sensory presentation or representation (A) is itself, and it is also the range of all possible relations, literal, figurative, and otherwise, between itself and all that is not itself (≠A).

This comes out of the idea that sense is the Explanatory Gap, i.e. the gap between private experience and public bodies is a non-well-founded set (non-well-founded sets contain themselves as members) in which primordial pansensitivity*defines its nested child sense experiences in a terms which are both unique, generic, and everything in between, depending on how the local perceptual inertia frames it.

*pansensitivity is plain old feeling, sensing, being and doing, but extended and universalized beyond Homo sapiens, as well as physics and arithmetic truth. Ontology itself – being; the is-ness and it-ness of all phenomena can be reduced further through the Non-Well-Founded Identity Principle, under which ontology becomes the nested gap between phenomenology and the sense of its own absence. This is a very tricky shell game, but it is not intended as a trick or a game. Said another way, ‘privacy is the difference between privacy and the difference between private and public experience.’

Applied to philosophy of mind, we would get: Naive realism equals the difference between naive realism and (the difference between naive realism and reductionism). Another one would be Sense equals the sense of the difference between the sense and (the difference between sense and logic). It could be said that X=/(=/≠) X, so that any number is a straight isomorphism with itself, but it is also a superposition of any potential combinations with or relativity upon any and all X that it is not.

The reductio ad absurdum can be seen in this second expression:

reductio2

in which integration itself is the integral between integration and disintegration. Every set or process is defined by its own self-same initiation and termination.

Is this all insipid tautology? Is it another way of catching a glimpse of Heisenberg uncertainty or Gödel incompleteness through a fun house mirror? I don’t know much about calculus, so there may be a more conventional way of expressing these kinds of relations, but in the mean time, to me, it’s an absolutely interesting way of modeling the absolute: A universal capacity to simultaneously universalize and de-univeralize (proprietize) the universal experience.

Charting It All

September 14, 2013 2 comments

frame_freq3

In an effort to provide a more straightforward view of pansensitivity and eigenmorphism, the chart above organizes all phenomena in the cosmos by scale of publicly extended body length and frequency range of privately experienced times. Going left to right (Metaphorically, Occident to Orient), the first and second column denote the public, physical scopes (perceptual inertial frames) according to cardinality and size.  The bottom left frames (Ω) correspond to the outermost types of physical phenomena, i.e. absolutely gigantic or absolutely infinitessimal. This reflects the aesthetic intuition by which the atom comes out having more in common morphologically and dynamically with a solar system than a tree or coral reef, despite being at opposite ends of the scale of our awareness. The Ω range of frames is the envelope of physicality, where physical and mathematical ‘laws’ meet the most universally public perceptions.

Our awareness is extended technologically, which broadens our view of the public universe, however, since the awareness being extended is primarily visual and somatic (‘tangible’-kinesthetic rather than tactile), the telescoping of our sensory awareness is also narrowing our depth of field within the private (phenomenological) side of physics. My conjecture is that because of the nature of perceptual relativity, the more we focus on the the outer contexts, not only do we not see the private experience in the universe on these distant scales, but also our entire worldview will, by default, adjust to recontextualize the local experiences of the self. The fallacy of the instrument (if you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail) might arise through this kind of empathetic feedback loop. This is likely to extend into so-called ‘supernatural’ phenomenon, which explains the increases in magnitude, frequency, and connectedness of coincidence experienced by subjects through altered states of consciousness.  The higher up on the right hand column, the more large patterns of synchronicity, with deeper resonance (A1) are available for direct personal experience (A).

By contrast, the lower down on the Oriental, right hand scale we go, the more the needle of synchronicity tips toward mere statistical coincidence and the more top-down intuition, imagination, and eidetic narrative are collapsed into the stepped logic of bottom-up causality. The numbering schema is confusing, but intentional. The use of A in the middle row on the right side denotes that sense is always anchored centripetally. Perceptual capacity radiates as a range, often a literal circular, conic, or spherical perimeter, of awareness, but also sensitivity radiates figuratively as nested channels or layered modalities of sense.

The use of A1 and Ax above and below A respectively, implies the hierarchical pull from the superlative top, down to the personal, and the plummet from the personal middle down to the bottom. Ax would be the opposite of A1; insignificant, low status, shame and indignity. Looking at the Left side of the chart, the numbering scheme is even more confusing, but it is to emphasize the multiple levels of opposition that characterize the public and private aspects of physics-sense. The A1 range is the most universal private experience, (the ultimate being experience itself), which is meta-phorical. Experiences are associated to each other through metaphor, with the most tightly isomorphic metaphor being imitation or repetition. The higher up on the A column we go, the more latitude there is in recognizing common associations. Pareidolia and Apophenia are examples of having the aperture disproportionately dilated to the super-private, which becomes unsupportable within human society (delusions of grandeur, ideas of reference, mania, etc.)

Back to the Omega column on the left, the Ω1 is a different kind of magnificence than the private rapture of the Absolute. The public side is not centripetally oriented, but linear and circular. There is no radiant center, only jumps and slides. The Alpha/Aleph side in the East fills the gaps, it infers and elides, it puts two and two together. The Ω1 is mutation and fluke. Unintentional singularity. Its uniqueness is simply an inevitable accumulation of imperfectly repeating behaviors, so that the wonder of biology through evolution can be examined correctly in Darwinian terms. These are terms of the exteriors, however. Regardless of how complex and convoluted the patterns, they are patterns of insensitivity rather than awareness, automaticity rather than authenticity. This is individuality from the outside in – stochastic, social, generational rather than individual.

The cells of the bottom row have as much in common as the cells of the top row are polar opposites, but they are also skewed (this is what the arrows in the center are supposed to mean). This is what I call eigenmorphism. A to Ω1 has a half-black, half-white arrow, showing the relation between the human mind and its homid body. This is a maximal polarization, or so it seems to us. The black arrow from the Microscopic Ωx to the Sub-private Ax have in common the x, connoting the strong relation between mechanical appearances on the molecular level and the recursiveness of awareness in its least signifying, quantitative form. This is contrary to the idea that vibrations or energy are what we are, rather vibrate is what the various parts of our sub-private experience do – jiggling or wagging from position to disposition, from incident to co-incident.

The grey arrow from A1 to Ω points to what I call the profound edge of the continuum. This would be the level at which the Totality is an unbroken, Ouroboran monad. This is what happens ‘behind our backs’, hypnotically through evanescence. It is significance reclaimed and re-membered after having been diffracted into the entropy of spacetime. By contrast, the black and white split arrow corresponds to the ‘pedestrian fold’ – the level of the monad which appears most polarized and least evanescent – the terrestrial aesthetic of ‘ordinary’ experience.

In the top chart I have limited cardinality to the public side and ordinality to the private side to show the relation between morphic scale and phoric frequency. Privacy runs first to last (ordinal), publicity places astronomically numerous to few (cardinal).

Compare with Frame Set View:

frameset

Why Computers Can’t Lie and Don’t Know Your Name

September 12, 2013 12 comments

What do the Hangman Paradox, Epimenides Paradox, and the Chinese Room Argument have in common?

The underlying Symbol Grounding Problem common to all three is that from a purely quantitative perspective, a logical truth can only satisfy some explicitly defined condition. The expectation of truth itself being implicitly true, (i.e. that it is possible to doubt what is given) is not a condition of truth, it is a boundary condition beyond truth*. All computer malfunctions, we presume, are due to problems with the physical substrate, or the programmer’s code, and not incompetence or malice.  The computer, its program, or binary logic in general cannot be blamed for trying to mislead anyone. Computation, therefore, has no truth quality, no expectation of validity or discernment between technical accuracy and the accuracy of its technique. The whole of logic is contained within the assumption that logic is valid automatically. It is an inverted mirror image of naive realism. Where a person can be childish in their truth evaluation, overextending their private world into the public domain, a computer is robotic in its truth evaluation, undersignifying privacy until it is altogether absent.

Because computers can only report a local fact (the position of a switch or token), they cannot lie intentionally. Lying involves extending a local fiction to be taken as a remote fact. When we lie, we know what a computer cannot guess – that information may not be ‘real’.

When we say that a computer makes an error, it is only because of a malfunction on the physical or programmatic level, therefore it is not false, but a true representation of the problem in the system which we receive as an error. It is only incorrect in some sense that is not local to the machine, but rather local to the user, who makes the mistake of believing that the output of the program is supposed to be grounded in their expectations for its function. It is the user who is mistaken.

It is for this same reason that computers cannot intend to tell the truth either. Telling the truth depends on an understanding of the possibility of fiction and the power to intentionally choose the extent to which the truth is revealed. The symbolic communication expressed is grounded strongly in the privacy of the subject as well as the public context, and only weakly grounded in the logic represented by the symbolic abstraction. With a computer, the hierarchy is inverted. A Turing Machine is independent of private intention and public physics, so it is grounded absolutely in its own simulacra. In Searle’s (much despised) Chinese Room Argument – the conceit of the decomposed translator exposes how the output of a program is only known to the program in its own narrow sensibility. The result of the mechanism is simply a true report of a local process of the machine which has no implicit connection to any presented truths beyond the machine…except for one: Arithmetic truth.

Arithmetic truth is not local to the machine, but it is local to all machines and all experiences of correct logical thought. This is an interesting symmetry, as the logic of mechanism is both absolutely local and instantaneous and absolutely universal and eternal, but nothing in between. Every computed result is unique to the particular instantiation of the machine or program, and universal as a Turing emulable template. What digital analogs are not is true or real any sense which relates expressly to real, experienced events in space time. This is the insight expressed in Korzybski’s famous maxim ‘The map is not the territory.’ and in the Use-Mention distinction, where using a word intentionally is understood to be distinct from merely mentioning the word as an object to be discussed. For a computer, there is no map-territory distinction. It’s all one invisible, intangible mapitory of disconnected digital events.

By contrast, a person has many ways to voluntarily discern territories and maps. They can be grouped together, such as when the acoustic territory of sound is mapped to the emotional-lyric territory of music, or the optical territory of light is mapped as the visual territory of color and image. They can be flipped so that the physics is mapped to the phenomenal as well, which is how we control the voluntary muscles of our body. For us, authenticity is important. We would rather win the lottery than just have a dream that we won the lottery. A computer does not know the difference. The dream and the reality are identical information.

Realism, then, is characterized by its opposition to the quantitative. Instead of being pegged to the polar austerity which is autonomous local + explicitly universal, consciousness ripens into the tropical fecundity of middle range. Physically real experience is in direct contrast to digital abstraction. It is semi-unique, semi-private, semi-spatiotemporal, semi-local, semi-specific, semi-universal. Arithmetic truth lacks any non-functional qualities, so that using arithmetic to falsify functionalism is inherently tautological. It is like asking an armless man to raise his hand if he thinks he has no arms.

Here’s some background stuff that relates:

The Hangman Paradox has been described as follows:

A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day.Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that the “surprise hanging” can’t be on Friday, as if he hasn’t been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left – and so it won’t be a surprise if he’s hanged on Friday. Since the judge’s sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday.He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn’t been hanged by Wednesday night, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. By similar reasoning he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all.The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoner’s door at noon on Wednesday — which, despite all the above, was an utter surprise to him. Everything the judge said came true.

Some thoughts on this:

1) The conclusion “I won’t be surprised to be hanged Friday if I am not hanged by Thursday” creates another proposition to be surprised about. By leaving the condition of ‘surprise’ open ended, it could include being surprised that the judge lied, or any number of other soft contingencies that could render an ‘unexpected’ outcome. The condition of expectation isn’t an objective phenomenon, it is a subjective inference. Objectively, there is no surprise since objects don’t anticipate anything.

2) If we want to close in tightly on the quantitative logic of whether deducibility can be deduced – given five coin flips and a certainty that one will be heads, each successive tails coin flip increases the odds that one the remaining flips will be heads. The fifth coin will either be 100% likely to be heads, or will prove that the certainty assumed was 100% wrong.

I think the paradox hinges on 1) the false inference of objectivity in the use of the word surprise and 2) the false assertion of omniscience by the judge. It’s like an Escher drawing. In real life, surprise cannot be predicted with certainty and the quality of unexpectedness it is not an objective thing, just as expectation is not an objective thing.

Connecting the dots, expectation, intention, realism, and truth are all rooted in the firmament of sensory-motive participation. To care about what happens cannot be divorced from our causally efficacious role in changing it. It’s not just a matter of being petulant or selfish. The ontological possibility of ‘caring’ requires letters that are not in the alphabet of determinism and computation. It is computation which acts as punctuation, spelling, and grammar, but not language itself. To a computer, every word or name is as generic as a number. They can store the string of characters that belong to what we call a name, but they have no way to really recognize who that name belongs to.

*I maintain that what is beyond truth is sense: direct phenomenological participation

Eigenmorphism: The Politics of Pansensitive Entanglement

September 7, 2013 6 comments

rou

Eigenmorphism is a neologism which refers to a hypothesis about fundamental laws of how natural phenomena persist in relation to each other. The thesis draws on some principles of General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and semiotics, to integrate phenomenal awareness and physics at a fundamental and ontological level. In philosophy of mind, the idea that awareness is something like a fundamental force coexisting with other forces of physics in some way is known as panpsychism, however, within Multisense Realism, the conjecture that is used is an even more radical one. For reasons explained later, MSR uses the term pansensitivity rather than panpsychism, and it conceives of forces of physics to be second order divergences from the fundamental and irreducible capacity which is assumed to act as the common parent of all action and all being, all feeling and all knowing. This is not to be confused with a creationist account or theism, as it does not assume a single being who is human like and feels all and does all, rather primordial identity pansensitivity (PIP) is a weaker assertion that claims only that it makes more sense to view the cosmos, or at least the sense that the cosmos makes to itself, as originating from an agenda which is aesthetic and participatory rather than one which is automatic and functionalist.

Eigenmorphism is used here to explain how phenomena in general are presented and translated and to each other at an ontological level, thus the “identity” of primordial identity pansensitivity is that the realism of nested sensory presentation is identical to existence. Eigenmorphism attempts to point out a single pattern of diffraction and calibration through which presentations and representations are privatized and generalized, both locally and universally. I have used David Chalmers paper, The Combination Problem of Panpsychism as a jumping off point for applying PIP to the problems of binding and combining of subjective experience. The linked article provides an excellent discussion of the issues surrounding panpsychism, and how it is that physical and phenomenal states might coexist at a fundamental level. The central focus of his paper is to clarify the various schools of thought on how microphysical and or microphenomenal states might combine and relate to so called macrophysical and macrophenomenal states. He writes:

“The combination problem for panpsychism is: how can microphenomenal properties combine to yield macrophenomenal properties? […] The combination problem can be broken down into at least three subproblems, […] These three aspects yield what we might call the subject combination problem , the quality combination problem, and the structure combination problem.

[…]The subject combination problem is roughly: how do microsubjects combine to yield macro-subjects? Here microsubjects are microphysical subjects of experience, and macrosubjects are macroscopic subjects of experience such as ourselves.  […] An especially pressing aspect of the subject combination problem is the subject-summing problem [in principle it seems that a macrosubject would not necessarily emerge from microsubjects].

[…]The quality combination problem is roughly: how do microqualities combine to yield macroqualities? Here macroqualities are specific phenomenal qualities such as phenomenal redness (what it is like to see red), phenomenal greenness, and so on. It is natural to suppose that microexperience involves microqualities, which might be primitive analogs of macroqualities. How do these combine? An especially pressing aspect of the quality combination problem is what we might call the palette problem [..] How can this limited palette of microqualities combine to yield the vast array of macroqualities?

[…]The structure combination problem is roughly: how does microexperiential structure (and microphysical structure) combine to yield macroexperiential structure? Our macroexperience has a rich structure, involving the complex spatial structure of visual and auditory fields, a division into many different modalities, and so on. How can the structure in microexperience and microstructure yield this rich structure? An especially pressing aspect of the structure combination problem is the structural mismatch problem. Microphysical structure (in the brain, say) seems entirely different from the macrophenomenal structure we experience. “

Panpsychism has already suffered from a somewhat dubious reputation in the past, perhaps because it is often conceived of in simplistic terms by those unfamiliar with it. In many minds, panpsychism is presumed to imply a cartoonish idea of nature which imbues every speck of dust or atom with a human-like mind. While there may be no philosophical justification to rule out such a view, I think that all of the common forms of panpsychism offer far more sophisticated ideas. I would consider any view which disregards the primitive nature of microphysical systems relative to macrophenomenal states to be more of an anthropomorphic panpsychism; what I call pananthropism,  There are weaker forms of panpsychism, such as panexperientialism or panprotoexperientialism which do honor the difference in complexity between micro and macro scale phenomena, but these forms also dilute the effectiveness in resolving the Hard Problem of Consciousness. If we say that microphenomenal states aren’t really phenomenal or subjective, then we still are faced with having to explain why and how they become that way on the macro, human scale.

In between the two extremes, I introduce the word ‘pansensitivity‘, which posits a universal minimal capacity for sense in naturally presented phenomena (not phenomenal representations). This sensitivity operates within its own scale and inertial frame of reference, and need not be very similar to human consciousness. Inertial frame is intended literally as well, as part of the hypothesis includes the idea that experiences themselves accumulate and take on a kind of gravitation-like tropism, similar to Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance and David Bohm’s Implicate Order, which I refer to within MSR as Solitrophy, If solitrophy is the world builder, then significance (the nesting of representation within sensed presence) is its bricks and mortar.

Pansensitivity need not have a subjective or self-like quality, only a univeral commonality of being and doing which is rooted in sensory-motor participation.  By emphasizing the primacy of perception and participation as the heart of all possible experience, pansensitivity lays the foundation for a full scale integration with physical conjugates such as mass-energy, space-time, electro-magnetism. Additional conjugates from information science and mathematics integrate smoothly as well, such as form-function, signal-noise, geometry-algebra, and ordinality-cardinality. The consequence of moving ‘down’ from panpsychism to pansensitivity would be the loss of the anthropomorphic baggage imposed on primitive phenomena, and the consequence of moving ‘up’ from panprotoexperientialism would be to un-ask the Hard Problem on the micro-level.

Primordial Pansensitivity

Starting from the hypothesis that all phenomena are sensed or sensing phenomena*, and that nothing can said to be exist beyond the scope of sense, the entire Combination Problem is turned on its head to become one of breaking apart rather than merging together. Because all distinctions of micro and macro, phenomenal and physical are subsumed within the absolute primordialism of pansensitivity, we must employ a different way of thinking about the Combination Problem entirely. This revision of thought extends to a re-imagining of some of the underpinnings of mathematics and cosmology. In all respects, where recent Western views assumes a universe from nothing, or an arithmetic beginning with zero, primordial pansensitivity supposes the opposite perspective; a multiplicity carved out of unity, a near infinity of quantities diffracted as ratios within the number one. Separation becomes the derived local condition, while singularity is the absolute fundamental condition. It is not ‘a singularity’, or ‘a universe’, it is The singularity, and The universe.

Because the orientation of this model flips the traditional ranking of physics and phenomenology, and awareness is the sole defining principle, Professor Chalmers three subproblems would have to be restated to assume divergence rather than emergence. Emergence would be the local appearance of diffraction of the single whole rather than combination of isolated parts. At this level, PIP can be considered a form of idealism, in that the head end of the Ouroboros is phenomenal presence and the tail end is diffracted by time (subjective self), space (objective matter), and sense itself (represented information), however the very categorization of sense as ‘ideal’ is a materialistic bias which draws on Platonic notions of information supremacy rather than the sensory supremacy envisioned by PIP/MSR. Sense is not an ideal, it is concrete. It moves bodies and births galaxies. The sense of the human intellect is idealizing. Our mental life is a special case as far as we know. The rest of the universe does not seem to strive for perfection, it simply presents itself as perfect or imperfect by default. The human mindscape, by contrast, is often fixated on perfecting forms and functions, removing entropy from signal.

The Genius of Palette

When we consider the relation of the colors of the visible spectrum to white light, we can get a sense of how singularity and multiplicity coexist qualitatively, and how that coexistence differs from quantitative-logical structures. The difference between projected light and reflected color is instructive. As we know, converging three spotlights of competing colors gets us closer to white in the overlap, while mixing three paints of different colors gets us closer to grey or black. Similar displays of order can be found in the other senses as well, with harmonic progressions and white noise within sound, and other symmetric patterns which circumscribe the palette of olfactory sense. The palette of the color wheel, however, is uniquely suited to modeling aspects of sense combination. We might as why that is. What makes vision seem more fully exposed to us than something like smell? How does the neurological emphasis on visual sensitivity translate into this ‘seeing is believing’ sense of trust?

In particular, the color wheel or visible spectrum presents two themes within palette formulation. The first I will call the prospectively sensible theme. If we had never seen color before, and were presented for the first time with green and blue paint, it seems plausible that we could imagine a color in between green and blue as being turquoise or cyan. If we were presented with red and green paint instead, it seems completely implausible that anyone could imagine the existence of the color yellow. Yellow is not ‘prospectively’ sensible. Once we see yellow however, and see the flow of the visible spectrum as it progresses smoothly from red to orange to yellow to green, the quality of yellow seems to fit in perfectly, so it is retrospectively sensible,  In this example, cyan has both prospective and retrospective sensibility, but yellow only has retrospective sensibility. This gives the origin of yellow an unprecedented quality. I call this idiopathic property, which is common to all sense palettes, the ‘genius’ of the palette. The genius provides tentpoles, primary differences in kind from which secondary and tertiary differences of kind blend seamlessly into a multiplicity of differences in degree. There is a view of the territory of the pansensitivity’s version of the Combination Problem (or primary Divergence Problem).

The problem of the origin of palette genius is still an issue, but it is an issue which is diffused somewhat by the totality and unity of primordial sense, and the inversion of our expectation of nothingness rather than primordial everythingness. These genius qualia are manifestations of sense which may be more primitive than spacetime itself, so that the ingression of spacetime leaves certain critical pieces to the puzzle missing. Simply stated, the whole idea of causality and origin depends on time and sequence, so that these primary colors and sensations are as fundamental as sequence itself, and as any question that we can ask about it. Questions themselves are presumably no more fundamental than these elemental experiences.

Combinatory Eigenmorphism

Once a palette of sense has diverged and multiplied into spacetime availibility, it is proposed that the role of subjective participants is to recover unity and simultaneity, completing a kind of sensory-semantic conservation cycle (which is also a palette of sense).  The hypothesis of combinatory eigenmorphism is that the relation between any and all phenomenal experiences, whether they are cognitive, perceptual, or physical, can be characterized by specific categorical differences which are themselves ordered in a sensible schema.

Borrowing the eigen- prefix, used in terms such as eigenstate and eigenvector, and the root ‘morph’ as it is used in isomorphism and homomorphism, eigenmorphism is intended to describe an ordered set of elementary mappings within a closed continuum of possible mappings. Comparing two compasses, for example, the closed continuum of possible mappings would be the 360 x 360 degree matrix of possible needle direction combinations. Only one type of combination (a group of 360 out of the total 129,600 combinations) would be isomorphic, with both needles facing the same direction. Another group of 360 would be anti-isomorphic (one compass needle points North and the other points South). In between these two poles would be various shades and angles of disagreement. The right angles would be in perpendicular disagreement to both the isomorphic and anti-isomorphic combinations.

eigenchart

The use of eigenmorphism here is not intended as a mathematical abstraction, however. There may be more precise terms within algebra or geometry to describe such a rotating cycle of polarization stages, but the point of using morphism here is not to limit the combinations to one dimensional differences. Unlike a geometric degree or radian, this usage of morphism must apply to every kind of difference between any phenomena, not just to differences in shapes or orientation.  This is potentially possible because of the holism of primordial pansensitivity. The divergence of every singularity into multiplicity can be described as tectonic – every diffracted palette and diffraction within a palette is like Pangea, breaking into continents which fit each other like puzzle pieces. Adages like ‘as above, so below’, and ‘opposites attract’ can be grounded in this foundational continuity.

Eigenmorphism must, therefore, apply not just to mathematical transformations, but to fully realized sense experiences, complete with personal participation and felt content. If we extend the compass metaphor and imagine that on the top of each compass is a tiny video screen which shows the other, and that the position of the needle determines the composition of that video image (not just brightness and contrast, but focus, size, realism, etc), we can begin to get a sense of what is meant by eigenmorphism. It is intended as a common schema to unite quality and quantity, or in Deleuzian-Bergsonian terms, differences in kind and differences in degree.

The full conjecture of eigenmorphism is that differences in kind are orthogonal to differences in degree, but that they are both part of the same cycle of sense which discerns all difference and through that experienced discernment, effects a reproduction of order which is expressed through all phenomena. To be clear, the scope of the juxtaposition of this schema is absolute. We are comparing poetry to baseballs, and deja vu to carbide steel. The goal is to recognize a subtle framework which weaves together all phenomena, whether physical, phenomenal, or semiotic, and on the scale of the microcosmic, macrocosmic, or cosmic. Eigenmorphism can help organize, in one conceptual framework, the relation between micro and macro scales or across physical and phenomenal lines, where similarities may be found only in the extremity of their incommensurable difference. Eigenmorphism is a response to Einstein’s famous quote “God does not play dice with the universe” in disbelief of Quantum Mechanical probability,  God plays dice, dice plays God but only sense can make a difference.

Eigenlinguistics

Language provides a good example of how physical objects and experience can coexist seamlessly within a single schema. Onomatopoetic words like bang! or pow! rely on high degree of isomorphism between 1) sounds that we hear, 2) sensible generalizations of those sounds, and 3) sounds that can be spoken. Such sound-alike words are more universal than other kinds of words, as they require no translation from language to language. People of all ages and backgrounds intuitively understand that these words refer directly to events associated with those sounds. It seems likely that language itself must have originated with this kind of imitative behavior – the recording and replaying of sounds and gestures. The combination of literal imitation (bottom-up) and figurative association (top-down) yielded more abstract metaphors with more eigenmorphic combinations. Complex communications extended the step of sensible generalization (2) and, perhaps surprisingly, made communication and representation more difficult to separate from that which is represented.

With each extension from the literal to the figurative, the poetic and the abstract, we effect certain translations, each of which stand on their own as sensible connections, and which take their own most sensible places in the universal context. Again, going back to the color wheel. Each hue and shade makes sense as its own unique individual experience, and as a mathematical vector within any number of sensible topologies (wheels, cylinders, cubes, parabolas, triangles, etc). It makes sense in many different ways, including the intuitively idiopathic sense of its palette genius.

Within language we find a vast context of meanings which have developed accidentally and intentionally, intuitively and counter-intuitively. Conventions of grammar and spelling reflect similar mixtures of logic, intuition, spontaneity, and inherited formalism. Beneath all of these is a semiotic foundation. To communicate is to represent, and to represent is to infer comparisons among subjects, objects, other subjects, and other comparisons. To discern differences between ‘things’ implies first a capacity to sense ‘things’, and to experience sensibility itself – an expectation of presence and participation.

Semiosis is a particular cognitive version of what I suggest is this fundamental sensibility; the capacity to mentally record and generalize or iconicize perceptions, and to record those essentialized perceptions to be abstracted further. If information is a perceived difference that makes a difference, then information itself depends on a more primitive capacity to discern difference from indifference, to care about that discernment, and the power to do something about it. The polarization of afferent sensory receptivity is the power of efferent motive projection; to participate intentionally in some way which promises to have an effect on what has been sensed. This, to me, is the ultimate firmament of all metaphysics. The universe is an eigenmorphic-relativistic singularity of all experience, and experience is a nested multiplicity of sensory-motives.

Eigenmorphism assumes this universal continuum of sense in which the degrees and kinds of nestings deform the context of perception itself. As mass deforms spacetime in General Relativity, experiential qualities warp experiential perspectives under Multisense Realism. Rather than assuming a one-to-one, isomorphic relation, in which, for instance, a particular neurotransmitter’s binding in the brain equals a particular particle of a subjective experience, there is a lattice of translation which shifts in direct proportion to the scale and nature of the pairing (micro to macro, private to public, familiar to foreign, etc). As macro scale entities, our human scope is dictated not only by size and frequency of our conscious frame-rate relative to other experiential entities, but by the character and history of our intentional participation. If we want to put a Buddhist twist on it, it could be said that karma is the gravity of consciousness, and eigenmorphism is the warping of consciousness that mirrors back its own warped condition as well as the phenomenal translation of all external conditions through that lensing.

From Relativity to Improbability

As Relativity uses the concept of inertial frames, eigenmorphism describes the holistic constitution of experience. As a prism can be seen to split a beam of white light or combine beams of colored light into one, our human experience unites the spectrum of zoological, biological, chemical, and physical experience. We can choose to see ourselves as animals, or meta-animals, or temporarily embarrassed deities.  Our personal experience is proprietary and unique not just to the fingerprint or genome, but to the irreducibly absolute. The primordial pansensitivity hypothesis predicts that every experience, while seemingly composed of reducible, recombinant elements, is actually its own solitary universe – a vector of sense which cannot be reproduced completely. It is proposed that appearances of generality and duplication are a local effect, an artifact of eigenmorphic translation from plurality to singlularity in which the discernment of differences is necessarily truncated at an appropriate level. We can see this, for example, in how we look at sand on the beach, and generalize the grains of sand in our mind. Under a microscope, we can see more of the unique character of each grain. Because we assume that sense is primordial, we can predict that the microscope too has its limit, beyond which discernment falls to zero and that which we are measuring becomes indiscernible from the instrument being used to measure.

The pansensitive conjecture equalizes unlikelihood and inevitability in the totality, since it is not within the entropic displacement of spacetime. Within spacetime, probability is a mechanistic absolute, but that conditionality is, under eigenmorphism, a local inversion of the larger conditions of non-probability. Like the yellow and the cyan, the expectation of predictable order is itself emergent from utter unpredictability. Probability is a palette genius. Because the assumption of the improbable is taken as an anthropic necessity of all possible universes, the unlikelihood of life in the universe is nullified. It is not certain physical conditions which give rise to life, it is life experience which is expressed through certain physical conditions. By analogy, Shakespeare did not arise from the combination of certain words, vast groups of words were employed by Shakespeare to express human stories.

Bodies and Experience, Scale and Frequencies

As a rule of thumb, the closer the scale of forms, the greater the range of possible eigenmorphic relations. Bodies which are of similar size and private experiences which share similar histories and qualities have more potential kinds of relations and more degrees of relation than phenomena of disparate scale or history.  From our perspective, it appears that entities which are on the extreme range of scale in the universe like subatomic particles and galactic superclusters seem equally unlikely to host any kind of awareness. It could be that this is objectively** true, even beyond the prejudiced relativity of our human scale eigenmorphism, but it is not clear that there can ever be a difference between human truth and objective truth as long as we are human. For us, even if stars are bits of the Gods as ancient astronomers imagined, their experience is on such a remote scale to ours that our phenomenal states are inaccessible to each other.

More likely it seems that the great and infinitesimal entities do have objectively limited palettes compared with our own, but that those limitations are exaggerated because the eigenmorphic range of our own extended human sensitivity projects its own envelope of significance. Try as we might, the significance of an ant’s life is not on par with a human life, and even if ants looked like human beings, their tiny size relative to our body would make it hard for us to take them seriously. This is all part of the natural intuitive ordering by scale in the universe. Eigenmorphism describes the character of that ordering.

There are many fanciful ways to imagine microphenomenal or astrophenomenal states. Maybe all such entities are one collective experience just as ours is a collective experience of neurons, maybe there is only one proton-star experience and only appears to replay within the stories of younger, more mid-sized entities. It’s just as likely that microphenomenal states are unknowable, alien, and not worth thinking about.

The Pathetic Constant and Pathetic Fallacy

The degree to which we feel that another entity is capable of feeling could be called its pathetic constant, as it remains constant according to form/scale.  The more familiar something is to us, the more we ‘like it’ and it is ‘like’ us, the higher the level of empathy we can sustain for it.  The pathetic constant which we have to ourselves, ironically may not be as high as that which we reserve for those we admire. That kind of super-significance is a whole other story, but for the purposes of this consideration, it can be said that the pathetic constant toward the idealized self would be the maximum. While bigotry may allow some humans to feel that other humans are less worthy than other members of human society, this prejudice manifests as hatred and fear rather than a low pathetic constant. A true low pathetic constant would be associated with impersonal insignificance rather than personal malice.

Human history points to instances in which certain animals or objects or bodies of dead nobility were revered with high pathetic values, but human societies in general tend to support a general pecking order of pathetic values which place humans before most animals, most animals before most insects, most insects before mold, and mold before minerals. We seem to have an idea about what is ‘like us’ which is relatively free of cultural variation, even if we choose to intentionally prefer one entity into a higher caste.

This may seem a trivial observation, or that this folk hierarchy is derived from mechanical measures of complexity and familiarity, and on one level that might be true, however it becomes necessary, when considering the sentience of technologies like artificial intelligence, to have a place to start. The pathetic fallacy is one where human experiential qualities are attributed to an inanimate object or machine, i.e. ‘the camera loves you’. Even the most ardent supporter of Strong AI must admit that at some level, say, the level of a trash can lid which flaps down to “say THANK YOU” every time a tray is removed, there is a gap between the appearance of the behavior to a human audience and the subjective intent behind that behavior. We can understand that the trash can lid is in fact motivated by tension of physical materials, not politeness. Since we assign to the trash can a pathetic constant which is absolutely minimal, we do not read into its behavior personally, and the eigenmorphic relation between any proposed internal state of the trash can and the polite behavior we might interpret is null; any attribution of meaning between what we experience and what the trash can experiences is purely one-sided and non-coincidental, or else super-signified as part of a manic or psychotic episode.

Should the polite words ‘Thank you!’ come from a human being instead, there is a much more rich field of eigenmorphic mappings to use for interpretation. The meaning of the exchange can range from the trivial and impersonal, as in the case of a consumer transaction with a public-facing employee of a corporation. or it could be heartfelt and genuine, even life changing under some circumstance. The aperture of possibilities is open where the pathetic constant is maximized, as it is those who you most resemble or would like to resemble can hurt you or heal you most.

Artificial Intelligence

In the case of the trash can lid, the intent is for the exchange not to be examined very deeply. For the operators of such restaurants,  superficial gestures of politeness support an impression of ‘good service’, particularly in a mechanized and personally impoverished environment of a fast food outlet which some might find unpleasant if the impersonality of the operation were fully disclosed. This ‘polite face’ is functionally similar to the GUI which modern computer systems employ, which dresses up a command line interface which the general public may find difficult. Of course, even the command lines are a polite face superimposed on the more mechanistic levels of hexadecimal or binary code, and finally microelectronic switch configurations. The phrase user-friendly refers to enhancements which are intended to increase the pathetic constant in public facing systems, promoting psychological ease, as well as more intuitive functionality. It’s interesting to note the role that scale and frequency plays in this.  A cell phone would not be very user-friendly if you could on use it the same distance away that your computer screen sits from your face.

The binary code is roughly isomorphic to microelectronic switch configurations, or any Turing machine’s configurations. So much so, that there is a branch of computing devoted to developing programs from languages based on bit geometry rather than conventional number representations. The future of nanocomputing or quantum computing may use code that looks very much like what it is and what it does. For now though, the relation between digital bits, and between binary 1’s and 0’s remains slightly more abstracted than the nearly absolute isomorphism of embodied computation. It is important to realize that on the microelectronic level, where the pathetic constant approaches zero for most of us, our commands and programs are not understood by the electronics (or gears or punch cards). Like vast collections of trash can lids, the physical components of any machine are involuntarily moved and changed intentionally, by us, from the outside. The hammer hits the bell, the bell jiggles the float, and so on in Rube Goldberg  fashions of mechanical interaction among objects in space.

What is the difference between outside-in  and inside-out interaction? Some have argued nothing. Philosophical arguments from Leibniz to Searle notwithstanding, the appearance of the brain as a physical machine is so persuasive and complete that for many, the prospect of empathy emerging from mechanical complexity alone seems to be the only possibility, and a possibility which, from their perspective, is undeniable. We see neurons firing, and it reminds us of a computer. We see software running and it reminds us of our mental experience. Case closed. The pathetic constant is pushed to the maximum, organic and inorganic process become identical, and all eigenmorphism is collapsed to isomorphism…the trash can lid becomes, at least to some small degree, polite. This is the kind of panpsychism that we should avoid. Not only for the sake of poor computer scientists who would automatically become guilty of  atrocities in developing experimental beings, and not for the sake of human supremacy, but for the sake of understanding the whole truth about presentation and representation.

Conclusion

Eigenmorphism is a difficult to conceive of properly without fully comprehending the implications of panpsychism, pansensitivity, primordial identity, and perceptual relativity. The idea that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both expose opposite poles of what is ultimately identical with ordinary perception can be used as a basis for modeling a translation lattice. This envelope or matrix of perception which unites the microcosmic and the astrophysical, acts as a lens through which all subjective and objective appearances are presented. Like the eigenstates of QM, the relation of experience to itself has selective positions, settled inertial frames which evolve and recapitulate their own evolution. Participatory sense provides a richer context than mathematical spaces, so that forms and functions are only the publicly measurable tip of an immeasurable iceberg of private appreciation and participation which is unbounded by spacetime.

*that there are no proto-phenomenal or non-experienced properties possible, since ontology itself is treated as supervening on sense.

**true objectivity would require that we discard eigenmorphism, as only the absolute frame of reference would be without relativistic distortion, but objectivity requires that some sensory translation is objectifying another sense experience. Having no other sense experience to translate, the absolute frame can only diagonalize its own diffraction within itself.

Orthomodular Panprimordialism

August 23, 2013 Leave a comment

Playing around with a more math-friendly look and feel. Multisense Realism’s quant-flavored twin…Orthomodular Panprimordialism

I am really pushing it with the neologisms, but I am liking both of the recent adds, pansensitivity and now panprimordialism.

Pansensitivity is used to emphasize a position beyond panpsychism, idealism, and materialism where sensitivity becomes a palatable common capacity for all phenomena on its native scale.

Panprimordialism is used to emphasize the distribution of ‘one-ness’ across all phenomena, the relocating of all quantities to interrelated diffractions within the a sole, absolute singularity. This constitutes a figure-ground pivot from arithmetic assumptions which place zero or null as an absolute, such that all null values are considered a hypothetical representation of the sense of one’s self nullification.

The orthomodular lattice above gives some idea of that relation, with each node acting as the nexus for orderly juxtapositions within the overall monad.

Philosophical Gender

August 23, 2013 2 comments

Like sexual gender, the psyche tends to favor hovering around one aesthetic preference at a time. So much of philosophy seems to be rooted in just that, the aesthetic preferences of the psyche. How else should we explain why we are so often personally attached to our philosophical views – why we are in fact attracted to them, and to writers and speakers who have espoused similar perspectives.

Many are traditional in their philosophical tastes, and find that even the thought of experimenting with other views makes them very uncomfortable. Others find it natural to consume philosophy of all sorts, the more the better, but at the same time they may favor one particular flavor, or they may get sick of the whole intellectual-masturbatory scene eventually.

Philosophy engenders a feeling of firm orientation within it, despite the many other options available which might directly contradict it. That’s sort of the hook. A particular way of looking at things makes you feel that you are on the right track, maybe for the first time. It can change the way that you feel about other ways of acting and thinking. Like hitting puberty, what was once merely charged with social naughtiness and furtive mystery becomes irrepressibly intense. Childish ways of behaving, especially those which cross gender or leave it undeveloped are often discarded in shame and become repulsive, at least publicly. Gender is suddenly unexpectedly prominent, and exaggerated to the point of caricature.

Philosophy is almost inevitably tied to politics. Views on what the universe is, though seemingly esoteric and remote, have a way of filtering into our attitudes about everything from nature and technology, to society, personal responsibility, money, possessions, art, drugs, literature, etc.  Early math is practically inseparable from philosophy.

There are many polarities and nested polarities within philosophy, especially philosophy of mind. I often focus on reducing those polarities (reductive vs non-reductive…there’s another polarity) to a single hetero-normative gender which I am lately calling Anthropmorphism and Mechanemorphism, but have also referred to it as ACME and OMMM, Oriental Animism and Western Mechanism, Public-entropic and Private-holotrophic, and for those with a symbol fetish, ((-ℵ↔Ω) ºt)  and (ωª (H←d)).

In the course of studying this swirl of gender, it became apparent that the swirl itself could be transcended philosophically. While the battle between mind-firsters and body-firsters rages on forever, the battle itself can be seen as their most powerful overlap. Somehow even in the antiquated writings of long dead thinkers (well, the thinkers who were deemed white enough and male enough to be published anyways), fresh controversy can be sparked. It’s remarkable, really.  The enduring conflict, a perpetually circulating difference of opinion on everything, the difference between differences, and different ways of defining difference, and defining definition.

Is philosophy is a strange attractor?

“The Lorenz attractor is an example of a strange attractor. Strange attractors are unique from other phase-space attractors in that one does not know exactly where on the attractor the system will be. Two points on the attractor that are near each other at one time will be arbitrarily far apart at later times. The only restriction is that the state of system remain on the attractor. Strange attractors are also unique in that they never close on themselves — the motion of the system never repeats (non-periodic). The motion we are describing on these strange attractors is what we mean by chaotic behavior.”

If there were an ‘end’ to all of this (which is what exactly?) I think that it can be found not in being and nothingness or in difference and repetition, but in recognizing the commonality of conflict – the sense which discerns between differences and which also is the motivation which negates indifference. Carrying this principle into physics, and then mathematics, what it looks like is that a revolution of the most primordial propositions should be considered:

  • The number ‘one’ should be reinvented and restored as the root of the number line.
  • Zero should be regarded as neither a real or imaginary number, but rather an imaginary absence of all number.
  • The Big Bang singularity should be reinterpreted to reflect this new understanding of 1 and 0, beginnings and endings.

Here is the main insight: Since the difference between a difference (1) and indifference (no difference = 0) is in fact a difference, the two concepts are not perfectly symmetrical negations of each other, but rather, indifference, like nonsense or disorder, is a qualifier of difference. Zero is just 1 minus itself. In a universe of just the concept of 1 and subtraction, 1 would have to reproduce itself once in order to have another one to subtract, and then reproduce itself once more in order to carry out the subtraction. One cannot disappear, and zero cannot generate any numbers or operations. They don’t cancel each other out, they nest within each other in strange loops.

In this way, as I have posted before, the Big Bang must never be considered an explosion in space at some particular moment in the past, but rather it is the frame of all events, and all spaces. We are within the Big Bang, which was not a 1 emerging from 0, not a Universe from Nothing, but the opposite. What I call the Big Diffraction is “The Universe Within Everything”. The whole of physics can be seen as pieces to the puzzle which is getting more piece-ier and peace-ier as it goes on. The whole of mathematics can be seen as taking place within the number one, transformed, non-Euclidean style into the Absolute set of all sets. One is not an object, it is a primordial language of experience, of sense and sense making – a singularity not only of quantity, but of ontological-psychophysical gender.

But wait. Sense is not just a matter of being and knowing, it is also a matter of sensing and thinking, of comparing. It does not resolve the Material and the Experiential as being ‘the same thing’, it resolves them as both being equal to the same thing (1) in the opposite way. The Big Bang is not just 1, it is more like “=1”. This is a more primordial opposite even than being and nothingness, since nothingness can only be imagined by something. The relation of = to 1 is as opposite of that of 1 and 0 but more subtle. Just look at the characters. Parallel horizontal lines compared with an arrow-like stroke of singular effort. I guess I’m getting too into this, but whatever, consider it a piece of Suprematist art. It’s a before and after, an open canal, and an erect figure. An invitation and an expression. There’s a whole philosophy lurking in there just in the shapes of arithmetic symbols. Hmm.

Qui? Que

August 15, 2013 1 comment

quiqueoui

MSR Non-Standard Model of (Post-Particle) Physics

August 7, 2013 3 comments

Developing the idea of fusing quanta and qualia physically, MSR  proposes to add the following notation:

qui

“Qui”  (who?) would be the hypothetical ‘other half’ of the quantum wavefunction, and can be represented (obnoxiously, but memorably) by the sideways letter psi.

This signifies that aesthetic presence and qualitative appreciation (being and feeling) is orthogonal to the doing and knowing of quantum mechanics. Qui is not the measurement but the context of orientation from which measurement is experienced. It is explicitly neither wave, particle, form, or function, but neither is it non-wavelike, non-particle-like, formless, or unrelated to function. Qui is exactly what being alive is to us as human beings, except on a much more primitive level. It is the capacity to participate as an oscillating source of both animistic and mechanistic qualities.

The combined qui-psi symbol:

psiguy

Represents the total ‘qua’ unit on the microcosmic scale. This approach seems fully justified under the Pansensitive approach of MSR. I have called it Quorum Mechanics, or telesemantics, but maybe the photon can be abolished using something more conventional, like telepermittivity or teleopermittivity?

On Electrodynamics:

I have been trying understand electromagnetism in what I would call ‘purely classical’ terms. I suspect that the way that physics has been taught and learned, the knowledge which has accumulated is more of a collection of facts than a deep understanding. Even the basics of electromagnetism are immediately abstracted into formulas about how electrical effects can be predicted and controlled rather than what they actually are.

I think that the way that we approach electrodynamics is similar to how a civil engineer might approach city traffic. When we want to control the flow of traffic, the density and pressure of it, provide optimal ratios of parking space to population, how the number of lanes and cross streets affects the efficiency, etc. then we approach traffic from a purely quantitative perspective. We don’t consider the individual driver pushing the accelerator, looking at the bumper of the vehicle in front of them, even though that sensory-motive interaction is the actual mechanism upon which traffic relies. Instead, we look at rates and derivatives, geometric relations, etc.

If we want to get inside of electromagnetism in ‘classical terms’ of what is happening to molecules and substances, without even talking about electric fields or vectors, etc, what would it look like? Is electromagnetism like traffic, the movement of molecules driven by an unacknowledged sensory-motive participant? I think that it is possible, even likely that is the case, and my hypothesis about light as having no literal photons could maybe be understood in these classical terms, only with a concretely aesthetic sensory-motive participation instead of mathematical abstraction.

I started with the idea that since the speed of light is derived in part from the vacuum permittivity (ε0) and vacuum permeability constants (µ0), maybe I could make things easier on everyone who tries to understand my photon-free model of light by calling it remote permittivity or telepermeability or something like that. By this I mean to show that what I suggest is no more exotic than what we already assume about matter, only that the sophistication of matter itself, of its capacity to derive perspective and distance in relation to itself is much more spectacular and interior than we have imagined in the last few centuries (Aristotelian physics was teleological, so the notion of dumb matter is not something that is an eternal truth).

In my hyper-classical thought experiment, we don’t necessarily even believe in electrons. Electrons could be more like turn signals and break lights of the cars in traffic. The model of the electron cloud shifting away from the nucleus could be interpreted figuratively, as tension, displacement of intentions as the atomic ‘drivers’ are craning their necks to look out at the entire line of cars rather than passively staring ahead. Lots of fun possibilities here, I’m just trying to make the point that we can put electricity and magnetism inside the atom if we want.

All of the vectors and scalars of physics that have been derived for prediction and control can be seen as economic ideas. Things like electrostatic fields and potential energy are like accounts in a general ledger, but the actual transactions that they refer to are sensory-motive. They are concrete expectations fulfilled and deferred – felt by some aspect of the universe on some level of description (which may be a very different description than we have under typical conscious experience or instrumental observation.)

Rosetta Codex

July 21, 2013 Leave a comment

Rosetta_codex

Following up on the Tree of Life post and MSR Legend post.

Multisense Tree of Life

July 21, 2013 12 comments

MSR_Tree_of_Life_final2B

Multisense Tree of Life

I noticed that this formulation was starting to take on Kabbalistic dimensions, so I put it into that form. There’s some new propositions to consider here that have come out of this. Beginning with sense, which I symbolize as -ℵ (negative Aleph) and as =. This is the fundamental concept of MSR and the idea of ℵ in mathematics as cardinality fits with this definition, since equality ‘is equal to’ anti-cardinality. Sense is the unity which underlies all multiplicity, so that it can indeed be thought of as a kind of negative cardinality – not unity, but pre-cardinality.

Moving up and to the right from sense, there is Qualia, now defined as -ℵ/ש (Aleph over Shin), where ש (Shin) refers to the diffraction of the Absolute ॐ (Om). This means that Q = -ℵ/ש or, private sense is the sense of a share of eternal being – it is “a” being. In Leibniz terms this is a monad, and it is also the origin of origination, and of the number 1. From these two entities, we have the two parts of the Absolute, which mathematically would be “=1”. Eternal being is the likeness of a being, i.e. the ability to pretend. (Insert Joseph Campbell’s myths and Carl Jung’s archetypes, shamanism, imagination, etc..,) Fiction is ‘like something’, just as Qualia is what it is like to be, or what being ‘seems like’.

Rounding out the primordial trinity from sense along with Qualia is Quanta and Motive. I call the Absolute ‘Qua’ to symbolize its relation as the reconciling parent of Qualia and Quanta. Quanta (ω, lower case omega), here meaning the essence of computation, is given the formula √(ℵ),(root of Aleph). This works surprisingly well. Originally I was going with 0.00…1 and then 0.x to represent Quanta, to specify that Quanta is always the tiniest fragment of Qualia – the drive toward absolutely monotonous precision, but always beneath the threshold of unity, of wholeness. All quanta are parts and abstractions; information-theoretic rather than aesthetic/sensory-motive.

This ended up working well with √(ℵ) (root of Aleph) as it makes clear the complementarity-antagonism with Quanta and sense. Computation is the essence of cardinality, of difference. The stepped reckoning of mechanism is an impersonation of sense, it has no capacity to negate the separations and to build feeling from fragmented quantities. Since negative Aleph (-ℵ) corresponds to 1, then Quanta would be the square root of -1, or i. I used the symbol >.< as well, to denote the clipping of sense through measurement: digitization. Quantification is fantastically useful because it paralyzes whatever it fixes its gaze on.

Motive, the third leaf of the sense trinity, has the formula ℵ±ש (Aleph plus/minus Shin), which emphasizes its similarity to Quanta and Qualia but with an irreducible difference, will. Will is the ± (plus/minus) which requires a participant to end what sense started (thus the use of Ω, Omega). To have a motive is to de-cide, to kill off all options except one. This is the ‘waveform collapse’ of QM, but it is also ordinary ‘free will’. Will is the connection between unconscious cardinality and the Absolute. We don’t know how to make our body move or our how to focus our mind’s attention, we simply become our mind or body and the universe does the rest. There is a cost to our efforts, however. In the drive toward Significance (Solitrophy, Φ), entropy is born.

The unchosen path of Motive becomes the unintentional twin of Significance. Significance, -ℵ² (Aleph squared), while mathematically would equal ℵ (Aleph) as 1, there is an irreducible numinosity to the power relation. Significance holds Q not only as the sense of one quality out of the Totality (ש) (Shin, Qua) but it holds one Q as equal to any number of qualities or meta-qualitative relationships. This is semiotics. Not just = but =². Not phoric (sense) but meta-phoric. Quanta is not phoric but metric – it takes the ² nesting of Significance (Σ) (Sigma) but negates the feeling, leaving only the essence of that figurative quality. Significance is sense squared, Quanta is the square root of pretend sense, the meta-phor is inverted. Figurative language is loose. It draws from associations from within the Totality. Quanta is the opposite, drawing from strictly disambiguated logic. It has no phoric or morphic content, no feelings or forms, only the skeletal coordinates associated with them.

If Significance is like the universal bank account of metaphors and of experiences which have meant something in particular, then Entropy is the compost heap of all of the unchosen and unchoosability in the universe. It’s symbol H is taken from Shannon’s Information theory, and its formula here is ॐ/-Ω, (Om divided by negative Omega). Using the ॐ Om rather than the ש Shin is to emphasize that this relates to the ‘return trip’, the catabolic, arterial part of the cosmic circulation. Shin has more of a sense of the diffraction and creativity of the whole. With Entropy, it is the Totality’s raw, untamed nature which is divided by negative motive. This correctly applies to the nature of Entropy as indifferent, literally and figuratively. No motive. This is where the universe doesn’t care.

Between H of Entropy and Σ of Significance winds the Φ of what I call Solitrophy. Solitrophy is what makes the difference between something that can care and something that can’t. Burning a pile of garbage and burning down a town might produce the same amount of energy and entropy, but burning down a town has a human cost which doesn’t show up on a spreadsheet. As aesthetic significance accumulates, the range between one outcome and another increases. A human being has more at stake, simply by being a human being with a vastly rich aesthetic experience, than it seem like an ant has, or even an anthill. Solitrophy describes this great anchor of all sanities, and builder of worlds (I call them, perceptual inertial frames or castes).

This leaves Matter, Energy, and Qua itself. Matter and Space are listed together, as are Energy and Time. This is to emphasize their relation in MSR, teasing apart their differences rather than conflating them relativistically. The difference between time and space is Solitrophic. It doen’t show up in physics, because physics, by definition is conducted to reduce Solitrophy to an absolute minimum. Physics is asolirexic. Here. Space is defined ω+H and Time as ω*Φ, so that space is about entropy’s quantitative expansion and time is about the quantification of the growth through Solitrophy. The effect of Quanta on Φ is to limit the ‘size of the now’ – the frequency and range of memory of any given participant. Space and time are perpendicular, so that all of eternity is represented spatially by Quanta’s filtering of sense, but that representation is a vanishingly thin slice. Space, by comparison, allows access to the entire continuum of scales which have been accumulated through Solitrophy, but not in a way which allows us to experience it directly.

Matter’s formula is Σ*H, describing mass – the significance of Entropy. As everything is reflected and juxtaposed within MSR, Matter, mass, and space are aspects of the same thing, They are the unintentional, automatic consequences of all spatial scales, collapsed into a single scale. That’s how you get bodies which collide on one inertial frame, but pass right through each other if they are relevant to vastly different scales. This is obviously a rule of thumb – just a way of understanding how space is really an artifact of matter’s sense of its own non-sense and how time is about how functional tropes (routines), constrain and define energy. Energy, therefore, has the formula Ω ± ω (Omega plus minus lowercase omega), with Ω being Motive, now here given another nesting (Ω is already ±. so Ω ± is ±±) and ω being Quanta. Energy is a motive to motivate, or perhaps from to motorize, i.e. to translate a private effect publicly. The Quanta here emphasizes that this translation from motive to motor involves modulating both the frequency and the amplitude of the effect. Energy turns motive effect into work and power.

Finally, the crown of the tree, is Qua. I have covered this a lot already, but here the relation between sense, Qualia, and the Absolute can be seen. If sense is =, and Qualia is 1, then the Absolute is ‘=1’. The inclusiveness of the Absolute is total. It is the largest possible inertial frame. Our personal experiences are part of the whole, and the whole is every part of us.

Shé Art

The Art of Shé D'Montford

astrobutterfly.wordpress.com/

Transform your life with Astrology

Be Inspired..!!

Listen to your inner self..it has all the answers..

Rain Coast Review

Thoughts on life... by Donald B. Wilson

Perfect Chaos

The Blog of Author Steven Colborne

Amecylia

Multimedia Project: Mettā Programming DNA

SHINE OF A LUCID BEING

Astral Lucid Music - Philosophy On Life, The Universe And Everything...

I can't believe it!

Problems of today, Ideas for tomorrow

Rationalising The Universe

one post at a time

Conscience and Consciousness

Academic Philosophy for a General Audience

yhousenyc.wordpress.com/

Exploring the Origins and Nature of Awareness

DNA OF GOD

BRAINSTORM- An Evolving and propitious Synergy Mode~!

Musings and Thoughts on the Universe, Personal Development and Current Topics

Copyright © 2016 by JAMES MICHAEL J. LOVELL, MUSINGS AND THOUGHTS ON THE UNIVERSE, PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT TOPICS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. UNAUTHORIZED USE AND/OR DUPLICATION OF THIS MATERIAL WITHOUT EXPRESS AND WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THIS SITE’S AUTHOR AND/OR OWNER IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Paul's Bench

Ruminations on philosophy, psychology, life

This is not Yet-Another-Paradox, This is just How-Things-Really-Are...

For all dangerous minds, your own, or ours, but not the tv shows'... ... ... ... ... ... ... How to hack human consciousness, How to defend against human-hackers, and anything in between... ... ... ... ... ...this may be regarded as a sort of dialogue for peace and plenty for a hungry planet, with no one left behind, ever... ... ... ... please note: It may behoove you more to try to prove to yourselves how we may really be a time-traveler, than to try to disprove it... ... ... ... ... ... ...Enjoy!

Creativity✒📃😍✌

“Don’t try to be different. Just be Creative. To be creative is different enough.”

Political Joint

A political blog centralized on current events

zumpoems

Zumwalt Poems Online