Hi Rog,
I have attempted to answer your questions:
[Rog - Q]
For example, what does "refine this assertion" mean in the 2nd paragraph?
[Chris - A]
When you make the assertion X/~X there is initially an absoluteness about
the assertion. However over time you more than often find that in reality
things are not so black/white. This leads to an increasing demand to qualify
(!) the assertion. This process acts to refine the assertion, we round the
edges, introduce context-sensitive variations etc. This process includes
applying the dichotomy to the elements themselves, thus we discover ~X in X
as well as X in ~X.
[Rog - Q]
What does the 3rd para. mean?
[Chris - A]
I wrote: "Quantum mechanics thinking can be shown to manifest the
entanglement of
recursive dichotomous analysis combined with uncertainty where this
combination will show frequency distributions suggesting wave interference
patterns -- this as property of the METHOD and is applicable at ALL scales,
not just QM."
All of the experiments used to demonstrate wave/particle duality as being
'out there' are based on the use of experiments founded on
dichotomisations - e.g. left slit/right slit in the double slit experiment,
or slit open/slit closed in the single slit of Airy's work with the
electron, or more modern experiments using polarisation of light or else the
use of down converters to split light into two and then bring the two
together again, interfere with each other.
My point is that due to our method of analysis based on A/~A (i.e. left/not
left (aka right), up/not up (aka down)) ANY experiment of this type that
includes indeterminacy will ensure data patterns that suggest wave
interference at work; this is a property not limited to quantum mechanics,
it is a property of the METHOD of analysis.
There is a more quantitative commentary at
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/quantum.html
The emphasis is that the moment we attempt to 'cut' the whole, to see 'in'
it /behind it so we are setting the whole as the universe of discourse and
zooming in on details using dichotomisation. Indetermincy is where given two
choices we cannot identify one or the other having taken place.
Statistics shifts us from an 'in your face' perspective which is very 1:1 to
a group analysis which is 1:many. In the context of the slit experiments, if
I put a detector flush to the slits then during the experiments I will
detect a particle at EITHER one slit OR the other, never both. This is 'in
your face' testing. When I shift focus to a statistical analysis, where I
put a photographic plate behind the slits and let the particles hit the
plate and leave a mark, the emerging pattern of marks reflects wave
interference patterns at work.
The emphasis here is that when we do not look explicitly we get these wave
patterns suggesting that the particle went through BOTH slits at the one
time. So when we explicitly look we see the particles but when we implicitly
look (and so do not detect a passage through slit A or slit B) we see wave
patterns. What is going on?
If you write down all possible events you get a list of potentials that
include patterns such as:
left:left:right:left:left:right (LLRLLR)
or
right: right:left:right:right:left (RRLRRL)
Since we cannot tell R/L passages, due to our changing in perception we have
lost that degree of resolution, all states marked RL or LR are reduced to X
and all RR to R and LL to L such that LLRLLR becomes LXX. Here we are
introducing an illusion in that we are spanning levels of analysis.. but
more on that later...
If you write down all of the possible LR sequences in six trials you will
get 64 possible sequences. If you then add indeterminacy as shown above you
will get 64 reduced to 27 possible sequences and if you map out these
sequences you will see a developing wave interference pattern, not due to
the results but more to the method of analysis encoded in the structure of
the experiment. see the rough sample in
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/wave.gif
As you increase the number of trials in these sorts of experiments so all
that happens is the pattern gets more pronounced. My point is that the
pattern that emerges is a property of the METHOD of analysis such that you
will find the same patterns at all scales of analysis where we use
dichotomisations combined with indeterminacy. The wave patterns come from
the method which includes a change in level from 1:1 to 1:many etc.
Hope you get something out of this short explanation!
[Rog - Q]
What's a "metanymy"?
[Chris - A]
"The White House wants results!" is an example of metonymy where a part is
used to identify a whole, in this case the building is abstracted to be
representive of the Presidency of the US.
In a general method of communication metonymy covers generalisations and
localisations (specialisations), thus when I say "For example..." there is a
good chance that I will use a particular to help describe a general (as done
in the above quote re the White House...).
[Rog - Q]
Are "chicks" baby chickens, or pretty girls? ;^)
[Chris - A]
baby chickens .. see the work of Stephen Rose on chicks and their memory
processing skills.
[Rog - Q]
Could you "dumb down" the 7th Para. to my level please?
[Chris - A]
I wrote:"It is from this pool of emotion that emerges rich qualitative
identifications from poor ones but these are identifications reflect
harmonics analysis of 'the one' and as such are subjective with social
consensus 'refining' the identifications and in doing so objectifying them
such that when one is born into these identifications the identifications
seem to have a life of their own, they belong to no-one in particular (or
else are linked to myths)"
Boy .. intense! ok...
Each member of the species shares a general set of meanings in the form of
patterns of emotion. Thus all can feel a sense of wholeness. What they
interpret as 'whole' is a 50/50 call and feedback will varify if the call is
correct or not but there seems to be an abstract concept of 'wholeness'
present from birth and reflecting a hard-coded object sensitivity.
Together with the concept of a whole comes concepts of harmonics. Harmonics
can reflect local, cultural, preferences and so particular aspects of a
whole are more 'enjoyable' in one culture than in another who, through
consensus/traditions/habituations, have developed their own 'enjoyable'
aspects.
These aspects become encapsulated to a point where they are no longing
'doing' but 'being', these aspects take on a life of their own, a process, a
verb, becomes nominalised into a noun.
These 'things' now become the property of the culture and when you are born
into the culture you experience these processes as if nouns, as if beings
and they can take-on a degree of mystery due to this anthropisation...
[Rog - Q]
What is the "individual methodology," and what is its beauty?
[Chris - A]
? where is this quote? Do you mean the set of feelings associated with
object/relationship distinctions?
[Rog - Q]
Does "resonating out there" mean that it requires "physical" proof?
[Chris - A]
'resonating with out there' means disciplines are self-contained that
includes patterns of meaning. 'truth' in mathematics comes through
self-evident at local levels (e.g. Euler's work) and a more consensus
approach at more non-local levels. Resonance allows for abstract truths not
perceived as 'out there' but potentials...
[Rog - Q]
What does the last para. mean? Why does the required negation within science
lead to indeterminancy?
[Chris - A]
a long para! A sense of doubt is part of our species-wide set of states we
use to identify things, to give meanings. The emphasis that disciplines take
on attributes of our nature (through the symbols we use to encode the
particular information/meaning in a discipline) means that in all of these
disciplines is encoded a state of doubt, not as a definite feature of the
manifestation of the discipline 'out there' but more a property of the
method used to create the discipline.
The sense of an absolute is so fundamental that there is no distinction of
'NOT' -- failure is not an option (to quote a recent movie..) Science is
founded on the identifications of algorithms and formulas and so favours
predictions, the scientist seeks sameness in the rules behind the
expressions. To identify these algorithms and formulas requires the
sameness/difference dichotomy IOW A/~A ... IOW allows for doubt, for context
sensitivity and from that identify context-free as well as context sensitive
algorithms and formulas.
At a general level Science deals more with ~A than A since A is expression
and the rules that lead to that expression are in ~A. The artist goes for
the moment of the rainbow and there is 'truth', is 'reality'. The Scientist
goes for what is BEHIND the expression of the rainbow and so THERE is
'truth', there is 'reality'.
[Rog - Q]
Oh, and what is the "Neurologically sourced METHOD"?
[Chris - A]
the use of recursive dichotomisation to generate meaning. Thus we go:
(1)initial distinction - A/~A (object/~object)
(2)reflection expands this into whole : parts.
(3)reflection on the parts expands this into whole : static elements : parts
: dynamic elements
thus ~A has been extended from a NOT object to a whole (!) realm of
interpretive states.
There is a direction here in that moving from 1 to 2 to 3 is not
reversable - loss of innocense is a feature, you cannot unlearn or else you
use a lot of energy to do so and even then you still retain the 'mistaken'
memory.
We see these states expressed in the types of numbers we use in mathematics:
Whole - whole numbers (primes, composites)
Parts - rational numbers
Static elements (invarient relationships) - irrational numbers
Dynamic elements (varient relationships) - imaginary numbers.
Entangle these to get more complex forms.
Our education systems follow this pattern of development where we move from
objects and so 'pure' forms to consideration on the space inbetween forms,
dynamic relationships expressed as transitions and transformations.
In the neurology we find the general distinctions of what(object) /
where(relationships)
what can be particularised into who and which.
where can be particularised into when and how.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST
