Bernado's Mathematical Universe

[Squidgers]

Our experiences are representations of reality, as our models are representations of reality. Yet neither is reducable to the other, and our knowledge and understanding of reality is more complete with both.

Ah. I don't believe in representation theory, as I don't believe in objective realism.

I'm using the word "representation" colloquially, not referencing "representation theory"

[AshvinP]

That's a good point, and I admit that I do not have an answer. My position is rather agnostic here. From the point of view of analytical philosophy, I don't even know what the term "ontological" exactly means, so I use this term with a disclaimer that "I do not actually know what I'm talking about".

From the experiential/phenomenological perspective, all we know is that there is conscious experience of phenomena and forms, including mathematical meanings and ideas, that's a fact of our direct experience. Whether these ideas/meanings have any "ontological" status - I have no idea and have no way to either prove or disprove it.

Needless to say, I disagree. What we know for certain is that there is ideating activity, and we can come to know the essence of that activity by considering our own ideating activity and its living transformations. We can then conclude that meanings are ontic and universal. Meaning is the fundamental essence of the Cosmos. It is the inward reality which the outward creation is always pointing to. I see no need for dual-aspect monism here, because idealism works just fine as a metaphysical framework which encompasses this living essence of ideating activity and meaning.

How are you defining "meaning" here? Is it a process (whitehead) or some kind of substance?

I always saw "idealism" as more of an umbrella term under which a "dual-aspect monism" would fall under. Is what you are talking about a monism, dualism, or something else?

I am talking of idealist monism - all is ideating activity (which also shows it is all dynamic process in essence, not static substance). That activity can be considered a Tri-Unity of Willing-Feeling-Thinking activities, but, in essence, we are actually speaking of the activity of living beings, who are not other than us in essence. What we call "meaning" in conventional language of modern age, like the meaning we experience when perceiving a color or a tree or a bird, is the shadowy reflection of that activity. It is the qualia of our experience. That phenomenal meaning, however, is not pointing us to something other than meaning in the noumenal realm - it is pointing us to much deeper and enriched meaning of those essential activities. Something more akin to the meaning we experience when we are with a loved one, but even that is a shadowy reflection of the noumenal (spiritual) meaning it is pointing to.

[SanteriSatama]

I'm using the word "representation" colloquially, not referencing "representation theory"

OK. You expressed "interpreted" as a close synonym with "represented". Interpretation is a process I'm familiar with, it's a transformation of a sort.

In my comprehension isomorphism is a recursive relation, you can go back and forth. Interpretations and transformations are not always recursive.

[Squidgers]

I'm using the word "representation" colloquially, not referencing "representation theory"

OK. You expressed "interpreted" as a close synonym with "represented". Interpretation is a process I'm familiar with, it's a transformation of a sort.

In my comprehension isomorphism is a recursive relation, you can go back and forth. Interpretations and transformations are not always recursive.

That's true - not everything that is modeled is experienced.

The fourier transform is a good example of isomorphism

[SanteriSatama]

not everything that is modeled is experienced.

What do you mean by that?

The fourier transform is a good example of isomorphism

Agreed. Would you agree that Fourier transform is not a simple repetition or simple nesting, but somekind of mixture of those?

[Squidgers]

not everything that is modeled is experienced.

What do you mean by that?

Regarding my original comment on the isomorphic relationship ships between an experience of reality and the interpretation/model of the thing experienced.

But it gets more complicated than this because even a model is partly defned by the experience, so perhaps it doesn't work in this way.

I think it was Karl Pribram who realised that even our senses (or nervous system to be exact) all use a kind of fourier transform to translate what is received into a signal form our brains can interpret.

If the fourier transform is isomorphic, then in this example so is everything we experience with the thing in itself (which I would say could probably be modelled quite accurately as waves if going by the fourier transform)

The fourier transform is a good example of isomorphism

Agreed. Would you agree that Fourier transform is not a simple repetition or simple nesting, but somekind of mixture of those?

Yes! That's a nice way of thinking about it. It becomes part of a fractal (it is an inherent part of holography after all)

[Squidgers]

Needless to say, I disagree. What we know for certain is that there is ideating activity, and we can come to know the essence of that activity by considering our own ideating activity and its living transformations. We can then conclude that meanings are ontic and universal. Meaning is the fundamental essence of the Cosmos. It is the inward reality which the outward creation is always pointing to. I see no need for dual-aspect monism here, because idealism works just fine as a metaphysical framework which encompasses this living essence of ideating activity and meaning.

How are you defining "meaning" here? Is it a process (whitehead) or some kind of substance?

I always saw "idealism" as more of an umbrella term under which a "dual-aspect monism" would fall under. Is what you are talking about a monism, dualism, or something else?

I am talking of idealist monism - all is ideating activity (which also shows it is all dynamic process in essence, not static substance). That activity can be considered a Tri-Unity of Willing-Feeling-Thinking activities, but, in essence, we are actually speaking of the activity of living beings, who are not other than us in essence. What we call "meaning" in conventional language of modern age, like the meaning we experience when perceiving a color or a tree or a bird, is the shadowy reflection of that activity. It is the qualia of our experience. That phenomenal meaning, however, is not pointing us to something other than meaning in the noumenal realm - it is pointing us to much deeper and enriched meaning of those essential activities. Something more akin to the meaning we experience when we are with a loved one, but even that is a shadowy reflection of the noumenal (spiritual) meaning it is pointing to.

Why couldn't everything you say is going on be the very nature of a substance? Ie. Positing a fundamental substance doesn't necessitate static entities. Process could still be what a substance is doing, while also leaving space for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of process

[SanteriSatama]

Regarding my original comment on the isomorphic relationship ships between an experience of reality and the interpretation/model of the thing experienced.

But it gets more complicated than this because even a model is partly defned by the experience, so perhaps it doesn't work in this way.

Yes, let's remember this forum is infested with idealists who dig Kastrup. I keep having problems with the thought pattern "of reality and "of the thing experienced", as the primary phenomenal reality is the experience and interpretation as such.

If the fourier transform is isomorphic, then in this example so is everything we experience with the thing in itself (which I would say could probably be modelled quite accurately as waves if going by the fourier transform)

Waveform ontology with vibes and all is very interesting especially because of computational reducibility / isomorpmism / recursion (beloved child has many names), but I can't honestly say that it is the whole story.

I don't think we can or should exclude chaotic uniqueness of computational irreducibility - why would we? Full determinism would be deadly boring.

[Squidgers]

Regarding my original comment on the isomorphic relationship ships between an experience of reality and the interpretation/model of the thing experienced.

But it gets more complicated than this because even a model is partly defned by the experience, so perhaps it doesn't work in this way.

Yes, let's remember this forum is infested with idealists who dig Kastrup. I keep having problems with the thought pattern "of reality and "of the thing experienced", as the primary phenomenal reality is the experience and interpretation as such.

Yes, it must be one thing which appears (at least to us) as both an experience and our thoughts about the experience (which are more like pointers and references).

If the fourier transform is isomorphic, then in this example so is everything we experience with the thing in itself (which I would say could probably be modelled quite accurately as waves if going by the fourier transform)

Waveform ontology with vibes and all is very interesting especially because of computational reducibility / isomorpmism / recursion (beloved child has many names), but I can't honestly say that it is the whole story.

I don't think we can or should exclude chaotic uniqueness of computational irreducibility - why would we? Full determinism would be deadly boring.

Eidomorphism is a waveform ontology at heart. Despite the use of the word "substance" and "points", it is referring to a process more than anything static.

Whatever's essence is existence is irreducible by definition.

"Since there can only be one fundamental substance and not two, it follows that any irreducible differences in the fundamental substance can only be attributes or aspects of the fundamental substance. It also follows that there is no sufficient reason for why there should be any more attributes than those minimally necessary. That is, if any of the necessary properties can be conceived through any of the others, then, by parsimony, those properties are superfluous. Hence, we conceive of some set of properties through an attribute.
If one property is conceivable through a second, and the second property is not conceivable through the first, then the second property is more fundamental."

Even chaotic systems have specific (deterministic?) rules which generate chaos right?

And just by nature of having an experiential aspect of existence, we can't have a full determinism. But even a self-solving system could have deterministic elements (perhaps like our human "instincts"or unconscious behaviour?)

Similar to how knowing all the rules of chess doesn't lead to the same game played twice

[AshvinP]

How are you defining "meaning" here? Is it a process (whitehead) or some kind of substance?

I always saw "idealism" as more of an umbrella term under which a "dual-aspect monism" would fall under. Is what you are talking about a monism, dualism, or something else?

I am talking of idealist monism - all is ideating activity (which also shows it is all dynamic process in essence, not static substance). That activity can be considered a Tri-Unity of Willing-Feeling-Thinking activities, but, in essence, we are actually speaking of the activity of living beings, who are not other than us in essence. What we call "meaning" in conventional language of modern age, like the meaning we experience when perceiving a color or a tree or a bird, is the shadowy reflection of that activity. It is the qualia of our experience. That phenomenal meaning, however, is not pointing us to something other than meaning in the noumenal realm - it is pointing us to much deeper and enriched meaning of those essential activities. Something more akin to the meaning we experience when we are with a loved one, but even that is a shadowy reflection of the noumenal (spiritual) meaning it is pointing to.

Why couldn't everything you say is going on be the very nature of a substance? Ie. Positing a fundamental substance doesn't necessitate static entities. Process could still be what a substance is doing, while also leaving space for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of process

I don’t understand what you mean by "fundamental substance"? Let's think of our own experience of living activity - is there a fundamental substance that sums up who we are and what we do? Certainly we cannot resort to any material descriptions for that. So then we say we are evolving psychic processes and meta-processes centered around an Ego-Self. But is that really a satisfactory characterization of who we are and what we do (which, in my view, are basically two ways of pointing to the same Reality)? When using conventional language in these forums, the best way I find to characterize our essence is to say that we are the meaning of all those principles and archetypal processes. What we experience as "meaning" when we contemplate those processes is who we are and what we do, albeit only as shadowy reflections of the true meaning when contemplating with normal cognition. I would rather not call that essential meaning a "substance" for a variety of reasons, but what matters is not the label, only our understanding of what it is pointing to. The meaning of the meaning. Monism is essential label IMO bc only it captures the essential continuity of meaning. There is no activity we engage in, no experience we partake in, that is essentially disconnected from other activities and experiences. That disconnect crops up a lot in Western philosophy including idealism, so it's important to be clear on that.