Bernado's Mathematical Universe

[AshvinP]

It's a confusion to call coherence theory of truth and process ontology a "model", as the term refers to a static structure. Of course we start from being-in-the-world, where else? Assuming external perspective to world is a no-go.

It's a model in as much as you are attempting to model it by explaining its features to other people and reason for its truthfulness.

I'm going a bit off topic here but I'm curious about your theory.

I have a theory that anything that is found ubiquitously throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental. Like a scale invariant metaphor with vast practical applicability.

Do your theories posit anything similar? Which aspects of reality might you include in this?

Couldn't we say everything found throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental? That is the natural implication of Whitehead's "prehension" for ex. All 'things' are part of larger processes, all those processes part of larger principles, all those principles part of larger archetypes, etc. There is nothing in nature which cannot lead us to the Whole when viewed in the proper light of our higher senses-cognition.

[Squidgers]

It's a confusion to call coherence theory of truth and process ontology a "model", as the term refers to a static structure. Of course we start from being-in-the-world, where else? Assuming external perspective to world is a no-go.

It's a model in as much as you are attempting to model it by explaining its features to other people and reason for its truthfulness.

I'm going a bit off topic here but I'm curious about your theory.

I have a theory that anything that is found ubiquitously throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental. Like a scale invariant metaphor with vast practical applicability.

Do your theories posit anything similar? Which aspects of reality might you include in this?

Couldn't we say everything found throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental? That is the natural implication of Whitehead's "prehension" for ex. All 'things' are part of larger processes, all those processes part of larger principles, all those principles part of larger archetypes, etc. There is nothing in nature which cannot lead us to the Whole when viewed in the proper light of our higher senses-cognition.

Yes, but it's the "proper light" that is the important part here.

I dont think this "proper light" has been explicitly defined.

A scale invariant metaphor might be a good candidate.

[SanteriSatama]

It's a model in as much as you are attempting to model it by explaining its features to other people and reason for its truthfulness.

OK, fair enough. It's also not a model in as much it's poetry in motion.

I have a theory that anything that is found ubiquitously throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental. Like a scale invariant metaphor with vast practical applicability.

Do your theories posit anything similar? Which aspects of reality might you include in this?

There are always stories behind stories.

That said, what is most interesting in the story of our era are the formal languages of computation theory, which can create endless complexity from very simple forms, such and S and K combinators of Schönfinkel - Turing complete language which predated Curry and Turing by few decades. Schönfinkel's motivation was to study very general (pre)logic, but it turned out to be much more.

In Relop the operation 'concatenate mediant' is analogical to S-combinator S x y z ⇒ x z (y z) and provides an intuitive example of applying x to y in the environmnet of z. The z corresponds with mediant Space and x and y with Left and Right strings that are concatenated inside S, which gets doubled: LSR⇒ SLRS, or S´ xzy⇒ zxyz. The reduction/halting rule ><⇒ [] is analogical to the K-combinator K x y⇒ x.

The syntax limitation of writing palindromes instead of linear operators is very interesting... surprisingly different way of thinking. LEM is absent in a very concrete way, but a very general analogue of LEM can be studied in the form of closing the middle mediant space.

[AshvinP]

It's a model in as much as you are attempting to model it by explaining its features to other people and reason for its truthfulness.

I'm going a bit off topic here but I'm curious about your theory.

I have a theory that anything that is found ubiquitously throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental. Like a scale invariant metaphor with vast practical applicability.

Do your theories posit anything similar? Which aspects of reality might you include in this?

Couldn't we say everything found throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental? That is the natural implication of Whitehead's "prehension" for ex. All 'things' are part of larger processes, all those processes part of larger principles, all those principles part of larger archetypes, etc. There is nothing in nature which cannot lead us to the Whole when viewed in the proper light of our higher senses-cognition.

Yes, but it's the "proper light" that is the important part here.

I dont think this "proper light" has been explicitly defined.

A scale invariant metaphor might be a good candidate.

The proper light, in my view, is higher cognition - imaginative, inspired, intuitive. These things have been laid out in great detail by Steiner in early 20th century. In general, he says me miust from light of the abstract intellect to the concrete spiritual light of perception-cognition reborn in the Spirit.

[Squidgers]

I'll give an example. The fourier transform is found throughout nature. Perhaps its form and rule set (that which makes it function the way it does can be extracted into a more generalised rule set. This generalised form we might find useful and more ubiquitous in surprising ways.

Another example might be the archetypes of chaos and order (or symmetry and anti-symmetry?) could be generalised through the function we see these archetypes playing out in the world. Perhaps the dialectic is a kind of generalise form of the relationship between these archetypes

[SanteriSatama]

I dont think this "proper light" has been explicitly defined.

A scale invariant metaphor might be a good candidate.

More-less relation is not only a metaphor (unless we take the etymological meaning of 'metaphor' very widely), it's also very concretely empirical.

Do you accept undecidability (Halting problem etc.) as an explicit definition?

For example, before defining whether to read a language from left to right or right to left, the relational operator symbols

<

can be read both 'increases' and 'decreases' depending which way it is read. And same with symbol

>

Before defining which way to read, the situation is formally undecidable. However, the ambituity goes away when writing palindromically

<>

as the string reads 'both increases and decreases' whether reading from right or left.

I like simple, and I think the palindromic construction from ambiguity to disambiguity can be also "scale invariant" in various qualitative ways.

[Squidgers]

I dont think this "proper light" has been explicitly defined.

A scale invariant metaphor might be a good candidate.

More-less relation is not only a metaphor (unless we take the etymological meaning of 'metaphor' very widely), it's also very concretely empirical.

Do you accept undecidability (Halting problem etc.) as an explicit definition?

For example, before defining whether to read a language from left to right or right to left, the relational operator symbols

<

can be read both 'increases' and 'decreases' depending which way it is read. And same with symbol

>

Before defining which way to read, the situation is formally undecidable. However, the ambituity goes away when writing palindromically

<>

as the string reads 'both increases and decreases' whether reading from right or left.

I like simple, and I think the palindromic construction from ambiguity to disambiguity can be also "scale invariant" in various qualitative ways.

Right! I use "metaphor" because of how generalised it might be. But that shouldn't imply it cant be "real" in some concrete way.

I'd be interested in some examples of how one can apply your example to other areas.

How would you describe the generalised rule?

[AshvinP]

I'll give an example. The fourier transform is found throughout nature. Perhaps its form and rule set (that which makes it function the way it does can be extracted into a more generalised rule set. This generalised form we might find useful and more ubiquitous in surprising ways.

Another example might be the archetypes of chaos and order (or symmetry and anti-symmetry?) could be generalised through the function we see these archetypes playing out in the world. Perhaps the dialectic is a kind of generalise form of the relationship between these archetypes

Exactly. The key is that we go from particular manifestations of those principles and archetypes towards the more "generalized" meaning of them. Then we are heading in the right direction, but we are still on the 'horizontal' plane of abstract concepts and cannot approach noumenal reality. If we continue generalizing on this horizontal plane then we begin to lose all concreteness of meaning. So from there, we must get onto the vertical plane of imagination, inspiration, and intuition. I had no idea what the Fourier transform was before reading your post and by doing a Google search, I find it is, "a mathematical transform that decomposes functions depending on space or time into functions depending on spatial or temporal frequency, such as the expression of a musical chord in terms of the volumes and frequencies of its constituent notes". With the connection to musical chord, that means we are heading in the direction of taking logical melody and adding harmony - interpenetrating soul-qualities which work together in our microcosmic activities of willing, feeling, and thinking so as to orient us properly towards the life of the Whole.

So, if someone were to ask, what is the actual meaning of natural processes which exhibit the "Fourier transform", i.e. what are those processes pointing us towards in the realm of soul and spirit? I would answer that we need to start thinking in the direction of those living transformational activities which bring harmony to fragmented soul qualities and spiritual perspectives, and that generally involves taking on responsibility via sacrificial Love. Like I said, though, with vague and abstract answers such as that one I am still just stringing concepts together in a logical melody, as best as I can to approximate what could be the noumenal essence of those processes. If I want to go beyond the melody to experience and understand the noumenal significance of those natural processes, I must actually engage in the harmony it is pointing me towards - that is done via devotional soul-mood and work towards higher cognition. Not coincidentally, music is a great way to consciously prepare for imaginative (pictorial) thinking and even intuitive thinking.

I am at the most basic of basic understandings of these things, so I don't want to act like I have more insight than I actually do. And, even the insights I do have cannot be easily relayed with a couple of paragraphs in a post. Hence I write essays to take time and put these things together from a variety of different angles. Part 2 of my soulful aesthetics essay on music will definitely speak to what I wrote above in more detail. But, in the meantime, we can all practice this sort of imaginative thinking by trying to think about the natural relations you mention in your post with only pictures and the meaning of those pictures. Fourier "transform" is actually a somewhat simple one from what I can tell so far. Although I could definitely be on the wrong track, and the higher cognition is also the way to test these reasoned conclusions against higher experience-thought. I would say Order-Chaos, Symmetry-Antisymmertry are much higher level processes of the spiritual realm, relating to Light-Darkness, Known-Unknown, Fragmentation-Integration, etc.

[SanteriSatama]

I'd be interested in some examples of how one can apply your example to other areas.

The foundational concept of potential infinity is defined by Halting problem. So far Halting problem and generally computation times has been thought as unilinear. Interpretation of <> as Bergson-duration and relating that also with CPT-symmetry (ie. palindromic quantum time) could mean that Relop could function as general language to formalize and study computation time. Not exactly an Oracle program, but Oracle programming language?!

The general idea and form of an equation is a palindrome, polynomial coefficients from Pascal's triangle is a palindromic form. Integers and Euler's doubly infinite exponential series are mark-antimark symmetries. Group theory of rotations is a study of symmetries.

How would you describe the generalised rule?

Hypersymmetry?

Hypersymmetry of consecutive (cf. repetition) and parallel (cf. nesting)?

[SanteriSatama]