On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>
> Hi Craig,
>
>     You are on fire today! Nice! I like this real world example, but I am 
> a bit fuzzy on how you are seeing it. Let me do my interpretation/reaction 
> and see where it takes us. The "lack of recognition" is something important 
> as it can show us how bisimulations are almost never a single step process. 
> More often than not we have to go through several steps to, for this 
> instance, knowing what the cool shoe is. This implies that more resources 
> are required for strange objects to be recognized as opposed to fewer 
> resources to recognize the familiar ones.
>
>
I could go either way on the resource issue. In practice, trying to read 
Chinese takes more resources if I try to read it or perhaps if I am 
frustrated and trying to suppress my trying to read it. If I ignore the 
Chinese instead, then of course it uses less resources. When this happens 
at a lower level of my perception, I may not really even see the Chinese 
characters as something worth looking at. You may be talking about a more 
defined 'information processing' view though.

>  
> This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of 
> matter and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us about 
> its world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, molecules 
> and coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of scale and 
> space. Now we have extended those body reports to include other instruments 
> which give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense of scale and space into 
> the microcosm and macro-universe.
>  
>     
>     Sure.
>
>
>  
> This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space and 
> scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement for 
> example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are getting 
> more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not directly inside 
> of.
>  
>
>     Umm, this is wandering off topic a little. The pointed question is how 
> does the duality on each individual maps between many such individuals? 
> This is how interaction, IMHO, is to be represented. 
>

What I am trying to say is that while it is necessary for us to feel each 
finger as a part of our hand, each finger does not have to model its 
neighboring fingers because they are all part of the same hand. It's one 
consciousness that is being all limbs, fingers, and toes at the same time. 

What I'm saying about space though is that ultimately there is no models 
being simulated, it is the particular definition of the separation which is 
being simulated. We are the hand on the inside but when we look out, all we 
see are separate fingers. In the absolute sense, nothing is separate, only 
diffracted. Our entire existence is partially diverged-converging, and 
partially converged-diverging.

The point about QM is important because the mutual commutativity rule is 
> very important! For a given set of interacting/measuring/observing 
> entities, their set of incontrovertible facts is strictly limited to 
> observables in mutually commuting bases. For example, I cannot measure 
> position data of a set of electrons and you measure momentum data on the 
> "same set of electrons" if there is the possibility that we can share data. 
> Mutual commutativity acts as a filter on what is "the same" 3p object. It 
> is interesting to note that classical physics assumes that all observable 
> bases commute... Newton et al never considered saw the need to consider the 
> non-commutative case.
>
> I think that the whole standard model is, in an absolute sense, 
> inside-out. Electrons are not particles but sensitivity modes which seem 
> particulate to our instruments because we are using their exteriors 
> specifically to externalize/objectify the events. QM measures that 
> objectification of matter interacting with itself from the outside.
>
 

>  
> As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are already 
> the manifestation of all components separation from unity with each other.
>
>
>     Yes, that's true, but there is more detail to how the separation goes. 
> There is something like a path and a "distance" between them and unity that 
> can be exploited. My thought is that the path might be defined on the graph 
> of all of the components relative to each other. From my research these 
> graphs are ultrametric and non-archimedean in the absolute sense, so the 
> usual graph ideas don't quite apply. This article explains the critical 
> difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean_time The trick 
> is the inclusion of event horizons that act to hide the infinitely distance 
> parts. This shows up as limited "forgetfulness" of residuation in Pratt's 
> dualism  idea.
>
>
I'm not sure if I am getting the non-Archimedean concept. It sounds like a 
Zeno paradox which divides time instead of space. My view of space is that 
it exists on some levels of description of the universe and not others. 
It's like odor or flavor, only much more common and primitive.
 

>
>  Like tickling yourself doesn't work because on some level you know 
> exactly when you are going to try to tickle yourself. It isn't that you 
> have a model of a tickler of people and a tickled person and they interfere 
> with each other when you try to tickle yourself - there isn't any model at 
> all. When someone tickles you it is precisely because you can't anticipate 
> their action that the sensation of being tickled becomes possible.
>
>
>     Right, but consider the schizophrenic that is operating out of synch 
> between his hand movements and his perceptions of the sensations. He would 
> be able to convincingly "tickle himself" but not recognize that those are 
> his hands that are doing the tickling.
>

I'm not sure that even an ideal 'schizophrenic' dissociated identity could 
tickle themselves because I would guess that being tickled is much more low 
level. It just has to be the same nervous system. No body would be able to 
tickle itself (or at least they wouldn't if we use the tickling as a 
metaphor for the projection of space). 

>
>
>  
> Space is like that. It is matter being tickled by matter that is not 
> itself.
>
>
>     No, its just a lag effect! The key is the definition of "itself" and 
> "not-itself". For matter the determining factor is the speed of light. 
> Things with in the light cone are "self" and outside the light cone are 
> "not self".
>

I don't disagree. Like QM I think that the 'speed of light' is inside out 
too (it's really the latency of place) but in general it makes sense to me 
that the key to the not self would be a temporal frequency cancellation. 
It's all one monad-awareness-event ultimately, so all diffractions are 
ultimately lags within itself.


>
>  It might experience it as some sound or feeling or something we can't 
> understand, but whatever it is that atoms experience on that level, or 
> bodies of atoms experience on another level, is what we see, feel, and 
> understand on our level as space or place relations.
>  
>
>     Right.
>
>
>  
> It's like that example of the parking lot full of shiny cars. Each chrome 
> edge and corner shining is not a separate simulation of the sun, it is a 
> single presentation of the sense that arises out of your relation to the 
> sun and the cars. It is a specular sharing of sense, not a mechanical 
> instantiation.
>
> Craig
>  
>     I disagree. Each shiny fragment entails a simulation on its own (as 
> its photons have their own paths to traverse which get summed ala Feynman 
> integrals), that is how they are recognized as seperate, but your point is 
> right about your total relationship between the sun and cars. But this is a 
> 1p vs. 3p situation.
>

Again photons, in my view, are useful figments of our misunderstanding of 
physics, but I would agree that each fragment contributes and participates 
in the many nested frames of the event that we experience, but I don't 
think there is any simulation going on. 

When I break a mirror on the ground in that sunny parking lot I don't think 
that there is any difference as far as resources between the single image 
of the sun it reflects to me as a whole mirror and the many images, whole 
and distorted, that the shattered pieces reflect. If I look away from the 
million suns, there is no more latency visually than there is if I look 
away from the whole mirror. It's not like a computer where a graphics heavy 
page will choke the scrolling of the browser. In reality nothing ever 
chokes the browser because there is no browser - there is only a customized 
throttling - a reality tunnel woven from the thread of all that we are not 
(at this time).

Craig


> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ve-FoCNlZ_8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to