Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA22693 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:48:36 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: "Memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:56:15 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKELNCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Another perspective,
In the world of classical physics there are sharp distinctions between
objects and relationships. In this world an object is so 'forever', a
relationship is so 'forever'.
These distinctions free an object or a relationship from contexts and
reflect 'pure' eternal concepts in the same manner in which the number '1'
is eternal, there is no sensitivity to context that can 'change' the
expression of 'oneness'. Overall, there is an emphasis on self-containment.
Thus in the world of classical physics a particle is a particle and a wave
is a wave; one cannot suddenly become the other, these concepts do not share
the same space.
The classical world is thus very EITHER/OR in identifications with an
emphasis on the pure and the eternal and a single context perspective.
The single context perspective emphasises precision, the perspective seeks
clarity, wide bandwidth, but this is done at a price, namely that all
analysis is LOCAL, PARTICULAR; as you drift away from this so precision
gives way to approximations and the NON-LOCAL is more GENERAL.
For ANY discipline that our species wishes to understand, for ANY discipline
we seek to 'map' in detail, our METHOD of analysis forces us to start at the
classical level, the LOCAL, EITHER/OR level.
This classical level emphasises WHAT IS, WHAT WAS, WHAT WILL BE where these
distinctions are rigidly 'factual', there is no COULD BE.
However, our method of analysis allows us to shift focus where once we have
completed a categorical analysis of ANYTHING we shift focus to relational
analysis of the 'thing' to its local and non-local context.
We can of course work in reverse, where a basic categorisation includes
'doubts' or 'fuzzy assessments' of something, all we have is a 'structure of
some kind' and so we use relational analysis of the immediate context to aid
in fleshing out this fundamental structure.
The shift in focus takes us away from the 'thing' and more to the space
'outside', to relational space and this naturally shifts emphasis to WHAT IS
NOT, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, WHAT COULD BE.
This form of analysis emphasises context sensitivity. This emphasis
introduces us to the concept of WHAT COULD BE and so a more BOTH/AND
perspective.
It is this BOTH/AND perspective that introduces possibles and so X (either
object or relationship) can change expression when seen in context Y as
compared to context Z; thus the eternal, archetypal emphasis in classical
physics gives way to a typal emphasis, a mixing emphasis, in non-classical
physics.
It is thus in non-classical physics, with its increase in context
sensitivity that we start to see 'dualities' where X is seen as a particle
in one context but as a wave in another.
An emphasis on objects aka particles is an emphasis on LOCAL, PRECISE
determinations. For example in the double slit experiments in quantum
mechanics, when I place detectors flush to the slits and start firing
photons/electrons at the slits my detectors will show that the particular
photon/electron passed through EITHER the left slit OR the right slit.
When I shift focus to a STATISTICAL perspective, more NON-LOCAL and lacking
in point precision I also shift to a perspective focused on TWOS+ in that
ANY statistical analysis has a PAIR as its base unit. At this level I cannot
differentiate the ordering of the elements of the PAIR, this introduces
indeterminacy into the equation and in doing so also introduces wave
characteristics.
As a matter of fact, if I apply this implicit method of identification to
ANY dichotomy (left/right, up/down etc + indeterminacy), over time a wave
interference pattern will emerge. This pattern stems from the METHOD of
analysis.
How does the brain deal with this?
Part of our brain, when presented with necker cubes drawing, the ugly
woman/attractive girl drawing, the two-vase drawings etc sees a complex line
drawing. This part of our brain sees everything linked together and so all
it sees are 'complex line drawings'. These particular drawings express
BOTH/ANDness and the fun starts when that part of our brain that deals with
the particular, with discreteness, comes in in that it favours EITHER/OR in
processing and it compensates for the complexity by oscillation.
IOW the brain deals with paradoxes created by BOTH/ANDness by converting
them into oscillating, or more so PULSING, EITHER/ORness where we see one
cube and then the other and so on, ad infinitum.
This pulsing reflects at the general brain level the particular expression
of neurons where BOTH/AND states collected at the dendrites are converted to
PULSES, EITHER/OR states, expressed by the axon, and if you look at all of
the neurological mechanisms, from neuron to neocortical hemispheres, you
find the SAME general patterns of processing, sensory 'wave' data and
expression 'particle' dara. Increasing contextual development allows for
increasing complex bahaviours but all levels are founded on the 'basic'
object/relationships dichotomy applied dynamically.
Of note is that this oscillation/pulsing is not limited to the visual
system, you find the same phenomena in the auditory system as well as in the
mind, a la the "this sentence is false" concept. IOW logical paradox stems
from sensory development in dealing with a universe of potentials (WHAT
COULD BE -- BOTH/ANDness and so NON-LOCAL) that get converted into actuals
(WHAT IS -- EITHER/ORness and so LOCAL).
This methodology seems fundamental, we use recursion applied to 1:many type
dichotomies and from that derive meaning. The originators of QM, and a lot
of physicists in general lacked understanding about how 'in here' works;
these days we have a good set of data and we need to understand it to help
us in developing our maps of reality.
Einstein's relativity is based on the limit to the speed of light and the
consequences re our detection of light and our use of that to build 'maps'
of the universe. This leads to a distortion in perception at the non-local
and we see similar distortions at the very small where our
discrete/continuum dichotomy used for analysis also 'distorts' when we go
beyond the local.
Quantum mechanics is a closed system in that its methodology is founded on
recursive dichotomisations and that includes the presence of frequency
patterns that suggest wave interference at work as if this is fundamental --
this is not necessarily so since the METHOD creates the patterns regardless
of scale.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 10:50:11 GMT