RE: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?

Aaron Agassi (
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:34:21 -0400

From: "Aaron Agassi" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: RE: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:34:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <006301bec542$d4040820$56136ccb@ddiamond>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf
> Of Chris Lofting
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 6:57 AM
> To:;
> Subject: Re: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <>
> To: <>;
> <>
> Date: Saturday, 3 July 1999 4:57
> Subject: RE: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: []On Behalf
> >> Of Chris Lofting
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 12:07 AM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Aaron Agassi <>
> >> To: <>;
> >> <>
> >> Date: Saturday, 3 July 1999 3:14
> >> Subject: RE: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
> >>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >>before on BOTH of these lists,
> >> >> these patterns are part of the METHOD of analysis
> >> >That is highly debatable! As we agree, patern recognition begins with
> >> >pattern congectural genneration. Then there must be a check for
> >> Ontological
> >> >coorespondance. The need for this test does not, in and of
> >> itself, rule out
> >> >all correspondance with reality! Even created meaning can actually be
> >> >literally true, though not always.
> >> >
> >> >>and do not necessarily
> >> >> reflect 'out there';
> >> >Indeed, only possibly. But doubt is nothing new, nor does it
> constetute
> >> >refutation. You must sill demonstrate that wave patterns are no more
> than
> >> an
> >> >artifact of Methodology.
> >> >
> >>
> >> see previous post.
> >Which I have answered.
> >
> >>I Note in that post that the implied wave interference
> >> pattern gets stronger as you do more trials but never changes. If you
> look
> >> at the graph there are 19 peaks out of a total of 27 states where eight
> >> states are seen as 'troughs' but in fact contain only one pattern.
> >No, if you conduct the experiment, and look on the laboratory wall, you
> will
> >see, quite clearly, the interference patterns projected, and not
> by out own
> >minds, either.
> >
> the pattern comes from the entanglement.
The entanglment of what?

>The experiment emulates the
> thinking processes. you dont seem to be able to understand that...
No, I don't.

Let's start at the beginning:
Do you accept, first of all, that waves propagate through liquid, as we see
on the surface of bodies of water? Or is that only a misconception brought
about by our own natures? Do you accept the interference patterns that can
be generated in liquid? In particular, do you accept that a trough can be
used to cancel a peak, when they collide (or if you prefer, entangle)? Do
you accept that sound is a wave in a gaseous medium? Do you accept the
operation of negative sound generators, colliding (or entangling) sounds
with their generated mirror images to produce zones of silence?

Would you admit, hypothetically, that if light where a wave, then that would
imply the possibility of interference patterns, likewise, in light? And
would you admit that if the interference patterns seen on the surface of
bodies of water are zones of calm, and sonic interference is manifest as
relative silence, then light interference patterns might be shadow, but not
cast by any obstacle? Lastly, are you aware of experiments where a light
source is split, and doubly projected, over lapping, producing a mysterious
dark point in the pool of light projected on the wall? Or are our eyes
deceived by a statistical Rorschach Chimera?

Of course the wave explanation is a product of the human mind. But it does
have explanatory power for a phenomena that does demand explanation. That
dark point from nowhere, in a split source pool of light. Light does appear
to behave as a wave. Or we can make it so do. The only problem is that other
experiments yield results consistent with radiation being a particle. These,
by the way, are equally dichotomous to wave explanations. But you have not
addressed particle experiments.

> <snip>
> >> There is no paradox; you do not 'see' waves/particles at the same
> >> time, the
> >> manner of detection, YOUR INTENT, determines what you see. Go
> >> particular and
> >> you see particles, Go general (stats) and you see waves.
> >So, it is MY INTENT, by magic, that casts wave form shadows when I split
> the
> >polarized light source, and MY INTENT that magically brings
> about Critical
> >Mass, when two chunks of radio isotope are moved closer together?!!!!!!
> You moved them. Your intent. There is no magic here but more an
> entanglement
> of you with 'out there'.
Does this entanglement have a name? Is that name 'Causality'?

>You seem to strongly favour 'independence' as if
> you are seperate. You are not.
No, indeed, I am not. Two chunks of radio isotope can be moved closer
together, deliberately, yielding a consistent experimental result. But,
hypothetically, if they come together only by chance, with anything
different happen? What is nature doing behind our backs, while we are not
watching to enforce the laws of Physics?

> All data is in the form of object/relationships but it is your intent that
> decides what is an object and what is a relationship.
Does my intend determine which is which, or my intent, or bias, that
interprets which is which? Or do you reject the distinction?

> Or
> >can we speculate that some intervening causality mediates
> between intention
> >and result? And what about scientists who get different results from the
> >ones they sought? How do you explain that? At least you might be
> better off
> >by saying that the question one asks might frame the answer, to some
> degree.
> >But is that anything new?
> I have repeatedly stated that how you analyse will determine the structure
> of what you see.
The particulars of analytical thinking will determine the structure of the
model that one builds. But you want to demonstrate across the board self
fulfilling prophesy in experimentation. That does happen, but causality must
be involved. And sometimes causality is uncooperative. In such case, science
advances because reappraisals must be made. Otherwise, scientific theory
would never need to change.

>That is what happens with dichotomous analysis and the
> wave/particle duality experiments.
Which you have failed to demonstrate.

> All 'meaning' is encapsulated in the method use to derive it.
Not true. Meaning came about as the brain evolved for survival. Meaning
continues to be shaped by the real world. At least, for some of us!

Meaning is also observer dependant. But not solely. There is, so to speak, a
dialogue with the real world.

> analyse the method and you find all meanings. All dichotomy based
> disciplines are metaphors created from the method.
Out of nowhere? Or did reality make the challenge?

> >
> >If I make the completely unwarranted assumption that you are not actually
> >stark raving mad, perhaps I should not take you literally, and understand
> >you to only mean that our interpretation is colored by bias, either
> >accumulated from experience, or even, perhaps, mapped onto our wetware,
> >genetically. That our poor brains cannot fathom a consistent pattern
> explain
> >all the results, leaving us with the paradoxical set of two explanations,
> >each only consistent for one set of experiments. But that is nothing new.
> >
> >The real question is, so, what now? Continue the inquiry,
> conjecturally, as
> >Karl Popper exhorts? Or else, what course of action would you recommend,
> >instead?
> >
> Re-analysis of the basics of each discipline using the method
> 'template'
What is that?

> fill in the dots.
What are the "dots"?

>Due to the shared basic format
What are you taliking about?

>you can even use other
> disciplines to 'shine light' on each other.
> Re-analysis of concepts such as wave/particle duality and the experimental
> formats ensuring that they are NOT emulations of dichotomous thinking; we
> need to ensure that we do not project properties of the method
> onto what we
> are investigating -- if we can :-)
I agree. Let us so ensure, as best as possible. And then continue?

> Recognition that all of these discipline are metaphor/symbolisms for
> object/relationships rather than sourced in some 'magical' universe; e.g.
> the Platonic universe of mathematics etc
I agree.

> >
> >>The latter comes
> >> about since the fundamental unit of a statistical analysis is
> a PAIR and
> >> this builds-in indeterminacy

>at the root
What is "the root"?

>in that if you try to
> distinguish
> >> which elements of the PAIR comes 'first' (or goes 'left' or
> >> 'right)
You've lost me.

>you get
> >> a 50/50 chance and this introduces dichotomisations where
> indeterminence
> >> gives you wave patterns.

> >>
> >> When you set-up experiments to emulate this you get the patterns.
> >> Note that
> >> in the photographic plates so the wave patterns build up over
> >> time; you see
> >> the dots from the electrons/photons and then emerges the wave
> >> pattern which
> >> implies particles are still there but their distribution is dictated by
> >> patterns in the method and that method is dichotomy based with
> >> indeterminance/equivalence 'built-in'.
> >No, if waves build up from particle impact points, then this
> suggests that
> >particles are guided in some wave like field pattern.
> The waves reflect context,

Huh? What sort? What depends upon what else?

>that which is behind
"hehind"? Huh?

> things.
What "things"?

> thread stuff.

>One thing of note is that the patterns are have no explicit
> chronology,
Not unless photon events are time stamped.

>if you map the steps it would appear 'random'. The 'picture'
> represents history and that is context
Context for what else?

>and 'in here'
No, there are two senses of history. Whatever happened, and whatever we know
about it. And there is a relation between them. One which you are confused

>that is
> processed
By process, do you also mean, interpretted as a wave phenomena?

>in a
> wave format; harmonics of the whole. This 'whole' is the sum of the two
> slits.
No. The whole is the sum of everything involved in the experiment. Including
the light.

> Slit A / Slit B (aka NOT slit A)
> Accumulation of data from these slits
Data is not accumulated from the slits. Light is projected from the slits.

>forces the emergence of the 'middle'

> of the dichotomy and it is there that probabilites emerge,
Possibilities emerge? What, is there an unresolved Quantum State?

>wave patterns
> shown in my post. On the images you see circles, draw a line from
> circumferance through the center and you get the wave pattern graph.
> move the photographic plate closer to the slits and you get a 'center'
> build-up. Move it away and the interference pattern become a uniform
> distribution meaning (Airy pattern is best to see this) that the
> relationship of plate to source is also a dichotomy. (polariser
> experiments
> reflect this in that it is at the 45 degree position (middle of the 0-90
> dichotomy) that things get 'interesting')
By taking cross sections, moving the plate different distances from the
source, a three dimensional pattern can be mapped. Of course, though waves
appear two dimensional in the flat photo of the surface of a body of liquid,
looking directly down; in fact they are three dimensional.

> (Who advanced that?)
> >Are you saying that this result is predicable from, what? The arrangement
> of
> >the particle sources? Random emission, statistically? What in the Method
> >makes waves?
> The way the data is created (dichotomously).
Non responsive. Answer the question.

>I have sent you the diagram.
> Look at it. The patterns emerge from the structure of the
> experiment and the
> experiment is an emulation of dichotomous processes.
By what causal mechanism does the structure of the experiment become
reflected in what is seen to happen?

> And if so, can some predictable result of specific changes in
> >the experiment prove this? And, frankly can't any such thing be better
> >explicated without reference to Memetics?
> >
> ? I dont refer directly to memetics... The basis is our
> neurology. The best
> we can do is 'suggest' that it emulates 'out there' in some way but then
> perhaps all of our models of 'out there' are dictated by the
> neurology; the
> 'cooperation' is strong such that you are at the entanglement end
> of things
> where it is hard to differentiate 'who came first'.
> Chris.
> ===============================================================
> 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:

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)