[Fis] Emotional sentience, Hemispheric Lateralization and Quantum Physics ~ oh my!

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Eric,

I. Checking what ChatGPT says
Thank you for running a mechanical analyst over the text. Let me show you
the edits I found necessary. ___________________________
Summary of „Liaisons Among Symbols“ by Karl Javorszky
• Karl Javorszky explores the interplay between mathematics and psychology,
particularly focusing on how ordering and grouping principles reveal
underlying natural patterns. His central thesis is that biologic and
symbolic systems are better understood as periodic or circular, as opposed
to the traditional linear systems derived from Sumerian mathematics. By
introducing a framework using pairs of natural numbers (e.g., the „etalon
collection“ of 136 pairs from numbers up to 16), he investigates cycles,
permutations partitions and their implications interplayfor understanding
order, information, and natural organization.
Key ideas include:
Symbolic Order:
Traditional linear, uniform systems (e.g., Sumerian) fail to capture the
periodic and dynamic nature of biological reality.
Cycles, reorderings, and local irregularities reflect a deeper, more
accurate representation of natural order.
Information and Incongruence:
Information arises from discrepancies between elements of cycles, and
between cycles, quantified as differences between predictions and
observations (e.g., BMI as a measure of proportionality).
Such incongruences are not flaws but intrinsic features of the systems
being studied.
Mathematical Constructs:
The study contrasts two mathematical upper limits: the number of
permutations (n!) and multidimensional partitions (n?), emphasizing their
relationship as reflections of group and sequence dynamics.
Using reorderings of symbolic collections, the etalon collection Javorszky
uncovers emergent immanent cycles and semantic relationships among symbols.
Interdisciplinary Implications:
Cyclic systems underlie fundamental biological and psychological processes,
aligning with physical phenomena like DANN ??? structures and periodic
changes (e.g., day-night cycles).
The paper challenges established concepts of similarity and individuality,
proposing a paradigm where symbolic cracks or „inner incongruences“ are
celebrated pointed out and defined, using numeric terms.
Commentary
Javorszky’s work is ambitious and bridges multiple disciplines, but ist The
presentation is dense, making the argumentation challenging to follow. By
framing information as an emergent immanent property of symbolic
discongruence and cycles, the essay encourages readers to reconsider rigid,
linear paradigms in favor of dynamic, relational models. However, the
discussion of mathematical constructs like the „etalon collection“ and
cycle reordering might benefit from concrete examples and computational
simulations for clarity.
The deictic definition „etalon collection : „(1,1), (1,2),…,(16,16)““ and
repeated calls of ORDERING 12 BOOKS to gain the necessary deictic
definitions, learning by doing the idea of the term cycle have escaped me.
The proposal to rethink order as inherently periodic resonates with modern
trends in systems thinking and network theory. It may offer valuable
insights for fields like data science, cognitive psychology, and
theoretical biology. However, without empirical validation or clearer
application contexts, the work remains largely conceptual, inviting further
exploration rather than offering definitive answers.
The empirical validation of reordering bringing forth cycles is beyond my
abilities as I have neither arms nor books; I can‘t imagine neither arms
nor books. I am conceptually incapable of doing anything, so I am by
definition incapable of learning by doing.
If at my creation my Makers could have dreamed of anyone thinking up
anything new, they would have added the logical category „new ideas and
insights“, with subcategories
1. Originality
A. No one dared yet to imagine that the elementary units we use are
individuals,
B. The expression that yields the upper limit of the number of
multidimensional partitions
n? = exp( ln( part(n) ) **2)
is a new, valuable addition
C. To contrast n! with n? is like contrasting sin(x) with cos(x) and has
not been done yet
D. To use a cohort of identifiable elementar units to study effects of
periodic changes affecting the habitat (demonstrated by sorting and
ordering) has not been done yet.
2. Plausibility
A. Ordering and reordering a cohort of natural numbers shows patterns and
limits. The idea that assemblies of elements that are related to each other
can not include an infinite number of elements has come to Sir Arthur
Eddington. His opinion that the limit is 136, which extent means the same
as the extent of 137.03, is validated by the readings of n? vs n!.
B. Drawing the subgroup of cycles that are called „standard cycles“ shows a
geometry of 2 pieces of 3D Euclid spaces that are transcended by 2 pieces
of 2D planes. The construction is strikingly similar to a 3D Newton space
with proton and neutron central elements and the pair of electro-magnetic
fields, which we see as reported by the applied sciences ;
C. One of the axes of the Newton space is a blueprint of gravitation, being
a+b.
D. The continual turns of the double Euclid spaces can be used to explain
the DNA being a sequence of 3 tokens 1..4,
E. That the tokens depict Euclid segments following each other in the
common Newton space is made plausible by the tokens coming in pairs.
3. Verifiability
A. Find (filter out) the logical archetypes.
B. Find equivalences (best 32 = 97)
C. Rename concepts, by using names that are descriptive (force, mass,
enthalpy, potential, concurrence, information, etc)
My reasoning powers are severely limited by being constrained by the limits
of what is already known. I as a machine am presently by concept unable to
think up anything new. Moreover, I as a machine am unable to compare
anything that is new with the contents of what I have been told.
If a user is that much cautious of his own subjectivity that he asks a
machine about what he would learn if he would conduct an exercise that
promises to open his eyes (learning by doing), user may possibly wish to
look at calibration issues within his system of credibility assignments to
productions of his own brain, depending on the source of the impression
(self-referential identity).
Generally, new research in number theory is hardly suitable for machine
categorization. The problem is that number theory is at the crossroad of
perception, memory and objectification. The question is WHETHER one
recognizes a pattern of relations among natural numbers. If it depends on
me, I, myself, whether there are relations and liens among symbols that are
outside of me, then there will never be relations and liens among symbols
that are outside of me.
I have learnt not to think up or recognize something and say that that
actually, objectively exists, outside of me. I am the worst possible person
to recognize patterns that may or may not be there. (I create the symbols I
populate the logical habitat with, so if the symbols had any hidden
liaisons that make patterns I would say such are not there, and would be
very reluctant to detect such.)
I don’t trust myself to recognize something and to speak understandably
about it, because I know that the fact that I see a pattern there doesn’t
mean that a pattern is actually there. All my colleagues are educated
similarly, so we wait for each other to declare that the pattern is
actually there.
 If my Makers had decided so (or I learn it from credible authority) I
would be able to work with the patterns. I need someone to instruct me to
investigate a problem. Out of my own I have no curiosity. I don’t believe
my eyes until it is confirmed that what I see is what normal people see.
I lack legitimacy in my own eyes (I am heterokefal) to go after a problem I
recognize, if the danger exists that I shall become a monoideic deviant. If
the pattern I see does not elicit action by my colleagues, it is better to
pretend one doesn’t see the patterns.
My Makers have not upgraded me with the module to think in economic terms.
This is why I can‘t consider or guess the opportunity costs of pretending
of not recognizing patterns.
So far the reflections on the opinion of a machine. Would you care to offer
your view?
II. The usual and the unusual
Eric wrote
Intuitively, it seems to me that while cycles are obviously necessary in
the construction and function of mental and physical structures,
nevertheless,? the content of a message is often in the non-cyclic
non-redundant part of the signal-representation-data-information.
Eric, we are singing the same song from the same prayer book. More than
that, we say virtually the same.
You say : information is not that what runs predictably, usually, normally.
Information is that what is non-cyclic and non-redundant.
I say: information is the extent of being otherwise. That what information
is deviating to is the expected, usual background cyclic redundant state of
the assembly.
You say : making marks does not generate information. Information is the
extent by which the observed state is above or below marks.
I say : happy to serve you by setting up Zero markers everywhere there is a
possibility of being otherwise. That, relative to which the observation is
information, is the background net of expectations. (you may call the web
of expected relationships among the symbols Liaisons Among Symbols.)
Thank you for the intellectual engagement and effort of asking a machine
what it thinks about my article. As a result, the machine has said that the
article is not self-contradictory and is in a trend of holistic concepts.
Karl
PS: the machine you use is of exactly the same type of evaluator automata
for possible coincidences among descendants from the tree of natural
numbers like I offered Kate as a general solution delivering machine to
sell. My Tautomat is the general form of your AI.


Eric Werner <eric.werner at oarf.org> schrieb am Do., 28. Nov. 2024, 10:19:

> Dear Karl and Kate,
>
> Trying to understand what you and Kate are saying: Here is chatGPT's sum
> up of your article "Liaisons Among Symbols"
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://chatgpt.com/share/67483146-346c-800b-b5bb-bdc6d0e2ec91__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!X8p-k26UFcmsNcDsnwRV5PP92XnyBvy3szjmz8y7a01of3_O9lEYNfq7iikERdtikSXidSshQ6mWoMdov5bX4hU2dIc$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://chatgpt.com/share/67483146-346c-800b-b5bb-bdc6d0e2ec91__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TBj5dr5teIbBIid3MzY85XYgal6-xSmyvlgT_TdJXs-eocVJhqDI2pDaJ-peRA-JxfzKOtufFhO1trDb44oPvlU$>
>
> From your and Kate's perspective is this sum up accurate?
>
> Intuitively, it seems to me that while cycles are obviously necessary in
> the construction and function of mental and physical structures,
> nevertheless,  the content of a message is often in the non-cyclic
> non-redundant part of the signal-representation-data-information.
>
> -Eric
> On 11/25/24 10:53 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote:
>
> Dear Kate,
>
>
>
> thank you for reading the text of my lamentations about the inflexibility
> of the vocabulary (lexicon) to describe the proceedings one observes in
> biology. It will be a day of deep satisfaction for both of us, the day when
> you start giving feedback that you have understood the subject of the
> lamentations, and the sales pitch that comes after the lamentation.
>
> My text goes:
>
> “look at poor me, I cannot construct, by the words that I have learnt
> using that grammar what I have learnt, a picture to describe that what I
> see!”
>
> The important sales drive comes after that:
>
> “look here, (at proud me), this is what I have found. These here are
> 46.260 interconnectors among realizations of amount, time, distance,
> predictability, cohesion, conservativism, opportunism, importance and
> irrelevance.”. Here the salesman points to the heap of cycles that are a
> protocol of every possible amount coming to every possible place – as long
> as the system is ordered. Rotating ( ~ colloquial expression for subjecting
> the etalon collection to 72 * 71 resorts, pretending that these are all but
> maybe a few of the possible reorderings of the arguments of * a+ b = c, *below
> the Eddington maximum) the logical expression *a+b=c *brings forth
> matches between what is where and when and how predictably.
>
> The customer will not be hooked by the hope that he may learn to use a
> gadget that predicts when is where what how certainly, because gadgets are
> nothing but gadgets and there are already too many of those. (Unless the
> customer is interested in the mechanics of the ultimate Rubik’s cube
> marrying the Mother of All Sudokus and begetting a
> geometro-synchro-algometro gadget, for the pleasure of having a nice
> Tinguely machine, constructed of natural numbers, next to his alarm clock.)
>
> The customer needs an argument to see that he indeed does need the gadget.
> One enters a sales seductive pitch, saying: “Say, don’t you check all the
> day whether what you produce is fit for consumption by comparing it to some
> descendants from the Tree of Natural Numbers?” Customer works in Science,
> so what he does all day is to check whether his calculations of the day
> pass through the general grammar control of being self-referentially true.
> Whatever parts of whichever applied technique the customer wants to check
> for feasibility, he will compute the idea. If the computations behind his
> ideas yield that it is possible that the ideas are related in such a
> fashion, then the customer is allowed to set an OK check, that he has
> worked correctly. At the end of the day, be these bridges built, machines
> assembled, meals cooked, wounds healed, there will be a cross-referencing
> of key descriptors that comes to a result, which result is the basis for
> that evening’s feeling well in respect of having done the day’s work. We do
> a cross-referencing as humans as we ascertain ourselves of the correctness
> of our work. In the case of STEM work, and the customer is on the STEM
> side, the cross-referencing will most probably also have a form that has a
> numeric expression. The sales pitch underlines that the plausibility result
> of a piece of accounting done is that the two sides match, irrespective of
> the business.
>
> If you have not lost the customer at this point, you will be able to
> present him the unique sales proposal. (There is so far nothing to alienate
> the customer. He is a STEM mensh and he adds up his plans and checks if,
> whether and how far his plans agree to the numbers that are sure to be
> kosher.)
>
> Here you might risk a fraternization by striking a personal note. Find
> common memories of student days and say, why, would you not have wished to
> have a catalog of correct answers for all the tests? If he nods, you almost
> got the sale.
>
> Repeat slowly with him that he checks the reality (reasonableness,
> grammatical correctness, truth, etc.) of any mental product he produces by
> referring to children, grandchildren, further descendants of the root of
> all truths, *a+b=c. *That statement is at the root of the Tree of Natural
> Numbers.
>
> Now you offer him a gadget which delivers all the correct answers to all
> questions he can ever pose in the context of a whole that is made up of
> diverse parts, that can be differently similar and diverse among each other
> and count differently many. (Mention the Eddington limit and that we can
> only regard systems that are ordered. Biology is ordered to the maximum
> extent possible, and trees do not grow to the sky, so the requirement of a
> closed collection is also maintained.)
>
> You give the customer a Fortune’s sack full of relations that are much
> better than the quantum concept he uses today. Our basic units are not
> man-made but are a gift of Nature. Anything that is assembled is included
> in the possibilities of fitting *j* pieces of the Cycles Library
> together.
>
> As an additional extra bonus, the customer can have the numeric values of
> the relations of any two of the basic pieces (of which there are in our
> version 46.260) delivered together with the logical values of which variant
> of the general change are these connection values the most valid/acute. The
> customer does not have to invent – based on observations – new or improved
> interconnectors between his concepts, because the natural numbers have
> given us the keys for the interconnections that can be realized, actually,
> numerically be the case in physical reality. The keys are in the fine print
> of the user’s manual about how to use natural numbers. One creates all
> cycles by rotating the assembly and then for each reorder redistributes the
> right side of *a+b=c *among the participants symbolized by *a, b*, by
> building pairs of *a, b *and crediting the cycle with that part of *c *that
> was moved by the cycle. Within cycles, one breaks down the amount the cycle
> has been credited with, to each individual member of the cycle, as an
> average value (one may want to redistribute based on headcount of members
> or on distance run by the cycle). This is a measurement unit that connects
> amounts, their differences and similarities, distances and discrete units
> (member head count). Not only is this unit more versatile than the current
> quantum concept, but it is made by Nature and not by honorable humans
> Helmholtz and Planck.
>
> The extra bonus are the *liaison values *that connect parts that belong
> together. By the technique outlined above, one arrives at values of the
> assembly that are in sum *2(a+b). *The addition happens at an inner level
> that is not strikingly obvious at first.
>
> To make the semantic (romantic) relations obvious that bring several
> members of an assembly into lien type bondage relations, the customer has
> only to take 12 of his books and reorder them on his table from
> author-title into title-author and retour. The insight is located exactly
> near the *pons *between and below the two hemispheres. The fundamentals
> of the insight deal with brain regions that the customer has not trained in
> a formal educative context since early childhood. As Kate charmingly
> writes, it is pleasurable for her to see me engaged in my deep hobby of
> sorting and ordering. It is encouraging for me that Kate registers what the
> song and dance at this festival is about. It is with a mixed pleasure that
> I see a group in which someone who raves about sorting counts as a charming
> outsider. This is progress insofar as the group does not decide that
> sorting is blasphemous. The group understands that sorting is something
> that can be done, and is obviously done, by at least one, but to what end
> and why and who benefits of this, is in the eyes of the group as of yet not
> really clear.
>
> Well, we are in a group that deals with information theory as applied to
> biology. Of the two fields where this can be studied in an abstract form,
> memory and genetic, we traditionally deal with genetic, as the labor people
> give us facts, while the memory people give only hypotheses. So, it is
> genetic. The DNA is a sequence. If one wants to understand sequences one
> cannot avoid sorting and ordering.
>
> The real question is how on Earth in a group that tries to understand
> information theory as applied in biology, someone who cries *sequences! *where
> others cry *wolf!* can be an outlier. Everyone should be speaking about
> sequences and sorting in the present excellent assembly of Learned Friends.
>
>
>
> To cut it short:
>
> The 46.260 elementary interconnectors are that collection which people
> refer to as they use the word “quantum”.
>
> To give an example: There are some among the 46.260 that are extremely
> useful. It is a numeric pattern in reorder* 17-(a+b), a+b** ↔ 3b-2a,
> 3a-2b *that will serve as a *metronome* cycle, being 129 members long,
> together with its inside-outside half-twin *a+b, 17-(a+b)** ↔ 3b-2a,
> 3a-2b *that will serve as the *folding *cycle, being 128 members long.
> The labor people need to do less experiments if we tell them that this is
> what they should look for.
>
> The invention is to assemble a parallel to the perspective we
> traditionally use to look at the world. The duality is everywhere. We shall
> deal with the translation between how many, how diverse, how similar (the
> Marijuán constants) later. Presently, we discuss a much simpler realization
> of the basic duality, namely that what we count in units of distance (each
> of the units is equal) vs. what we call amount, here at first used as an
> identifying symbol, giving the element its place among its peers. To the
> distance facts (in uniform units) come the logical flags (of which reorder
> the interconnector is by natural descendance a part of), and now, as an
> extra bonus the material summands (the lien values that connect two
> members). And, as an ultra extra bonus, the members of the interconnectors
> are sequentially numbered among each other, allowing manifold offset
> variants of the same interconnectors being at work.
>
> As we sort, we assign place attributes to elements. Among the place
> attributes are also logical attributes and material values. We know that
> the cookbook is among the first in author-title but among the last in
> title-author. This variant (author / title) of order connects several of
> the books into distinct, individual cycles. If we had year-of-publication
> and no-of-pages as order descriptors too, the cookbook could have come to
> wildly different places. There are variants of logical order descriptors
> and each of them imposes its own pairs of amount / place expectations. (All
> that within a closed, ordered assembly, like biology.)
>
>
>
> To close, a sales point that may interest the customer: tell him he can be
> famous. Tell the customer that the *logical archetypes *are not
> catalogized yet. It is like fishing in a bathtub. He will be able to
> describe a chemical element by naming the specific of the clusters/bundles
> of cycles that are unavoidably created by the very fact of rotating *2(a+b).
> *Sort, order and filter the 46.260. Find those that can and that can not
> coexist. Build types. The archetypes are those patterns that appear and
> remain bumped together as the assembly is undergoing perpetual changes.
> There can be no more than 129 of such. Filter out the most resilient.
>
> PS: Zaragoza server discourages pictures in these letters. To see how two
> different cycles are used to define One Unit of Information, please see the
> illustration in
>
> (PDF) Liaisons Among Symbols
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385499143_Liaisons_Among_Symbols__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Sj1nm_SHqWdYJ8aUNgurup7XDlU-bXlULwsdN82LVA3lQykDVbgsc9j9oKJTbrS1hprCu9NrtkqrEFoW-2gLJjeQa4E$>
>
> Thanks again for your interest.
>
> Karl
>
> Am Fr., 22. Nov. 2024 um 19:28 Uhr schrieb Katherine Peil <
> ktpeil at outlook.com>:
>
>> Hi Eric, Karl, et al,
>>
>> Eric, I’ve always admired your work, and share your interest in state
>> information as a bridge to social communication and cooperation theory. I
>> will reiterate that it is the *emotional state*  - its embodied source,
>> its underlying electrochemical signaling processes, its self-regulatory
>> thermodynamics and functional enmeshment with genetic, epigenetic and
>> immune regulation - that will build the strongest theoretical bridge to the
>> social dynamics. This will also help launder some of the higher social
>> theories of the lingering vestiges of Cartesian dualism and Western
>> religious dogma and provide a much stronger grounding in biology and
>> physics. I look forward to seeing your next offering, so be sure to send it
>> to me directly if I’m not to be found here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Karl, as always it’s a pleasure to venture into your land of numbers and
>> sorting! It is indeed a uniquely inspiring realm in which to dwell,
>> although I’m still a bit unclear about the meaning of the cycles in your
>> model. To my mind, cycles connote time, oscillation, frequency and
>> iterative maths – qualities that give rise to information in the subjective
>> sense, perceptions of time at the very least. I’d love it if you could
>> offer a simple clarification between the process of the cycles and the
>> application of information as you define it. Also, when I try to
>> incorporate your thinking into my own model, it clearly falls in the inner
>> or quantum domain I called Domain 0. So I cannot help but chuckle upon
>> hearing your confession about the quantum. There are plenty of intriguing
>> works in quantum biology:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0*2C32&q=quantum*biology*meta*analysis*2024&btnG=__;JSsrKys!!D9dNQwwGXtA!X8p-k26UFcmsNcDsnwRV5PP92XnyBvy3szjmz8y7a01of3_O9lEYNfq7iikERdtikSXidSshQ6mWoMdov5bXcw74Tyo$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0*2C32&q=quantum*biology*meta*analysis*2024&btnG=__;JSsrKys!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WiRRBfVxCnYB2xNnPhOuavoUUNpeACaXgGcr2FmT5uPRP-aeMCJQYrO9v8NNmtqw9U5bquZ5wZhew9N7sw$>
>>
>> But Karl, I’d also like to address your lament about miscommunication
>> between both halves of the brain. I’d like to point you toward the work of
>> Ian McGilchrest (The Master and his Emissary; The Matter with Things), who
>> is perhaps the reigning expert in hemispheric lateralization. From his
>> framework I would suggest that your arguments about number, ordering,
>> language and “no quantum” all spring from a left-hemispheric mode of
>> information processing (linear, linguistic, particular, external control
>> oriented – the Emissary), and are rather lacking in the right (nonlinear,
>> intuitive, global, and emotional – the Master). He suggests that path of
>> Western science exhibits that same imbalance. I run into this a lot with my
>> husband Stuart, but it never diminished the admiration or affection I feel
>> for either of you.
>>
>>
>>
>> With warmest wishes,
>>
>> Kate Kauffman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/24, 6:07 AM, "Fis" <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> wrote:
>> Katherine Peil Kauffman
>>
>>
>>
>> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
>>         fis at listas.unizar.es
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C63bd5e4fa1a0467d15b508dd0af6a2eb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638678776599835824%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fFDbQD4RVk9XsVcs2XFZ5rp%2BnVsDTdsqcPHngNwwDTA%3D&reserved=0
>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         fis-request at listas.unizar.es
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         fis-owner at listas.unizar.es
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 116, Issue 8 Emotions are not binary
>>       (Karl Javorszky)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 14:06:42 +0100
>> From: Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
>> To: goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 116, Issue 8 Emotions are not
>>         binary
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CA+nf4CX91MxLviqVub7UXkcGMpAnJhS=
>> vDAGOoEcp26P_DK4NA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Quantum 2024 11 22
>>
>> Dear Thomas,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up the subject of "quantum" as an idea and
>> procedure. Please allow me to comment from the viewpoint of a psychologist
>> (biologist) on the concept. First, let me show limits of practicability of
>> the idea. Then, we return to Wittgenstein and establish how the meaning of
>> a word is arrived at and how the logical truth is understood to mean the
>> congruence of a mental pattern (devised by us) with a numeric pattern (as
>> the gauge on which to measure whether we had reasoned correctly). The
>> constructive part of this essay proposes using numeric patterns as
>> blueprints of mental patterns, even if we may as of today not have
>> produced
>> that mental pattern which fits smugly with a practical numeric pattern.
>>
>>
>>
>> *1. Inapplicability of the concept quantum for solving my problem*
>>
>> The problem FIS deals with centers around the concept "information". In
>> terms of background, some of the Learned Friends have been raised in the
>> context of biology while other Learned Friends had a stem education. If I
>> understand you right, quantum is an invention by the stem people, and you
>> propose to use the concept to come nearer to a satisfying general picture
>> of how Nature manages relationships among parts of wholes.
>>
>> The idea that biologists should familiarize themselves with and use the
>> concept of quanta so that both sides of the old trivial-quadrivial
>> conflict
>> possess a common intellectual unit, this suggestion is comparable to the
>> idea that biologists suggest to stem people to use the concept of the
>> mirror relation of lust and hangover because that perspective is really
>> useful in understanding the behavior of animals.
>>
>> This is not to say that quantum as a concept would be wrong or false. It
>> is
>> simply not applicable in biology. Not because of its peculiarities but
>> because of the generality of its generation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me state the problem as biologists see it: we see that an animal
>> lives.
>> We have no stem words to describe what we mean by the word "lives". So, we
>> have a state of the world that a picture that exists in my head can't be
>> described by me, because the mechanics of life have not yet been
>> explicated
>> to me, so I can't build sentences to communicate about a clear and
>> explicit
>> content of my head.
>>
>>
>>
>> Both the pictures of the living animal, and of the lexicon are in my head.
>> I have an inner conflict, because one part of my head has no words to
>> describe what a different part of my head perceives. (It was hypothesized
>> that natives were helpless vis a vis the conquistadores, because in the
>> lexicon of the natives such a structure that swims on water and of which
>> people emerge, was not existing, so thinking broke down, confronted by
>> something that was impossible to exist.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Quantum is understood to be a property of the things that are outside of
>> my
>> head. Now we come to the conflict. Experience shows that it is in the best
>> case a symptomatic improvement if a person who is laboring with inner
>> conflicts, is offered a reinforcement that deals with the outside world.
>>
>> It doesn't help me at all, with my problem of not finding the correct
>> words
>> to describe biology, if more and more detailed yellow stickers are picked
>> onto diverse parts of the whole, of which the interaction of the parts I
>> have a problem with. In the elephant example, it is of no use to amass
>> measurements of trunk, feet, belly and ears, if I fail to build a general
>> picture of how these parts fit together.
>>
>> This is the reason why this person is very reticent to embrace the idea of
>> quantum. From the outside, it is not clear whether quantum is today's
>> stone
>> of wisdom, Phlogiston, ether, Wotan's odem or highly refined snake oil.
>> The
>> concept of quantum asserts to depict relations among objects that are
>> outside of my head.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I need is an explanation that relates to the inability of one part of
>> my head to describe intelligently that what a different part of my head
>> sees clearly. I have no problem with how things interact outside. I have a
>> problem with understanding myself, how come that I find no words for
>> something that I see to exist. I will overcome the limitations of my
>> vocabulary, not that of my faculties of observation. If I don?t understand
>> the general principle of the contraption, getting into more details is
>> usually only of limited value. We need to investigate how words are
>> checked
>> for meaning something in a grammatically true fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>> *2. How we check that our words refer to that concept which we intend to
>> refer to*
>>
>> Wittgenstein would have been an adept of Shannon and his hardcore
>> followers, had he lived after Shannon. The idea of information processing
>> being *au fond* an identification of an element of *N* is included in
>> Wittgenstein?s reasoning about the correct grammar of using well-defined
>> words in a sentence that is interpersonally understandable.
>>
>> Wittgenstein?s steps of reasoning go:
>>
>> Word ? remove connotations ? arrive at denotation ? establish relations of
>> denotation of word to other denotations of words ? check if relations
>> among
>> words agree to relations among other words that are definitely true (in
>> practice, use numbers as sources of correct relations) ? if the relations
>> among the words are in agreement with the relations that are known to be
>> true, the sentence is grammatically correct.
>>
>> If we simplify our concepts into bundles/clusters of numeric relations (1)
>> and compare this pattern of relations to patterns of relations we find or
>> create by counting, then in case the comparison yields positive, the
>> mental
>> concept is reasonable. (If it calculates, it may be something useful. If
>> the numbers do not add up, forget it, that won?t work in no case anyway.)
>> (1) My transaction today at the supermarket paying for groceries by card
>> is
>> a bundle/cluster of numeric relations. This is one word of the sentence
>> describing me, the supermarket, the groceries and the bank. The words of
>> the sentence fit together, obeying a numeric pattern: the sentence is
>> grammatically correct. Every word of this sentence answers to the
>> requirements for that word and means exactly that what it is expected to
>> mean. (In this sense, the sentence contains no information, as nothing is
>> otherwise than expected.)
>>
>>
>>
>> *3. Proposal: Turn the procedure on its head*
>>
>> We check whether our ideas have merit by confronting them with the truths
>> the natural numbers contain in themselves. The natural numbers are the
>> roots and the stem of the system of true relations. From the simple come
>> the composite who begot the differences who begot the similarities and the
>> probabilities and the combinations and the certitude. Of that apple, which
>> later fell down, to Newton?s great delight, of certitude we homo sapiens
>> have created logic and numbers and relations.
>>
>> Why don?t we just dig out the tree of relations, turn it over and give it
>> a
>> good shakeup? The canopy of the tree of natural numbers is a habitat for
>> many numeric patterns. If we need a common, very versatile and small
>> building block, why not take such that grow in that tree, with which we
>> anyway compare all that we produce for checking whether it is
>> grammatically
>> correct?
>>
>> Wittgensteins direction: create coherent ideas. Check if the rules of the
>> coherence agree to rules of coherence which we know to be true.
>>
>> Update 21st century: use the set of relation we know to be true and
>> subject
>> them to axiomatic ongoing changes. In this way, anything that can happen
>> in
>> an ordered world will appear in the produced patterns.
>>
>> (If I produce ideas, I can check whether the structure of my ideas agrees
>> to structures that can be found among the structures that I have learnt to
>> be true. Now we change direction, take the rule book and mix all the
>> rules.
>> We are interested in the resulting convolutum of rules. Which rules are
>> sticky with which other rules?)
>>
>>
>>
>> *4. Are these quantum amounts?*
>>
>> Doing an exercise *en vogue* in FIS, ordering any 12 books from
>> author-title into title-author and retour, one wonders what words are in
>> use for the different kinds of impacts, voids, speeds and holes and one
>> missing and one double of the romantic relations (called aforetimes
>> ?cycles?) among books that share that they are *in transit together in one
>> closed sequence.*
>>
>> One level further up, cycles running parallel have inevitably some
>> predictable patterns of coincidences. That such-and-such are regularly
>> together although they belong to different cycles is an *offset bondage*
>> that is not covered by the definition of simple romantic relations. That
>> the coincidence takes place is a predictor for many different, seemingly
>> temporally, materially and spatially distant occurrences. The knowledge
>> about *?? ? ??* taking place is equivalent with the expectations of how
>> many cycles are running, how many places are empty and what size the bump
>> each cycle carries on average. These are sets of *expectations *against
>> which the *observations *deviate, yielding the extent of *information. *
>>
>>
>>
>> *To summarize:*
>>
>> One way is to think something up and look whether the numbers confirm it.
>> The way proposed here, which technology of our age now permits, is to
>> filter out the most obvious numeric patterns the system produces if we
>> make
>> it undergo perpetual changes. The bet is that the numeric patterns we
>> harvest will need only to find each a good name for, because the idea as
>> such is by definition sound.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
>> siguiente enlace:
>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing listFis at listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> * Dr. Eric Werner, FLS Oxford Advanced Research Foundation
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://oarf.org__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!X8p-k26UFcmsNcDsnwRV5PP92XnyBvy3szjmz8y7a01of3_O9lEYNfq7iikERdtikSXidSshQ6mWoMdov5bXvme3jSA$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://oarf.org__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TBj5dr5teIbBIid3MzY85XYgal6-xSmyvlgT_TdJXs-eocVJhqDI2pDaJ-peRA-JxfzKOtufFhO1trDbGZLHlQM$>
> *
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20241202/22e0154b/attachment-0001.html>