[Mike 5]

Mudras.

Since posting my last chunk about the division from outside in of Fractal Dialectics, it seems clear that the six perspectives are something like "fingers".

We have five fingers and this seems a perfect flavour to give instead of the word "numbers" or the word "qualities". Fingers naturally have an upper limit, and the dual elements I propose for fractal Dialectic numbering, counting, positioning, map naturally onto the left and right hands.

Mudra is an indian word for finger yoga. Here is a nice one. Form interlocking rings with your thumb and ring finger, then touch forefinger to forefinger, middle to middle and little finger to little finger. Nice.

Here I am going to expand the linguistic, meanings, oooh, surely this is not mathematics – precisely!

I will for nostalgic reasons use the numbers 1 to 6. But I want to replace these with a set of elements that have names that will not be confused with traditional numbering.

1. I cannot help it now I think of fingers, this is my thumb, a thumbs up sign. This is about investigating the basics. Whatever we are investigating as data, as distinct from number, we start somewhere as conscient beings witnessing some aspect and that first touch of consciousness to material form is this first numboid, hexoid, hexameter, or finger.
2. In Britain two fingers make a rude sign. I cannot help it, this is now a mudra, or finger position that I associate with the second hexameter or finger of consciousness penetrating into material form. The second pentameter, or hexameter, I will address that natural ambiguity below, is about depth. Enthusiam. Blindly getting into something, unaware of anything else, being lost in discovery. Clearly the second perspective is sufficient to make binary, the system already used in digital computers, and as it encompasses duality and dialectics, this is the foundation of the whole mathematics here. It is literally sufficient, beyond this point is luxury that is not essential.
3. Well, for me my fingers simple combine the thumb and the British V sign, I have a three finger sign as a mudra for this element of counting in a new way. The third pentameter is the rhythm of mutations, trial and error, and it actually opens up a triangle of space for the first time. Inside that triangle to be clear is the fifth … shit, I really did not want to use that world element. Edit that out please. Finger, hexoid, pentameter, numboid, one word will eventually become used, I have not go the energy to decide, And that is the essence of the third finger, mistaken- ness as a path to discovery.
4. My mudra for this is the four fingers, with the thumb folded in. I am inverting these as I go, you know, so what, let’s enjoy the journey. For all I know three people on the planet will read this and vomit, and that is it, forgotten. Anyway. The fourth elaboration is community, and it has a stbility and completeness about it. There are two oppositions here, as in my early example – night – dawn – dusk – day. Night clearly is opposed to day, a dialectic, And the visually similar dawn and dusk are opposed not by appearance but by timing, they are different for the postman and farmer, but often similar in a snapshot. So dawn and dusk form a more subtle opposition, one that might appear indistinguishable. Like the two originally identical beige plastics on my Roland TR505 drum machine that years later stripe with one darker and the other lighter. The fourth hexameter is also about investigation but the investigation of relationships between the kind of essences that the first hexameter discovered.
5. Ah now I can tell you – there are only five fingers in the hand. There are only five pentameters in truth. The fifth perspective is the entire area, and here I will go for the tetrahedroid shape. Milk was the first substance to be sold in tetrapacks, as featured at the start of the Beatles film Help! Where one of the Beatles gets a tetrahedron of milk from a vending machine. Take a toilet roll and squash each end at right angles. You have the two dualities, every point is trying to escape and be independent of the rest, and a fifth perspective opens in the middle. The fifth perspective is actually about truth, often the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is the only perspective that can see the whole thing from the inside.
6. The sixth perspective is not within the hand at all – I see this as a fist, punching into whatever is beyond the hand. The sixth perspective is OUTSIDE, the context beyond all four points and the area they contain, it is the skin and the context. I have not yet settled the words hexameter and pentameter because the fact is, the sixth perspective is so alien, it will rarely be relevant. There are a maximum of five perspectives that are relevent. For simplicity most fractal dialectic division will be binary – that maps onto existing computers easily, or seasonal (using the four points of the compass as it were). Some exotic uses will be philosophical, which I think is a suitable word for using the five perspectives, pentameters, or maybe global is a good word. It is hard to imagine a real application for all six details used over nad over recursively. I suppose the word cosmic would be zippy and snappy and pompous here.

So the numbering in Fractal Dialectics will often be dualistic, it is basically dialectics after all. But with computers as powerful as they are, it will be fairly simple to leave some slack in the programming so that Fractal Dialectic software always has seasonal, philosophical, and cosmic possibilities, as it were.

36 MUDRAS - COUNTING ON OUR FINGERS

Now, I wanted to have distinct mudras so that we can actually get our first fractal recursion in this splodge or written vomit. I am sorry to say, I view all art and human creation as excrement of the mind, and all of us as dung beetles, so occasionally I will refer to my creative ideas from a self mocking perspective, it helps me think clearly and avoids certain traps and mistakes, these are just thoughts.

Fractal Dialectics is for humans.

Numbers and arithmetic implicitly assume, ah, God, or the structure of space and time, uses "our " mathematics. Hence the utter crap – since all ideas are a toilet anyway – of Stephen Hawking recently. And others. No, God does not use "our" mathematics. No, we cannot take the dance of the honey bee and explain creation. That would be absurd. Nor can we take the language, nor thinking limitation of any specied on this planet, including homo omsnisciens, and presume that simplistic version applies to explain the Big Bang. No way Jose. Let me be very clear. Fractal Dialectics is limited to this species, the humans. It is not truth out there in atoms nor was it unfolding beyond and before any singularity, it is merely here and now and was not in the age of the dinosaurs and will not be when our species dies out. It is a temporary dance in the shadows of a fire we cannot know.

So, we have two hands. Interesting – because this is Dialectics, recursive duality and we have TWO hands. What a coincidence (not).

In a way, this duality of two hands IS the maximum dimension we can think in, and that is the whole point of Fractal Dialectics. We glibly imagine an 11 dimensional universe with M-Branes and Pea Brains, but the true limit of dimension for us all, is right or left, is breathing in or breathing out, is life or death, is awake or asleep, the dimensionality of human existence is truly binary with perhaps a glimmer of beyond in the space where sleep is not quite awake, where breathing stops in the that turn around. It is no accident that some people glimpse the unknowable beyond all human existence in such gaps. But as humans and as a species we are so limited. We have up and down and that is it! Yes or no. Mind is duality and no more, but that duality at least has rotational energy and so skin forms like clingfilm around each concept, concepts become bubbles in the darkness of unknown discovery, and the winds of happenstance bump those bubbles of conceptual energy together or blow them far apart.

I digress.

I made 6 unique mudras or hand positions. We have left and right hands. Clearly a shepherd counting sheep has 36 unique mudras using two hands to count with.

Traditionally shepherds and others counted in tens because of our ten fingers. Computers count in two because analogue computers did not fit our decimal numbers and simplistic idiots that homo dumbo is, we failed to change our mathematics to fit the beauty and truth of analogue calculation. Fractal Dialectic Synthesis restores the power of analogue calculation within a recursive binary framework without the tyranny of cartesian euclidean errors. The future is clearly analogue and using FDS could be mocked up on existing digital desktops in a few months by a competent research graduate. You heard it first on the raging lunatic channel here. I happen to be correct in this prediction. And I despise and hate those who are so blind as to fail to see this. Which is not an ideal position of the decorum and stern dignity these ideas deserve, but I am human.

I am not happy with this 36 possible hand positions. I want 64.


FROM BINARY DIGITAL TO TETRAHEDRAL DIGITAL (virtual analogue) AND HEXAMETER DIGITAL (the marriage of language and mathematics)

I want to get back to binary so that this system fits naturally and intuitively into computers today, and extends their range to fluid analogue data correction (the end of pixelation, just as scratchy 78rpm shellac records became nostalgia) and A.I. on your laptop.

Using each of five fingers as an on or off switch, extended or bent as it were, you can count I believe to 32 on just one hand. 00000 00001 00010 00011 etc. up to 11111. And we are back to ways to apply all this to computers.

That intrigues me. What is closer to the possibilities of Fractal Dialectics using seasonal counting - with four elements that have two extremes of identifiable quality, and two vector midpoints in the flow between those extremes. Seasonal counting is a refinement and extension of digital binary that is clearly compatible with existing applications. We just have extra room in all of our computers for two "numbers" in between 0 and 1. These numbers are birth and death effectively – technically zero becoming 1 (birth) and 1 becoming zero. These intermediate snapshots are the moment of switching on and switching off, so they already exist in computers not as the states we use today but as the process of changing state.

I am confident that immensely powerful machine code will result from rethinking binary digital as tetrahedral digital. It requires no change to the actual hardware but deep change to the most fundamental levels of software – the "and" "or" "nor" gates at the heart of computing will be released to new and profound subtleties when we rediscover as our early computer scientists did, the instructional possibilities of seasonal or tertrahedral digital calculations.

Quite possible the backbone skeleton of such research is already there in the actual processing structures of machine code itself, but I instinctively feel there are possibilities we did not yet find because our blinkers were set to binary instead of tetrahedral.

As for the unlocking of hexameter digital – my goodness. Clearly a double hexameter (64x64) approaches the vocabulary of a newspaper, a few thousand concepts. It will be very hard to distinguish intelligence and I predict language itself, from a mechanical double hexameter inference engine of some sort and the central connections are a mere 64 by 64 matrix! Nothing in today’s computer storage. The connection ranges between those elements are clearly a wiring nightmare, but within ten years we could have something passing for artificial intelligence approaching a science fiction dream.

The key to all this is first to expand Digital Binary into Digital Tetrahedral. Beyond that to Digital Hexameter. At that stage computers will appear to "know" "meaning".

I may have raced ahead in my thoughts here but to return to the basic launchpad of this line of thinking – mathematics today is based in number and quantity.

Fractal Dialectics is different in that it creates a new quality/quantity hybrid. Utlimately with enough work, mechanical computation will resemble "meaning" and "discussion" to a level that will be very useful.

The pathway to that in Data Processing research is to first expand existing binary to seasonal or tetrahedral calculation and for that we must re-invent the basic building blocks of digital processing. The translation from 0 and 1 to action and process and algorithm will be released in to a new dimension by simply positing two interpolated states between 0 and 1 – dead and alive and these are processes frozen into states we might call birth and death. 0, B, D, 1 for example.

Rethinking machine code algorithms will introduce an analogue quality to computing.

Introducing the maximum potential – six hexameters – will bring something like language, something like thinking, something like discussion, and something like intelligence to computers.

I am sure this blurtational style is frustrating to read but it is my nature for now. Insight is not given to those who are fluent. To be fluent is to be happy with the existing range of possibility, insight is a struggle and it cannot be fluent. In all of that I seek mathematical minds - not because they will welcome this, not for an easy recognition, but because these ideas need better precision than I can give them.