False & True Philosophical Utopias...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steve, for starters go here: Link Please go to page 83, and check out Lefebvre's math. This is the area you will be needed in, as I may wish your help with some intricate math details later on, but for now I'm trying to keep the math as simple as possible. We need describe the real world and universe, first as the physical entities we know them to be. From my perspective, at this date, they need not be in exact details, as I'm trying to achieve a general overall structured view FIRST... This is a link to some of the math you could help with: Link as pertains to this: Link, and finally produces this: Link. The first Cartesian graph can mathematically/algebraically be used to do the entire epistemic math of the second graph, through the 'habitus' of external reality being isomorphically mappable to our internal epistemic states. If you'd be willing to help with this math, it'd be greatly appreciated. If not, so be it...

Well would you at least agree that it represents a continuity between physical events? (And this should require something beyond independent physical objects to construct a continuity or determine relationships between them).

Of course...

They're what the universe is believed to do when you don't actually take the theories literally. If you take the theories literally they don't describe the universe.

Why tell me what I already know? Why not ask, or study my older posts, so you may know where to plug in..?

There are no physical probability waves and there are no "local" references denoted in space (point to precisely what a "local" reference is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_reference_frame
What is this "small region" (come on, someone should have the guts to say it. How is it that we can have all these intelligent people continually ignore the obvious)

That's your ball o' wax, I got no interest in areas I corrected in my thinking, years ago... And btw, no sensible physicist has ever stated there were any physical prob. waves, as you like to keep bringing up, except in the kook literature__Measurement / | \ Physical. And, anyone who's read Einstein's direct works, full well knows all about ref. frames__catch up...

The same goes for calculus ... when does an infinitesimal equal zero?

In rational calculus with lim, and you know it does__or didn't they teach you limits, so quit faking...

If I constrain 0<|e|, this means nothing. It specifically says that the error is never zero and it could be infinitely wrong.

No dummy, it means the truest answer lies between 0 and e, but is outside the standard rational numbers' use. It's like most of the accepted rational math with limits, or as Emmi Noether stated "field has two values 1 and 0" and that's the std. math most work with, i.e., the fractions and numbers up, and down to infinitesimals between related to, but how small do you want to go, because it's unlimited without limits, so there's never what you're looking for__absolute accuracy_C.S.Peirce proved that well over 100 yrs. ago, as did Vasiliev and Brouwer. The accuracies your talking about are only good for specific highly specialized technical uses. That ain't what most need. And far from it as to regular life's problems, and most of the general problems in physics and cosmology__yeah quantum complexity maths, but nobody here is doing that stuff, except Antonio Lao...

The discontinuity arose in the logic and not in any physical samples.

Now lets be honest here. Is it really me who's doing this or are you simply trying to ignore my comments?

I'm only ignoring the nutty ones, and hoping you may throw a nugget__once in a while. Ya know there's an old saying; "Two heads are always better than one, even if one is full of s**t."

Sorry, you'll have to give me something more than that. Give me some hard logic or examples.

Steve, aren't you aware most of the old HARD text books on maths and logics are on the web, free to download and read...?

I could ask you the same and I agree it doesn't appear you're interested, so why do you reply?

The reason I respond is you're in my thread. You don't find me seeking you out for advice, now do ya...?

[SteveA]

Steve, for starters go here: Link Please go to page 83, and check out Lefebvre's math. This is the area you will be needed in, as I may wish your help with some intricate math details later on, but for now I'm trying to keep the math as simple as possible.

Sounds like a good plan.

If time is only a growth and accumulation, then you continually need to make "infinity" larger and never reduce it (that would be a loop in time).

If something wants to see itself, and it is of some size, n, then it can construct the quantity n^2 and compute:

n=n^2/n

But notice that if it needs to add n^2 to itself (which is equivalent to growing into a 2-d surface) then it can potentially actually contina n+n^2 units, in order to observe the quantity n^2/n, and so it actually possess an additional infinitesimal embedded within it and that's the same as you indicated and similar to my other comments regarding the growth of these infinitesimal structures, notice that if it actually contains n^2+n units, then we get:

n+1=(n^2+n)/n

Though it did not see the additional n, and perceived it as n, instead of n+1 and the ratio is 1+e (some infinitesimal, but it's important to keep track of the form of growth, which calculus typically does not do).

If we continue with this progression, we get polynomial forms that grow as gaussians (spherical shapes in various dimensions - gas clouds) and there are close correlations here to Pascal's Triangle, atomic properties and Fibonnaci sequences.

http://milan.milanovic.org/math/engl.../division.html

http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/atom/atom.html

And yes, there's a ton more and the string/thread I've been talking about unites it all as Universal Computation, there's no deterministic algorithm that's not on it.

We need describe the real world and universe, first as the physical entities we know them to be. From my perspective, at this date, they need not be in exact details, as I'm trying to achieve a general overall structured view FIRST...

Yes, any of these objects with precise detail are a part of that thread. Winding it through various dimensions creates a form and the volume of units it contains is a quantity. The dimensions it moves through are conscious qualities.

This is a link to some of the math you could help with: Link

Ok, first thing you need to do in this space is fill with a one dimensional pathway. There are various ways of doing it, but ideally you maintain a pattern of equalities across this dimension so that you can line up all points in this 3 dimensional space being single computable numbers (yes, not simple), but here's a way to begin and your graph suggests it already.

Notice that the direction with limited freedom is effectively a center point of a space of possible motion - no freedom = no motion and no potential volume, hence it's at the center point.

You direction spanning greater freedom is a motion away from this singularity and it represents greater dimensionalities of possibilities.

Notice also that possibilities are only known relative to a memory of history of the past, so though a motion could potentially, in some objective sense, exist in an infinite number of dimensions, only those that can be correlated as a relationship to past events are available hence you basically can't "leave the surface" of this expansion in a deterministic manner and we have a structure similar to a pearl necklace wrapping itself around a center in more and more dimensions.

I think your "was" direction is actually part of the interior of this and so you should have basically just two components to this expansion relative to the dimensions you're measuring - you have a direction of what should be and a direction of greater freedom and we could plot this similar to a latitude and longtitude of an expanding object - a growth/motion in a specific direction would be more similar to an ellipse than a sphere.

But I'm not representing this too accurately. The possible volume of space encompassed by the growth direction I believe is generally factorially growing, so the outward expansion is more of a hypersphere. I assume the "ought" direction would be similar to the pathway of an attractor within this space (I don't know specifically what it might appear as though it someone put specific conscious properties to the dimensions, there may be some forms that could be determined from this - my assumption is that "ought" ends up being a form of maximal space filling in some sense - just an idea - of course "ought" is quite subjective, so it may be that people have to fill in their own blanks to an extent - really it's just a "map" of the place that appears needed. Something I've run into is that it appears if there is a second dimension, it's the will - the first is logic and describes an evolution or time, the second dimension would need to be something orthogonal to this and would appear to be representative of that indeterminant/creative component - so we'd have something like a 2-D plane of possible events with time going one direction and choice heading the other, though this second dimension could likely itself be a very high dimensional space consisting of all the discrete possible choices/desires so it may be even better described similar to the expansion of some discrete multi dimensional space with those dimensions being choices and the outward motion being time - though an individual could reduce the dimensionality of this space by selecting which dimensions are significant).

as pertains to this: Link,

I began copying some of these classes to a different document and will see how they might be fit in (some appear rather subjective and hard to place).

and finally produces this: Link. The first Cartesian graph can mathematically/algebraically be used to do the entire epistemic math of the second graph, through the 'habitus' of external reality being isomorphically mappable to our internal epistemic states.

I admit I don't see too well how it works, but it did stimulate some considerations for me regarding the too free (lack of references) and something similar to an absolute closure, though in a different sense - once again a lot of reference.

Imagine filling a space of possibilities with experiences - in order to maintain a controllable orientation within the space you need references to navigate by. If we include memories in this space, then this space has no specific path for a timeline and no way to orient itself relative to those.

At another extreme, if only a single point was "filled", then the space collapses into a superimposed singularity (the moth to the candleflame) on the other hand, if the space is entirely full or symmetrically filled in various ways, this similarly causes various dimensions to "collapse" and become undetectable.

It's interesting to consider that there may be some equivalent aesthetically pleasing pathways of motion within this space because they allow for a maximum number of dimensions to orient onesself.

If you'd be willing to help with this math, it'd be greatly appreciated. If not, so be it...

Yes, there might be some ways to help out.

There's another model similar to spectral analysis that I think is a good representation of intelligence - it's basically similar to a dynamic cancellation of detected biases - you take a spectrum of various wavelengths and then effectively attempt to equalize all of them, by doing this you're performing an inverse compensation for external biases and seeing what would typically be considered an undistorted view of things (of course this depends upon paying attention to those biases - if you're continually seeing "pink" it's likely you're wearing rose colored sunglasses - of course one major problem to this is deciding whether or not that's a bias that needs cancellation! ).

Another similar represenation of this is just using statistics. You sample a space and look for biased probabilities of some events and you continually split areas with highest density into finer detail by separating superpositions (assuming information to do so is available).

A very useful tool for subatomic physics in this respect would be by measuring the ratios of detected events - this can give clues as to the equivalent "volume" of space constructing them. If they are finite volumes, then the ratios should approach rational values.

Oh well, gotta go for now. Maybe something in there sparks something for you. I'll look over the table you showed later.

Thanks

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steve, here's a very clear and grounded view of the areas of math you are working from, from the originating horse's mouth; William Clifford: The Common Sense of The Exact Sciences: Link You can download the PDF in the upper right corner of page. This covers much of the foundation work in Non-Euclidian maths and geometry. It is excellent work from the master himself_just check out the table of contents on this link, to wet your whistle. It may be of great help to you...

btw, thanks for the grounded contact in the last post. Also, if you wish to discuss the concept of infinity to infinitesimals and back, in your thread I'd be glad to, as I worked in that area a few years back, and still have many ideas and questions related to it. I also think there may possibly be a path to creating that most impossible math area, or at the least, developing it further, especially as related to the pure concepts interactions, as per my first post's diagram...
regards,
LG

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Inverse Chiralling Geometry of Minds, Cells and Foreign Exchange Markets…

“Absolute truth and knowledge is the inverse center of all the opposing extremes.” L.G.


Now, most would probably ask, “Why has he chosen such a complex conglomeration of words, to title an article pertaining to such a simple idea as philosophy?” Well, my answer is, “Simplicity starts from complexity, and the other way around is simply leaving one in a complex and confused state, and that’s not my intent”. By starting with complexity, I’m simply copying how the geometry and nature of our lil’ ol’ Universe did it, on Her lil’ ol’ lonesome. This way, you may know I’m working more from the complex, to the simplification of the complex.

I intend to explain a, yet unseen, simple symmetry between our minds, biological cells, quantum mechanics’ hidden knowledge within the uncertainty principle, and the hidden variables of all three mentioned systems, within the nation’s and world’s foreign exchange markets’ complex financial transactions. You may say, “What do I want to know that for?” And, the answer would be, “…because you, and most everyone on this forum has mentioned something about all of these issues, in one form or another, in one post or another, over the time you’ve been here, and because it’s so valuable and important to all your life’s functions and actions”.

My ideas presented will of course relate back to the diagrams at post #1 Here and post # 37 Here, allowing easier explanations. The exact symmetries I’m referring to are that all four concepts/ideas, whatever you prefer to call them, have hidden variables no one on earth has thus far uncovered__in their overall total simple dynamics. I’m talking about the embedded hidden variables of motion, personal actions and information__embeddednesses that cause all the incompletenesses, of and in, our knowledge systems, and try to inform everyone of the possible absolute truths, we may find existing within these embeddedness logics, of simple and complex motions, actions and informations, involved in all four of these areas. Now, believe it or not, I used to believe there were trillions of actions and views hidden from my own personal views, just as many of you may still believe__but I realized there was a true way to, if not see them directly, to see them indirectly, with a new system of eclectic global perception. And I’m here telling you, it is entirely the way we view and use our own internal perception mechanics, that makes the difference between truly seeing what’s before our eyes, and what we either think, or do not think__we see and know.

Perceptually, conceptually and non-conceptually, if one simply realizes this one set of facts__All information of objects, subjects and selves is transferred from external of, and to periphery perception, whether internally or externally viewed or sensed__sources first; second to internal perception’s central/core geometric 3-D, dimensionalizing processor; third to experiential memory storage; fourth to intellectual memory storage; and fifth retrieved by will, judgment, reason, and or logic ‘within perception’, from one of these four mentioned areas, and there processed ‘by perception’ into all our feelings and knowledge possible to possess, of both the external world and internal worlds, either real or imagined. From birth on, we simply open or use our five senses and naturally attract all the information nature, objects and others have to offer, and either store or process that information with our innate perception engine__or abstract such input into exaggerated emotional and intellectual, true and false, belief states, by mixing the input information with our and others natural instinctual instinct’s energies over-reactions or under-reactions__and herein lies our main problem of over-interpretations, and under-interpretations, to the point of our very own self-harms, or even self-destructivenesses, and harms to others. This is not to be confused with the overwhelming well and good functioning of our natural innate emotional and intellectual systems, that truly gives us all our joy and entertainment in life__The most important musement and pure liberty essence of our true being. I’m simply pointing out how the mind functions, and we all choose our own paths of happiness or not, but this simple knowledge may help. It can’t hurt, it’s only one paragraph long…(continued later)…

[Lloyd Gillespie]

This is one of SB's posts that should be reread by all, as he's stating a very necessary element of our struggle to achieve a TOE. Not only is it important to this forum, but to the very survival of our species. Thanks for the clarity SB...rrr

Lloyd Gillespie
Noam Chomsky

Your posts are simply too good.

So -
- a whole buncha' people lost in mis-understanding (semantics).

How do we make language clear?

We need to ensure that people
- when they communicate
*know*
when there's any room for mis-understanding in their communicating partners.

How?

By ensuring that the ideas which people are communicating are inter- nally logically consistent between the two partners?

That one understands the other - that the other understands the one
- not because they're speaking the same language
- but that their language is forged from the same underlying structure.

Those structures will need to be the same -
and will represent a connection between logic and knowledge
- a common model
- a common shared model of reality
- representing a structured 'Theory of Categories' as the starting point -
the global infrastructure from which words are then forged.

~*~

Point

The convergence which need occur, for people to *truly* understand one another -
- will need to be in the structure which underlies the words which people use.

We call this the mind.

The global human mind from which local human minds are formed
- need converge -
- prior to the words from the local human minds
potentially
acquiring group meaning
group meaning == general (all of people) validity.

General validity -
- and we're back around to logic again.

A single internally logically consistent global model from which our individual perspectives grow to become.

The 'Categories' represent the units which need be arrayed into order.
When arrayed into order - the tree structure forms.
Where the tree structure has a beginning and end.

~*~

All of the various category theories are essentially about the completion of a puzzle -
the completion of a puzzle which on completion doesn't mean that we'll come to an end -
- instead that we'll begin again.

~*~

Attempt to simplify

Even without any of us (bar wikipedia) storing all of the details in our local mind (at any one time) -
it's clear that we're approaching a seeming end-point in our species' comprehension of reality.

It all (more or less) has begun to take shape.

As it takes shape -
- the general thrust of this argument is that a global structure representing a structured (hierarchical) array of a model for the inter-relationship between knowledge (knowables)
has
settled into position.

We (individuals) 're like ants -
- offering up sacrificial explanatory models of reality for the global structure's approvalaisal
- and then waiting to see if those models become incorporated into that (if so then just that little bit more simplified) global structure.

The simpler model wins.
The simplest model with explanatory capacity over 'all of reality'.

The simplest model represents a global minimum.

So - what's the mechanism for model to be selectively pruned towards idealized (perfect) simplest structural form?

The mechanism would appear to be the analogue of the shortest distance between two points being 'as the crow flies'.

The quantum wave collapse model appears to result in the crystallization of the one shortest path between two points
- where immediately prior to collapse
- all possible routes are taken.

Attempt to suggest that the mechanism of quantum wave collapse -
is shared (perfectly) -
with the model of convergence in models (of local minds) into a global mind
- into a global mind (a very specific structure - the structure of a web)

from which perspective
- the perspective at the local (individual) level
- the collapse
of the global waveform of mind into 'enforced moral consistency'
at the local level
will
be
seen.

~*~

The choice of philosophy over psychology seems correct
(your other thread?)
- it is impossible to think clearly until philosophy has been structured
- separated into categories and then arrayed into that single internally, logically consistent, hierarchical, recursive global structure
- that all people (until generation of that structural form)
are
feeding in their lines of enquiry (perspectives,observations,explanations)
towards group convergence.

Local contribution ->- Group convergence in the global structure of mind ->- Local enjoyment (of restructured society)

Ahhhh!

From which vantage point we realise why all higher degrees are labelled 'philosophy'

M Phil
D Phil (PhD)

- knowledge has been being acquired to build not (as we have thought)
- a model of the external Universe

- instead (more appropriately considered)
- an internal Universe

- a model from which our minds then operate
(A working single blue-print to inform our 5-10 billion unique perspectives)
- a mechanism of permitting us to (unlike in the case of external reality where we can't seed our own reality)

- a mechanism for us to



'create our own internal/local reality'
ADDF::Nova

to make 'Heaven a place on Earth'
ADDF::Stabilenda Carlisle

~*~

good post.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And this one also...rrr

Simplifying

We're trying to make the thing which we speak from (the global mind - parent structure to local minds)
- sufficiently similar to one another
- that we may understand one another.

We're trying to make that common shared model of mind, sufficiently strong
- so strong that people (even disregarding language)
- will have sufficient understanding of events
of all events as they befall others
- to have sufficient understanding of events to be able to empathise with those in difficulty

- to not only empathise,
but also to be overcome by the desire to work towards the species-level shared model of reality changing (simplifying yet further) so as to prevent the possibility of recurrence of such unpleasantness.

To take preventative measures such that these events do not recur.

But even more so, to be able to work out when poor systems are in place which will lead to problems down the line -
- even if no problems, up until then have been reported.

'All of our problems' will dissipate.

The key:

Problems (from our experiential perspective) are systematically eradicated as global convergence to maximal stability occurs.

-1-- The globally converged mind results in a tremendous simplification in the inter-relationships required of people.
-2-- A tremendous simplification in societal structure.
-3-- With a tremendous simplification in social structure -
- we'll find that 'All of the problems' which we have been reporting will simply 'up and away'.

~*~

'All of the problems' relating to [crime, disease, unhappiness ... .. ... [the legal, banking and political systems ... ... ..

We do it to ourselves -
- an evolutionary foible which scaled prior to fall.
An inevitable consequence of build.

To build one's mind
- the task set by evolutionary process to man -
30,000 years ago

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Epistemology

Guille, I think we must study all the different branches of ideation at once. We must study, subject/object, metaphysical/logical, ontological/teleological/mereological, and all such mind, and reality topics. The problem with almost all philosophy has been some form of exclusionism, whether of Aristotle or new ones like Richard Rorty. Exclusionism is the enemy of true philosophy. At the same time, all areas of philosophy must be kept in their formal languages' presentations, not to be mis-understood. Also, we should work through the newer schools of systemology, to unite all the various inter-disciplinary schools of thought. I work in the area of systemology, as espoused by such notables as Kondratieff on. I have great confidence in much of the Russian vein of thought, as contributary to philosophy. The schools of systemology are working toward the united universal concept, to better express our yet incomplete perception understanding of the whole. I think this is a very promising area for the integration toward a new theory of everything. I really see no other way, except to integrate it all into the answers we all seek.

Epistemologically speaking, the world of our emotional desires, greatly exceeds the capacities of the world's present formal logical systems of real institutions and nations, to supply. If we truly look at the entire world, it's the historical evolution of total logic systems of all nations, that holds our emotional desires in check. Thus, in order to improve the human condition, to allow a greater expansion of true emotional liberty, we must better understand the epistemology of systemology, and its possible new integrations into better universal justice systems, i.e., sensible scientific semi-utopias.

Epistemology, Systemology & Universology

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>
Hi Lloyd, thanks for answering on this thread. I agree. What is mereological? And teleological? Those two terms I’ve come alogn sometimes but didn’t understand. But I agree that we should study all parts of existence.

Teleology is the study of parts, the many. Ontology is the study of the whole, the one, and mereology is the study of both, the one and the many united.(not completely correct, but close enough_posted years ago...)

Interesting point. I have seen throughout reading philosophy that philosophers and philosophies can’t embrace it all. They can’t because the have to be more centered on some things than on others. But this is simply impossible to escape form. If you truly try and philosophize, you will see it’s not possible to have all observations from reality and therefore impossible to have all cognitions (concepts) clear. With Husserl’s phenomenology, and the relativity/subjectivity problem, it is simply proved that we can’t make a perfect philosophy that explains reality exactly.

Guille, my point is that it is possible to achieve an almost perfect philosophy, if we simply express all points of view and show where they all tie into the whole, why they are true or not, and why they are thought so. Now this may seem like an impossible task, but I assure you it is not. Just because past philosophers have failed, doesn't mean we must. Once the problems of disagreements are pointed out, we can now remedy the past. As I've stated Peirce came close, and Husserl also pointed our important issues between philosophy and psychology. If we use Peirce's definition of pragmaticism, [of its core being the difference between being and Being], we have a good start, as it expands on Heraclitus and Heidegger. You'd have to read Peirce completely, to know what I mean. Of the modern philosophers, I consider him the greatest. All cognitions need not be present at once, as long as they are represented in the dialogue or thesis. Once recognized as all being present, they are cognizable. We can see the whole at once if we but try, just as Heraclitus so clearly showed us, long ago.

No possible systematic true philosophy is possible. We started to notice this from the rationalist, from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. They knew it, so did the empiricist, and the idealist. So did Hegel, and so did Kierkegaard. So did Engels, Feuerbach, Bakunin, Marx, Stuart Mill. Even Pierce and Dewey knew. And Russell, Wittgenstein and Carnap. And Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, Sartre and Heidegger. And I know, and you know now. Systemology is not systematic, nor is methodology methodological. I don’t understand why now people want to make things show themselves and use themselves and contain themselves. This is not existential. Jaspers knew.

All over the world, at the present time, are many schools of systemology and universology attempting the unification of the inter-disciplinary studies into a new coherent whole, just as is being attempted at this site. To say a systematic true philosophy is impossible is just pandering to pessimism and personal prejudice, i.e., solipsism. Napoleon stated long ago that impossible is only found in the dictionary of fools, and I concur. Now, let's be more positive and realize all is possible, because it eventually has to be, in an infinite change and choice world. The numbers are on my side. You seem to be reading too much of set theory and higher order logic into first order logic and math. I have stated several times on this site that Godel also showed proof of first order logic and math completeness. First order logic and math is all philosophy needs to prove itself scientifically correct. It doesn't need the incomplete second order logic and math of infinite numbers and set theory. So, things of themselves, can be expressed of themselves, in themselves, by themselves, without creating any higher order logic and math paradoxes, as Godel easily showed. I can talk about myself from my infinite self-soul/mind, right down to my finite single one word concept, without any semantical or paradoxical conflict, even if it seems to create paradoxes and semantical puzzles in others. It's not my fault others believe in semantical puzzles and paradoxes, when I absolutely know they don't exist.

We have more thoughts than feelings but feelings are ‘bigger’ in average than thoughts. The total final proportions depend on the person. Semi-utopias are not utopias nor are they non-utopias, they simply don’t exist. Either perfect happiness or imperfect happiness/unhappiness, no semi-perfect happiness exists.

Guille, when you quote me you keep confusing my definition of systemological utopias and semi-utopias with your personal definitions. I don't believe in your definition of happiness. It's just a solipsistic opinion of an undefined emotion. Defined emotions, to me, are logical understandings of self-being, and nothing more. Self-being is direct logical cognition of the world and its true perceptions. And finally, you should try to be less critical of what you are not aware of. Semi-utopias are quite existent throughout history. There are many definitions on the web. It's just an easy way of discussing systemological and universological ideas which have been discussed for centuries, especially by many earlier anarchist philosophers, even though I am not one. Scientific semi-utopias are quite valid topics in the newest inter-disciplinary unification and integration theories, and facts. For a quick reference, check it out on wikipedia[wackipedia] and google - universology and systemology.

We will only discover the truth when we unite the one and the many, but I fear the language will and must remain complex, unless we develop a new isomorphic, metaphoric logic and synthesis.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Memory to Senses Continuum Is A Violation of Q.M. & The Uncertainty Principle…

The violation I intend to address is the embeddedness logics of motions and information paths’ preservations, absolutely rationally required to exist in the perceptual matrix of minds, and the chiral geometry of, which is absolutely rationally required to violate both the laws of quantum mechanics, and the uncertainty principle__To function. As the diagram below states; “Absolute truths and knowledge exist within these embeded logics”, and these imbeddednesses cause all the incompletenesses of our knowledge systems. Iff, this be true, is it possible to arrive at the mathematical proofs of these quantum and uncertainty violations? I’ll further state, we have other direct analogies of these same violation processes, and embedded hidden variables of motion and informations, in the human bio-cells, chemistry and the psychology of our foreign exchange markets. Is rational and logical necessity enough for a proof of what is stated and drawn…? Can these rational necessities prove the Continuum Hypothesis…? I think they can…


And that’s just what the above graphic implies, and that is it’s all like reason being rationalized to logic, to me, or knowing that; "The rational esthetic necessity of all emotions, is identical to justice and liberty for all of humanity", achieveing the same. I'd say this is also a pretty good analogy of the conceptual processes of perception. And this is the very key to the quantum mechanics of super-positioning I was getting at with my first post and graphic, on this thread, and all that’s been mentioned on ‘East Meets West Logic’, as well. The only scientific way to explain perception's ability to unite right and left hemisphere knowledges and concepts, especially of memory mapping to perception and concepts, is to realize the mind does work as a quantum super-positioning computer, at the photon's, boson's, etc., levels of concept mechanics. So, you Leskey have actually stumbled into the very heart of what I've all along, when I've had the chance to mention it, been talking about__The heart and center of QCD(quantum chromo-dynamics), and the uncertainty principle's true mechanics, by the very rational necessity of memory maintaining the quantum continuum's continuity(wave super-positioning) link(inter-communication abilities) for an entire lifespan__otherwise memory couldn't stay linked to perception at will, all our lives. To me this is the most important realization physics can make. I discovered it about six months ago. Thanks for reminding me what my true mission is__The physics' quantum proofs of rationally necessary unification of all quantum particle/wave/field motions and the physical facts of their actual violation of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle...


Iff all can just see the absolutely rational necessity of the memory to conception mapping, to the perception continuum's true continuities, then we've a clear vision inside the entire uncertainty principle and QCD, which at the most innate level, is thoroughly positively continuously linked, throughout our lives. Thus, the uncertainty principle has a certain real mechanical feature positively seeable by us, just as my signature states; "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.And, this is at the same time, a solid violation of the quantum state’s required continuous motions, as thus far scientifically realized and accepted, yet may be the stored state matrix of centered and fixed point(micro-black holes at center of protons…?) motions, for the entire bio-life of us simple beings. And, it’s also a clear violation of not being able to see the momentum and position of the particle wave, when in fact, it absolutely is a rational necessity for it to be permanently stored in a fixed state of no more than a cycloidic angular motion spin state__completely recallable at any desired moment, by the bio-will of innate being__and must be a fixed point state, else how could will know where to find it?(qcd black holes…? Surface of protons, quarks, etc…?) In other words, bio-beings actually have full control over this memory recall aspect of quantum mechanics and what’s been thought to be the uncertainty principle__yet, we certainly do have the power to violate this principle, any moment__at will__by our very own freest of free-wills__to recall almost any past memory state intuition, or almost any memory state concept…

We, as bio-quantum physical beings are pretty amazing. Scientists say we can’t know position and momentum with certainty__yet we daily violate this uncertainty, with the absolute certainty of will, to any action, at any moment we choose, to move the continuum of mind’s storage matter around, from place to place, or memory to perception or concepts__whatever__at will. We are the daily violators of the quantum laws of nature and physics, thus giving us the ability to see the macro results, from the micro actions, of our very own quantum choices. So, lil’ ol’ bio-human choice, all by its lonesome, violates both the laws of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle__At the mind’s quantum state level. If this ain’t a rationally necessary proof of violation__I don’t know what is. We have the power, as simple bio-beings, to move space/matter/wave energy motions__At least, at our micro field/matter bio-being levels__and I’m not even counting all our macro bio-being level violations…

I’m looking for serious feedback, in all this quantum mind matrix theorizing__especially since it’s ‘the hard problem’ of most all recent AI scientific philosophical research, as well as most all cognitive psychological AI research. Thanks in advance…

[austintorn@aol.com]

I’m looking for serious feedback, in all this quantum mind matrix theorizing__especially since it’s ‘the hard problem’

We have finally seen super-positioning of electrons in the biological medium:

Quantum Biology is the Key

Sciam web: In the bacterial proteins having to do with photosynthesis, dancing electrons tunnel to other places kind of all at once, as happens within the quantum realm, and produce energy at a staggering efficiency rate of more than 95%.

Instead of haphazardly moving from one connective channel to the next in the scaffolding of the cellular reaction center, the electron solar energy travels in several directions at the same time; then, at the end, collapses the quantum process, retroactively finding a very efficient pathway from its ‘random walks’.

[This kind of thing may also be happening to produce consciousness in the microtubules of brain neurons, in that a scenario of consequences is reduced to an action or a thought.]

Each brain neuron contains hundreds of long, cylindrical protein structures that serve as scaffolding. Anesthetics affect how some of the electrons in these regions behave, interrupting the neurons’ delicate quantum process.

The microtubules normally are squashed and elongated at the same time since electrons are superimposed everywhere about the neuron. These constantly shifting sections, due to quantum entanglement, have an impact on other sections. It is in the faster-than-light subatomic communication that consciousness is born.

Entanglement is not, like the name might suggest, a hopeless tangle of a mess of strings, but a dynamic quantum-mechanical dance of beautiful gyrations of that which is ever affected and continues to be.

Our Entangled Life

Sciam: Graham Flemming has some lasers spitting out pulses of light just millionths of a billionth of a second long. After traveling through some mirrors and lenses, these minuscule flashes disappear into a smoky black box, in this case containing proteins from green sulfur bacteria, which ordinarily obtain their energy and nourishment from the sun. Inside the black box, optics measured to billionths of-a-meter precision detect something extraordinary: within the bacterial proteins, dancing electrons make seemingly impossible leaps and appear to inhabit multiple places at once!

Following the exotic rules of quantum mechanics, photosynthesis derives its ferocious efficiency of over 95%. We can perhaps harness great amounts of energy to help humankind.
This is all absolutely mind bending! The crossing of seemingly forbidden gaps is, again, called quantum tunneling. Classical physics cannot come close to achieving these speeds found in quantum tunneling and entanglement. Christopher Altman says that many new experiments continue to find quantum processes at play in biological systems, a process once thought not possible.

Life’s quantum dance has finally come into view by using the fermosecond lasers and nanoscale-precision positioning. It’s amazing beyond words!

Now, back to the green sulfur bacteria. Flemming and his researchers zapped the connective proteins with multiple ultrafast laser pulses. Over a span of fermoseconds, they followed the light energy through the scaffolding to the cellular reactions centers where energy conversion takes place. As described earlier, they saw that energy travels in several directions at the same time, finding the efficient pathway retroactively when the quantum process collapses. Then the electrons’ energy followed that single, most efficient path.

Perhaps we can someday manufacture cheap solar power out of organic molecules.

As for the enzymes and the tunneling also observed there, two studies, one published in ‘Science’ and the other in ‘Biophysical Journal’ have found that some enzymes appear to lack the energy to complete the reactions that they propel; the energy could only come from the quantum realm.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

[SIZE=3][I][FONT=Verdana]

[/B]We have finally seen super-positioning of electrons in the biological medium:

Quantum Biology is the Key

Sorry Austin, but electrons do not super-position, and there's no hyper-light non-sense witnessed in quantum physics. Pseudo-imaginations of these weird bio-physicists doesn't count. Only the Boson family of particles can super-position, and there are no tachyons__Even if there were, we would never know, as we have no instruments to measure plus c. If this super-positioning of electrons happened, all structual matter would be mush, if anything at all. I agree quantum biology is the key, but from much better bio-physicist sources, I fear. I am very skeptical of Hammerhoff's and Penrose's ideas. They hype their ideas to sell books, and try to attract false fame, imo...

Biophysics seems to still be at a very fundamental theoretical stage, so far: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rle.mit.edu/rleonline/images/research/ComputationalBiophysics.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rle.mit.edu/rleonline/research/ComputationalBiophysicsGroup.html&h=225&w=350&sz=5 4&tbnid=okFv01Te5z9_cM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522biophysics%2522&hl=en&usg=__MyCf e41fE532CzdFBFycJyjqoUw=&ei=jRFCS-ezO9OUtge435A1&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=im age&ved=0CBsQ9QEwAw

Computational Biophysics Modeling: http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/pr150/15.pdf

My research of Biophysics seems to find it at a very rudimentary stage so far: http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/02/lisal/physics/presentations/dipoles-biophysics.PDF

This is why I'm choosing to study it within the conceptual framework of the mind matrix. August Stern seems to be the most advanced in the matrix math field of thinking machines, but his new book costs too much, $900+. Well it's down to $204 on Amazon now__Still too expensive...
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theoretic-Machines-thought-Physics/dp/0444826181