The dual

[SinJin]

I was thinking about how it's wierd that so many things are comprised of one thing, and then something else trying to break free from that one thing and yet working in conjunction with it at the same time. For instance gravity - matter clumps together to form planets and suns, but at the same time life comes about as matter tries to break free from gravity's grip. The human brain is sort of the same thing, two halves that are seperated yet working together to create consciousness. And society is the same, a bunch of people trying to get away from eachother but at the same time banding together and working with eachother in groups. Is there a pattern here worth following? Any other thoughts/examples?

[AntonioLao]

What you are describing here could be the principle of universal duality. We know for a fact that neutral form of antimatter cannot be found, therefore this lack of evidence can be construed as the reality of an anti-universe. This anti-universe would then have its atoms made of antiprotons and antineutrons in their nuclei surrounded by positrons.

[Guille]

Is there a pattern here worth following?

This is a basic philosophical question, generalised, it is stated: In what can we use/not use induction?

For me, we can't generalize patterns or rules for the human mind, not yet. Our math capacities, well, more generalised, our logic capacities, aren't strong enough as to predict and evaluate enough our own minds. They are too complex systems. This is because with just a small variation in the begining, the end, the personality of a person when he is in hsi old age, can avarry alot from another one. This is the basic of chaos theory, which is one of the msot mdoern philosophico-physical re-discoverments of our era.

[AntonioLao]

This is because with just a small variation in the begining

This phenomena is known as sensitivity to initial conditions, or the Butterfly Effect. It arises because the errors that accumulate from each collision do not simply add (as linear analyses assume), but increase exponentially and this geometric progression rapidly diverges any initial state to one that is unpredictably far from the estimate. This behaviour is responsible for what we call Chaos, a term that has a technical meaning but is roughly equivalent to the common notion of future randomness, except that the states in which the system may be found are often restricted and known in total - we just don't know which one it will be in at any future time. The system is unstable, a small change leads to a massive reaction...

If we plot the behaviour of many nonlinear formulae against changes in parameters we see an interesting phenomenon. At certain values of a control parameter the system changes phase - it moves from a regular behaviour to a chaotic one. The first stage in this is what is known as a Bifurcation, the system splits from one state to two possible states. As the parameter changes further, additional splits take place at intervals dependent upon a constant, the Feigenbaum number (4.669...), giving more complex limit cycles progressively until the system enters a chaotic state. We can therefore determine the parameter ranges that lead to the behaviour we desire, and try to constrain the system accordingly.

[Guille]

hummm.....

I have two questions:

1. Can you re-write the types of "presentations" that something can have, I can't remember them all (ut was somethink like: random, chaotic, totally....etz)?

2. Can the theory of systems and the theory of presentations be used with minds? Or are they only physical properties?

I mean, for example, entropy is not only physical, it's also mental. Minds, personalities, people, lifes, can get disoreded after times go es by, or maybe ge more ordered (the first is more probable)

[AntonioLao]

1. Can you re-write the types of "presentations" that something can have, I can't remember them all (ut was somethink like: random, chaotic, totally....etz)?

In reference to the alignment of time axes: they can be aligned (1) partially, (2) oppositely, (3) totally, (4) completely, (5) randomly or chaotically.

reply for the 2nd question will appear in the next post.

[AntonioLao]

2. Can the theory of systems and the theory of presentations be used with minds? Or are they only physical properties?

In reference to mind: my question would be how do we resonate two or more minds? So that they can function as one supermind.

In reference to entropy: There are three fundamental definitions of entropy. Two of these can be found in thermodynamics and one in the theory of information processing. The thermodynamic meaning is the loss of useful energy. The meaning in information processing is the loss of useful information.

[Guille]

In reference to mind: my question would be how do we resonate two or more minds? So that they can function as one supermind.

In reference to entropy: There are three fundamental definitions of entropy. Two of these can be found in thermodynamics and one in the theory of information processing. The thermodynamic meaning is the loss of useful energy. The meaning in information processing is the loss of useful information.

Thanks for the answer.

About mind interaction, I believe it's not possible, at least theough the mental world. Let me explain. Minds are all objects of the mental existence. But this existence is not like the physical one. The physical existence has both objects and "substance" (in this case dimensions) that aloud them to interact. The minds cannot interact, either at distance or non.distance, because there is no flow, or medium, by which they can. Minds, though, can interact by transmitting into the physical world it's messages. Notonly to one's body, but to others. This is, I hit my brother because my mind thought of it, and told my body. By hitting him, I'm transmitting him hate, or similar feelings. And his brain recieves the impact, then his mind feels pain, and realizes it's hate from me. So this is a mental message done through physical existence. This is possible, remember. There is one other kind of mental interaction, which is considering that midns emitt something, I don't know what, that other midn scan recieve, and so, if I think in my mind "pm to antonio" and think of the owrds of it, and send it, and he recieves it, it may be because of wavs or something. This is the only kind of super-interaction that can happen, and itis always through the physical world.

[AntonioLao]

About mind interaction, I believe it's not possible, at least theough the mental world.

The mental world works within the configuration space of just energy (where there is distinction of positive and negative). However, the supermental world works within the configuration space of square of energy, and this is where the distinctions between positive and negative disappear.

[Guille]

The mental world works within the configuration space of just energy (where there is distinction of positive and negative). However, the supermental world works within the configuration space of square of energy, and this is where the distinctions between positive and negative disappear.

NO.

Read the rest of my paragraph in the last post. I clearly stat why minds cannot interact through mental space. Here you say something that is completely un-acceptable in common logic.

Square of energy, energy-space, thsoe two have ntohing to do with what minds are, they ar ento energy, they are thoughts. Minds aren't anytihng, in the sense of "being". They are, but in the form of what "to be" is in theirexistence,not the physical one.