Emergence
Front Picture: The Onion Skin
Srinivasa Ramanujan - An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.”
Structural systems cannot fit into the probabilistic universe - “For the belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it, seems to me the deepest root of all that is evil in the world.” - Max Born.
in structured or determinist solutions, the end is absolutely predictable from the beginning. There s no creativity here.
in probabilistic reality the end is not predictable from the beginning - the effect of constraints over time also needs to be considered.
08/22/2021 - Enough loss of closed-ness of a quantum system from physical systems activities and all quantum eigenfunctions can be voided by the system becoming an open system and there, and then, no or a minimum of quantum eigenfunction activities can occur [the collapse of the eigenfunctions]
Entropy is the Center of Processing - Internal Processing Only - Closed System
Harmonic constraints, and the resulting processes and processing, are the building blocks of the universe.
In a narrative, and as with everything, certain things need to be in a certain order in order for the narrative to progress to the next level of the its "life". The narrative is the talk story of the processes of our life, our world, [the story, our story]. The constraints of this process, any process, can be an external activity that changes what can happen. But most constraints are built into where and what we are; and what our story is, here and now.?
Within the Onion Skin
Where Emergence Occurs
Emergence is the progression from one level of our universe [the onion skin] to another. In life, the emergence processing is divided into controlled discrete [referred to as atomic] processes. This is for the sake of harmonics. The division into small atomic processes allows the process to avoid the rule of dissipation, of entropy, and create an emergence.
Molecules and Chemical Bonds
At the molecular [or physical] level of the universe, the rules for the atoms/molecules/agglomerations, of the molecular or physical level are a set of constraints that allow the universe (and its processes) to remain in balance as there are changes, particularly in energy [or temperature]. One constraint requires conservation of physical matter unless there are trades with the quantum level. Conservation of energy is a similar constraint with similar accommodations to trades with the quantum level.
As a chemist (who was trained as close to right about chemistry as was possible by a school that was committed to really understanding chemistry {in an era that produced the “Nature of the Chemical Bond [Pauling]”}) I came to realize that the chemical bond itself was quantum mechanical while the chemical itself [the molecule] was in the physical [molecular] universe.
We have to realize that, although the bond is in the quantum world, it is in the same kind of cage as the light photon in the speed of light experiment. It is in a molecular sandwich. In chemistry we called a kine that is living in two worlds a “resonance hybrid” - meaning “it” was both and neither whatever it is supposedly resonating between, all at the [exact] same time. Of course from being in the quantum world there is no space-time [as we know it] - so what is the “exact same time” when there is "no time"? I think “the exact same” time [adding “and exact same place”] is an expression for super-juxtaposition-ing. The time factor and problems with time are dissolved in the quantum level activities. If you want to escape time issues, just use door “Q”. Time, as in reaction rates, etc., is a real property as a result of the molecular sandwich cage. The bonds are quantum but the bonding [forming of bonds] and bond processes [bonds twisting, bending, and vibration] are molecular.
Although the chemical bonds themselves are in the quantum world the bonding process is totally in the molecular world. It is ruled by the temperature and entropy - so the quantum bonds are formed from a molecular process that includes quantum processes. So the details of Chemical bonds do not help us form any idea of what time is in the quantum world.
There is a hint [but it is like an inadequate hint in a puzzle magazine] that the half lives of atoms are not affected by temperature [and that means not affected by entropy - entropy and temperature are molecular twins]. So the half life gives us a hint about how time works in the quantum layer. It is only the barest of hints and does not help much.
There are definite wave [or quantum] mechanical activities because chemical and physical chemical processes demonstrate many kine's of resonance hybrids which are wave mechanical in nature.
[Non- molecular things, atomic or large things, can be a part of entropy when they are energy distributions.]
Rainbows and Probability Distributions
People laugh a little when I say the rainbow is not really there. Of course it is there - I see it. But nothing is “there” [at that time] but a mist or some rain. You are seeing a real optical illusion; where you see a dispersion of various light frequencies, because of the differences in refractive index of the those frequencies [or their photons], as they pass through the water particles, in this mist or rain. In order to see this, much of that light is reflected from the back side of the mist or rain particle. No, Virginia, there is no rainbow!. But you will need to check with Groucho about Sanity Clause.
An important issue is, most people having a problem with probability distributions and how they are “constructed”. In the quantum zone the probability distributions are “perfect” probability distributions. The kine of the quantum universe are “everywhere”, and all at the same time [Time? Quantum kine do not know our time. Maybe they don’t actually know our space either.].
Swedenborg does a service to understanding different time kine when he talks about different ways of conversing in his dream or vision world. In the first space [now all conversations in his dream world were by telepathy {I am not sure - I don’t remember - when people speak to me in dreams; do they speak through their mouth normally or do they speak telepathically.}] the people are speaking words and sentences like normal conversation [but telepathically]. In a higher space they are talking to Swedenborg in whole phrases at once. The whole phrase is expressed like a single word or context and Swedenborg understood it [each whole phrase] immediately. At a little higher place in the vision world the expression of conversations contained various more complex concepts that he now also understood immediately [as a whole thought]. In the final, upper level place, whole ideas were conveyed all at one time; and he understood immediately [the entire complex idea]. Now time here has changed, but in a subtle way; during this excursion in levels. Time is totally different, but there is still the time before a thought was expressed, and a time during the expression, and a time after the expression. But that time is not at all the same as our time here in the molecular world cage.
So the quantum kine will have some kine of time but we can assume it is not “like” our time. And it is definitely not ruled by our [molecular] time like we are.?So when a Quantum kine joins the molecular world [is tricked into or forced to join] then “it” has to make some adjustments. It is hard for us to know the adjustments when we don’t know where “it” started from. And this might be different for different quantum kine.
Old Russian Orthodox Chant
We actually do not know a lot about the quantum level [we are kidding ourselves to think we do]. We are stymied by uncertainty “principles” that are actually part of the constraints of the emergence to the molecular or physical level. I call these type of constraints the “cage constraints” that are part of everything in the physical level. It is an invisible cage that separates “us” [molecular level] from “them” [quantum level]. This “cage” tends to hide the activities of the quantum level with a blanket of uncertainty.?
But blowing up everything does not tell us anything about how the quantum world works. There is context that is part of the quantum game [and it probably is quite different than the molecular worlds contexts] so blowing up things does not really tell us - anything. See The J. S. Bach Particle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6bVVrqkmQI&t=9s. Where is the context? - I think I saw it flying over LGA. [The context may be less important in the quantum level because there is a weaker relationship between entities there. It may be quite different, but there is still context.] What something actually is, is always based on context. The context is the transcendental.
One issue with the development of "the cage" is the fact that quantum processes in general, they are on their own in a quantum system are closed systems. The lack of interference from physical [molecular] level issues combined with the fact that in the quantum world they are kept separated from other quantum processes by the structure around the quantum world. The collapse of the wave equation may be. for the most part, the change from a closed [isolated] system to an open system. the degree of involvement of the physical [molecular] level could measure the loss of closed system eigenfunctions. Enough loss of closed-ness of a quantum system from physical systems activities and all quantum eigenfunctions are voided by the system becoming an open system and there, and then, no quantum eigenfunction activities can occur [the collapse of the eigenfunctions]
Uncertainty and Entropy
Uncertainty [as in uncertainty principle] is not just a quantum process. The Newton Only folks also don’t like entropy. It violates Newton Only almost as much as wave mechanics. Part of not liking entropy is the uncertainty that exists in entropic processes so it cannot be analyzed by Newtonian methods [and entropy processes are not reversible]. Things that are hidden [read hidden here as degrees of freedom uncertainty] are not Newtonian. They are bouncing around but they are not following a Newtonian schedule [harmonics]. Scientists actually avoid talking about it - it is like the problem is not real and we will find a workaround for it [soon?]. Both Prigogine and Einstein talked about entropy as a “problem” but they expressed their understanding that we will solve it some day [and don’t throw in quantum issues to just confuse us more]. This is Newton Only rhetoric for the fact that we will sweep the problem under the rug until, by magic - since we won’t even talk about it - it will be solved. It is total commitment, to the death [of their science] by Newton Only. Newton was smart, so he was not Newton Only; which is a problem for the whole field of Newton Only Physics. Much of Newton’s work had a theoretical base in Alchemy rather than what was then science [yes science was different then]. The important consideration here is the fact that the issues in these Alchemy ideas were close to ideas of, and even more important, the base for development of, the Copenhagen School. That is why I say Newton was a pre-Copenhagen-ist [like Gauguin was a pre-cubist]. I could go along with being a Newtonian with pre-Copenhagen-School caveats included. Of course to most who describe themselves as Newtonian they could not even think of including those caveats.
Certainly there is a principle of degrees of freedom uncertainty. You most commonly run into analysis of the DFU problem in Maxwell’s Demon Gedanken experiments. Brillouin showed how it would ‘cost you more energy than you get’ by evaluating the energy of approaching molecules and then capturing the hot molecules as they arrived. He did not define how we would do this in detail. That is left for the student to do [after Euclid]. The high degrees of freedom of entropy [much due to just how many molecules are in a small amount of physical material] means you cannot measure the direction and speed of all of those molecules accurately enough to base control of them in Newton Only methods [uncertainty]. And while you are measuring some group of particles, other particles are changing and they are also changing the particles you just measured. The result is - Probability Distributions can be controlled by constraints [i.e. harmonics], but not by Maxwell’s Demons [i.e. Newton Only].
There is also a group of physicists that believe that there are no real patterns. All patterns are just made up in our mind. To them “we” create these patterns in our minds. In my previous writings of how the mind works; I demonstrates the mind’s very strong ability to recognize patterns. I suppose this “there are no real patterns” group realize that “Newton Only” cannot justify or allow a lot of the patterns we see. They can't be because f Newton Only processes. This is Newton Only onto death. But seeing patterns is seeing reality [mindfulness], which these patterns are part of; but we must realize these patterns are a threat to Newton Only. The patterns are definitely produced by some kind of non-Newton Only process. And they are real and meaningful.
Short Version of How the Mind Works
This is a Very Powerful and Rapid Method of Recognizing Patterns
For some the simplistic and meaning free rules of Newton Only are necessary for “scientific” consistency. But we must realize that the lack of meaning of the conclusions is an absolute; if you are looking at things from Newton Only and the definitions of Newton Only exclude meaning on purpose. There is no “meaning” in Newton Only. But I find lots of significant “non-Newton Only” patterns - everywhere. And pattern is meaning.
But being unhappy with meaninglessness (due to their rejection of anything meaningful [any pattern]) but holding onto [meaningless] Newton Only [for dear life] is the basic concept of existential philosophy. So we are not happy with the meaninglessness [brought on by the Newton Only assumption] - so we ascribe our “rejection of meaninglessness” as meaning. But don’t even think of recognizing that the Newton Only assumption is the problem and not even a part of the solution. But then you go on doing Newton Only which is now justified by rejection of the meaninglessness from Newton Only. That is imbecilic.
And in what soil is the roots of this meaninglessness assumption; that meaning is from dissatisfaction with meaninglessness. It is clear the process is totally based on negatives. And that is why our present philosophy is a battle of hate-mongers trying to claim their particular hate-mongering is really “love”. They say they are the love people and then they have to define clearly all the people you need to hate in order to understand their “love?". I think most versions are at 8 Billion people that we have to hate [that is everybody]. I prefer to recognize the patterns that I see - everywhere - which is a positive, mindfulness step. Mindfulness is actually the beginning [just the beginning] of a philosophy based on meaning. I know my mind was built on the ability to recognize patterns and patterns are everywhere - not just, or maybe not even in Newton Only. And these patterns are real.
So these folks reject all patterns as they are somehow not acceptable because they threaten the Newton Only view of the universe. But Newton Only [and don’t blame Newton since he did not agree with your Newton Only] is an ignorant basis for understanding the universe. It is meant to be simple and “above” [hierarchically in authority over] meaning so trials and tests can be repeated and get similar results. To them we cannot have meaning in our scientific thoughts because results should not be stigmatized by some kind of politics. But then you have the modern science course that is stigmatizing, and pure politics, and only politics. But it does not and cannot prove anything meaningful [that was by design {it must be above meaning}]. It can only prove many but minor details on things it can describe, which are pool table games and cannons fired into the sky. Or it can complain about all the people we hate because they do not except our “loving?” hate-mongering. Their science can’t even analyze my Uncle Cal’s Bean Theory.
Recently overheard at the University:
?. . .?
Tim: Global warming.
Tom: Global warming.
Tim: Global warming.
Tom: Global warming.
Tim: Global warming.
Tom: Global warming.
Tim: Global warming.
Tom: Global warming.
Terry: The sun is shining.
Tim: You’re a bigot!
Tom: You’re a racist!
Tim: You’re a fascist!
Tom: You’re deplorable!
Terry: [Oops . . . I forgot I was at the University.] Global warming.
Tim: Global warming.
Tom: Global warming.
Terry: Global warming.
?. . .?
Peek-a-Boo
Images From: https://steemit.com/dtube/@aburmeseabroad/u0g0mw2u
This reminds me of Peek-a-Boo. Peek-a-Boo is a very general and long term cultural artifact; it is not just a game, but it is actually about meaning and patterns. At some point in a child’s development “we - parents, relatives, and friends” realize that the child is ready for Peek-a-Boo. I felt it was a very silly game back then, but then, I did it too. I just now realized what this is about.
The child has to be struggling with the polymorphic “house of mirrors” problem [the polymorphic data base is a very different database to start with]. We actually can see the child’s need, by intuitive recognition [intuition - if it works at all - is from the Archetype’s system butting into our conscious mind’s processing - it knows things “differently” than the conscious] - so we bring out the old scarf and move it in front of our face [only half in front of our face - after all we are mimicking a house of mirrors {things and people don’t disappear in the house of mirrors of polymorphic memory - but they get blocked or partially blocked by other polymorphs}] and then away from our face. And then we say “Peek-a-Boo!” Actually this is just what the child needs to help sort out the house of mirrors in their mind. We seem as parents and friends to know that the child is ready.?
They also show that they are getting something out of the “game” that is important to them. And we know when the time has passed - partly because the child lets us know by losing much of the interest. Polymorphic interpretation is how we recognize patterns in the universe; and adults playing Peek-a-Boo gives the child a head start in the first process of this journey - sorting out the “house of mirrors” of the polymorphic mind.
It is also apparent from examining the two childhood games: Peek-a Boo and Hide and Seek [Hide and Seek is a guided tour of the “house of mirrors” polymorphic database], that they, and other such simple games too, provide a skeleton [define a processing path] for the processes required for a polymorphic processing system to search, find, recognize, and sort the polymorphic information [in our polymorphic database].
[Peek-a-Boo and Hide-and-Seek
Peek-a-Boo in the minds “under-version” is a mental blinking to see patterns (only patterns work {you can’t recognize non-patterns} here) where the blinking of the mind allows the pattern changes or motion to be recognized. For intense concentration the eyes may move rapidly in very short distanced and tight cycles, in a line not a circle, at the same time that the mind is blinking. This is to recognize differences or changes in the scene observed and to see patterns in the thumbnails, that are being searched in the minds “under-version (befo not afta)”, that coordinate with patterns in the scene - and agree with other nerve stimulus. You are playing Peek-a-Boo at both ends of this process - and a matching or parallelism between the two (real nerve impulses and memory template notes) provides “recognition”. Peek-a-Boo is for pattern matching.
Hide and seek is the mind’s search and “sort” {the sorting is in place or by reseting access points}, which are done through archetype like linked lists {supplemental archetype pointers} - and there seems to be a temporary sort setting that can be washed in a short time if not repeated - and a long term result when the mind recognizers {somehow} that this pattern is happening may times. Retrieving is very much like you are going out to find who is hiding under the neighbors porch this time {retrieve}. The opposite, saving, is like you deciding to hide behind the tree instead of under the neighbors porch this time {save}. The objects of the “place to hide” and the “place to seek” are related to link list access points for save and retrieve. Hide-and-Seek is for save and retrieve.]
(A note for posterity - Having gone through PTSD {I was mugged in Hong Kong. And I know of others suffering under that disease}, something like Peek-a-Boo and Hide and Seek could help with rebuilding the archetype database, that may have lost links or contacts in the incident. Peek-a-Boo, then, needs to be replaced by an adult version. The adult version could be a film with friends and relatives [and maybe everyday common items] popping up on the screen for short times. The length of time for each view, starting at a very short flash, is increased over time until the picture is recognized - or there might be a pass on Uncle Loui since I don’t like him anyway. I personally feel the pictures of [at home, at family] people is very important.
And I don’t think a PTSD person could play regular hide a seek, that just won’t work for PTSD [We did Underground Railroad at Dunwoody, to understand cultural context, and some of the hiding was frightening to me {leftover from my now long past mugging}. It was not a bad experience and I learned a lot from the game.]. The adult version of Hide and Seek could involve a modified treasure hunt in a office with lots of drawers and shelves - and lots of common items hidden or half hidden.
For the mind, playing these children’s games seems to be a way of guiding the structuring of the mental processes so that they will fit together into the way the mind works or processes. Each game is played at the physical level but expresses some ideas and solutions [skeletons] to the mental level.
There seems to also be a concept of clapping in these games, which is a physical ramification for recognizing the completion of a step in the mind. And of course, “Ali, Ali, Ocean Free” is a song of completion [or victory] for an overall process. It seems to act as a signal to set your systems back to the [or a] “beginning” position for the next round [clear the stack]. The ocean [Ali, Ali, Ocean] of the mind can then let go of everything and return to the beginning set [Free].) The Philosophy of Game Playing.
Computer Processing
Mary Loomis describes these processes as done in a computer. The basic process of a computer starts with moving the next [mini-]command into the instruction register and then processing the command using the values in certain registers [related to and understood by the command itself]. The commands include bringing data into a command process in a separate step or as part of the command itself, altering the data in some way, and then putting the data where it is needed in a separate step or as part of the command itself. The kernel of processing steps [Command Set] provides the basic actions that goes into developing searching and sorting algorithms on a computer; as described by Loomis.
领英推荐
Quick Sort
/* low?--> Starting index,?high?--> Ending index */
quickSort(arr[], low, high)
{
??if (low < high)
??{
????/* pi is partitioning index, arr[pi] is now
??????at right place */
????pi = partition(arr, low, high);
????quickSort(arr, low, pi - 1);?// Before pi
????quickSort(arr, pi + 1, high); // After pi
??}
}
Merge Sort
MergeSort(arr[], l,?r)
If r > l
???1. Find the middle point to divide the array into two halves: ?
???????middle m = l+ (r-l)/2
??? 2. Call mergeSort for first half:??
???????Call mergeSort(arr, l, m)
???3. Call mergeSort for second half:
???????Call mergeSort(arr, m+1, r)
???4. Merge the two halves sorted in step 2 and 3:
???????Call merge(arr, l, m, r)
More on Computer Processing
Programming - ALU Processes | CPU Registers | Program Listing
Control Unit | ALU with Registers | Main Memory Bus
This is running a program in non-multiprocessing computers,. Multiprocessing computers do a similar process, but a large number of commands are moved into a CPU cache together. Then the group are reprogrammed for multiprocessing. These multiprocessing commands are written to another cache. The program is then run from the second cache. Previous to multiprocessing, computers systems began to add program caches to speed up programming. Then the program was run by paging to the cache.
Back to Our Mind
Interpreting a New Instance
Neural Network and Initiating a Bucket
Interpreted, then Instantiated a New Instance
This is a Very Powerful and Rapid Method of Recognizing Patterns
[Sorry, here the picture is also the argument. When you understand the picture you understand the argument. Also, there needs to be more detail on how these processes work out in the mind. A quick conjecture is that the mind uses some kind of linking {polymorphic linking} for just about everything {every kine of mental process}. That implies archetype like structures that are not necessarily Archetypes. I am suggesting that there is a "neural network" like set of contiguous brain cells that are set up {designed} for being this particular kine of basic object oriented structure; especially an "archetype like linked list organizer". All the functionality that is needed is available in this type of algorithm, for this work of the brain, and a little bit of variability {in the details} makes this a very powerful means of handling all kine's of data. These entities are not instantiated and are each within a Shadow process. There would be many of these Shadow processes active at one time. The pseudo-archetypes are not instantiated as they process so they are in the Shadow and not public information. The non-instantiating is for processing purposes {separating processes} as these processes, if instantiated, would definitely add to the difficulties of examining the polymorphic database. These processes themselves are hidden in the Shadow but the results of the processes would become public through some form of instantiation.]
Pseudo-Archetype Link List Organizer
[Speaking of Linked Lists] Showing How the Thumbnail is Linked
Ali, Ali, Ocean Free
***************************************
Mirrors of Music
Bach, Toccata and Fugue in D minor - organ
Just a closer walk with thee
The books are sold by Google - you need to have or to create a Google Login
The books are sold by Google - you need to have or to create a Google Login
Flight of the "Basso Profondo" Bumble Bee