Polymorphic Circle of Mental Processing
Learning from the Medicine Wheel?
THE MEANING OF A WORD IS IN THE MANDALA LINKAGES TO OTHER WORDS AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE DEFINITIONS IN A MEDICINE WHEEL
Degrees of Freedom Uncertainty
By generalizing, you could tell a lot about a whole population, by statistical analysis; but you can say nothing about any particular element in the population. That is if [as I am assuming here] there are too many entities in the population [or any other ways the degrees of freedom can go up]; the point I am making is that we must recognize the degrees of freedom uncertainty which is part of populations and harmonics. It is identical to the rule of large numbers, only the inverse; and an extension of Murphy's law, with large numbers.
Scientist don’t like uncertainty principles but you can’t suspend a rule by just not liking it. I think the Newton Only rule was supposed to help them escape any uncertainty rule. Science had to be absolute since that was the only way to defend total structuralism - which is the goal of most scientists. They had thought you could know everything by using enough formulas [part of total structuralism]. But we can’t know everything because, the rule of degrees of freedom uncertainty, is absolute. If there are too many degrees of freedom then you cannot know what each individual part [say molecule] is doing. It is built into the molecular rules [emergent processing] - and is extended to other things built on molecules. And it is part of the rules of entropy [by extension] so you cannot specify the position and momentum of an individual member or use some kind of physical rule to provide a basis for individual control over an individual member [that would allows a Maxwell’s demon - implying a perpetual motion machine - and so the possibility of allowing a Maxwell’s demon contraption to be successful is proof the process suggested is impossible - the Maxwell’s demon is then an inverted proof of the degrees of freedom uncertainty principle {particularly considering Carnot’s arguments on this subject}].
The problem of entropy will not just go away with a new formula - a formula cannot measure what cannot be measured. By not recognizing the degrees of freedom uncertainty principle, you will never understand entropy [You are assuming - because you don’t like entropy - it will just go away {pie in the sky - bye and bye}]. The point is you cannot follow the position and momentum of a particle whose position and momentum cannot be measured because of uncertainty. And the thermodynamic equations that include entropy actually do not allow this - even though they are not ‘reality’ but only approximation.
E. T. Jaynes Article:?
That Proves The Degrees of Freedom Uncertainty From a Statistical Frame-Work, rather than from a Newton Only Frame-Work
From: https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ccarnot.pdf [page 2] [E. T. Jaynes]
*** This three stars precede and mark my own comments, interspersed between quotations from the article, in order to show why this is important, ultimately, to my developing the truth behind the concept of degrees of freedom uncertainty. Through many articles of Jaynes, that I have read, he has talked about the law of degrees of freedom uncertainty. This article developed the idea that statistical and numerical data coming from probability distributions could not be applied as if they were ordinary 'Newton Only' functions. So to apply the data from entropy or probability distributions as functional processes the two kine of data can not and do not correspond to each other on a one to one basis. In the bringing together of data of the formula from a source of data that must, as it is assumed in the formula, come in a way that it has a 1 to 1 correspondence to equivalent data sources in the formula [einander]. Data from a probability distribution does not follow any such sequence - that is what a probability distribution in about. So the two do not match even on average. The rule of the degree of freedom uncertainty is a corollary to the law of large numbers - but the proof here in these articles is that probability distribution cannot, as science be included into a Newton Only expression. My knowledge of how these approximations have at least a proper effect ids that when integrated they produce a logarithmic effect. Then by developing constants that agree wth the need - the results are at least useful. Shannon developed the concept of information entropy, which processes [with ln[p(x) as the basis for positive or negentropy in information discovery]. Normal entropy operates in the oposite direction with in[1/{p(x)]}]as the basis for normally negative entropy. The p(x) is a probability mass function.
With Shannon entropy the change in information is new information from signaling in a modern controlled processing mode. With normal entropy the change is within the degree of freedom uncertainty and it is related to dissipation rather than the positive growth from controlled information.
[See also: The Law of Large Numbers- Khan Academy ]
[*** This long discussion, below, is a significant quote, from an article by Jaynes on entropy and thermodynamics that is not discussed elsewhere. He substantiates his view by referring to comments from the main leaders of the development of thermodynamic theories. I wanted to demonstrate that my recognition of the misunderstanding of entropy was not just my voice.]
- “INTRODUCTION - From:
“The first reaction of nearly everybody, on hearing of a mysterious principle called ‘maximum entropy’ with a seemingly magical power of extracting more information from incomplete data than they contain, is disbelief.
?“The second reaction on sensing that there is something in it, is puzzlement. How is it possible that a quantity belonging to thermodynamics could escape from that setting and metamorphose itself into a principle of reasoning able to resolve logical ambiguities in situations that have nothing to do with thermodynamics?
[*** Jaynes starts the article with his pet discovery. It seems that in a number of trials of different methods of analyzing data, and then running a analysis on the result, the result that has the maximum entropy is the best choice. This has nothing to do with thermodynamics - so why is entropy measuring anything here.]
?. . .?
“We are taught to think of the First Law of Thermodynamics as a basic law of physics, true of necessity in every case. But attempts to see the Second Law in this way (Kelvin, Clausius, Planck, Boltzmann, and many others) never quite succeeded; and Gibbs recognized that its logic is different. He concluded that “the impossibility of an uncompensated decrease seems reduced to improbability” a remark that Boltzmann quoted years later in the Introduction to his Gastheorie .
“Clausius saw the second law as a law of physics, but only a qualitative one - a kind of arrow to tell us in which general direction a process will go, Gibbs while depriving it of that logical certainty extended its practical application to serve the stronger purpose of quantitative prediction; to fill the logical void left by the great incompleteness of thermodynamic data [is that because of the uncertainty]. Out of all the different macroscopic behaviors permitted by the macroscopic data and the microscopic laws of physics which should we choose as, not what must happen, but only what will most likely happen? }
?. . . “
[*** Comment from the author: The problem of entropy being a probability distribution and its effects based on probability - here - rears its head; leaving us only the ability of saying that ultimately, the best we can do, is make the result express the same kine - That is: a probability distribution. QED!
So the laws of thermodynamics including entropy, do not, as “not physical law”, express how entropy is working {physically}, since that is buried in what I call degrees of freedom uncertainty {Gibbs refers this to "incompleteness of thermodynamic data"}; but also, we can only describe the answer in kine, as a probability. My particular point is that the entropy portion of the thermodynamic equations does not describe what entropy is doing in the process since it is just an approximation to make the equation work. But the equation is specifying something similar but not what is actually happening.]
“ . . .?
Since Gibbs Heterogeneous Equilibrium (1875-78) the second law has been used in practice not as a ”law of physics” but as a principle of human inference [per Jaynes - but not per my thermodynamics professors]. The experimental confirmation of Gibbs thermodynamic predictions, and the success of maximum entropy predictions outside thermodynamics, are just two illustrations of the power of that rationale, even though it is not physical law.
?. . . “
[*** Comment from the author: There is another issue here, that entropy, in being a probability distribution, usually under constraints, is applicable to the rules and methods of harmonics {consider a pipe organ and what is happening to entropy in the process}.]
From: https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ccarnot.pdf [page 13]
“1/N log W ->?Σ fi log fi (30)”
?. . .?
From: https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ccarnot.pdf [page 14]
“Finally we may invoke entropy not as an element in a probabilistic argument, but as a value judgment; out of all reconstructions that agree with the data, the maximum entropy one is preferred, simply because it is cleaner, free of artifacts, and therefore more informative and safer to use. This comes about because entropy is not only a measure of multiplicity; the expression (30) is also a measure of smoothness .
“Any change in the direction of equalizing any two elements fi and fj, increases the entropy (30). When we maximize (30), fi and fj will therefore be equalized unless this is prevented by some constraints coming from the data; the variational principle that generates it, guarantees that the maximum entropy reconstruction cannot show any detail for which there is no evidence in the data. To the best of our knowledge no other algorithm that has been proposed for this problem has this safety feature.
?“Indeed a procedure is something that exists in its own right, and is not tied down to any particular theoretical rationale. In the last analysis the methods of science are determined by their pragmatic success; a procedure that yields useful results will be used even if it has no basis at all. If it does not yield useful results, it will not be used however strong the theoretical arguments for it. So, now let us hear from others how the method is working on some real, important and highly non-trivial problems.”
?. . .?
See also: https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ccarnot.pdf [E. T. Jaynes]*****
[*** Comment from the author: In my opinion this is all part of the degrees of freedom uncertainty rule {which actually allows us freedom}. We can never be sure which individual went this way and which went the other way {that is what entropy and Carnot’s ‘jinks’ on Maxwell’s demons is all about}. This is a statistical population; if there are enough members to apply the statistical rule {the rule of large numbers}. That is the same rule {just inverted} as the degrees of freedom uncertainty principle {which says that you cannot specify Newtonian activity on populations that provide excellent statistical results because of the theory of large numbers. You can’t have your cake and eat it too (precisely). Also, these difficulties could be resolved easily; by considering the viewpoint of harmonics.}]
[See also {E. T. Jaynes: Writings}: https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/node1.html ]
The remainder, here, is my work.
So, under the degrees of freedom uncertainty [when that applies {strongly enough}] you can have harmonics. This is the fact that systems under the rule of degrees of freedom uncertainty and that are constrained [in certain natural or “harmonics” ways.] can form “natural” patterns [patterns of the Universe]. Harmonics [the name] refers to these patterns since they form in harmonic kine [eigenfunctions]. Natural patterns follow the rules of these conditions [constraints] and of harmonics [ see Genesis 1].
The combination of paths to natural possibilities makes the universe un-boring, I note the characteristics of various art schools,.in attempting to produce "natural" or "natural appearing" art, which demonstrates my point; and leads to the dramatic variations in the development techniques; and in the output.
?
A Looming Shore-breaker at Waimea Beach
Waimea Shore Breakers
In effect: degrees of freedom uncertainty is necessary to fully understand entropy and problems associated with it. To ignore this uncertainty in developing thermodynamics, or other fields that bump into entropy, leads to results that are questionable and questioned by those most deeply involved in understanding them [i.e. Kelvin, Clausius, Planck, Boltzmann; and Gibbs recognized the problem and proposed that the conclusions using entropy had to be qualified and be considered mere inference {it is not Newton Only Science}]. Entropy [when it is significant] is cloaked by the degrees of uncertainty rule; so conclusions drawn from using entropy are at least in part resting on that cloak {the cloak of probability}. My experience, when talking to scientists or student scientists, is that, the fact that we have thermodynamic equations using entropy as a "factor"; makes for a representation of entropy as a force or field or something similar. But it actually is none of these things. The doubts of the founders of thermodynamic theory, brought out by Jaynes, point to the fact that entropy is a probability system, and thus it only enters the thermodynamic equations, approximately, if as a function; and the result is not a scientific truth but a probability. It may - under proper conditions be a highly probable result - but it is never a scientifically proved [rules by Newton Ony proofs] as absolute. Scientific proof requires singular processes. In a probability distribution, there is no “singular".
But Degrees of Freedom Uncertainty is the only Guarantee of Freedom, for the Universe and for Mankind.?Otherwise God, or gods and demons would be in total charge.
We have difficulty when our freedom leads us away from the plans that God had for us. Uncertainty: the level of degrees of freedom we live with [in our molecular world] is high enough to guarantee freedom of action and thought. This was meant by God; in His plan. We were to be free individuals who sought our own place in the circle of choices we have before us. Hate and greed, and their effect, seem to make us want to end all freedoms. But then, it seems, the state [or whoever is the ruling class] always over-does the regulations and we are back at the Salem Witch Hunts [based on more hate and greed].
Harmonics
Harmonics is the wave equation activities [we may not find the equation itself - but the process follows harmonics anyway] of members of a probability distribution. In large populations, the constraints [dividing rules] do not rule over each individual specifically; since the degrees of freedom uncertainty is a certainty [so with large numbers there is a certainty of uncertainty - molecules are very small]. The individuals that are part of the system [whether living or just material {molecules and aggregates}] follow some path over time that is based on the [statistical based] harmonic rules that are based on the constraints. Animals are considered sensory and thus can recognize their surroundings and then make many decisions about their activities [the constraints, then, put limits on their choices]. Humans are quite free in that sense and know a lot about their surroundings including mental abstractions of reality and have an extensive, if not complete freedom of choice [even to their own destruction - like burning down Minneapolis], in activities [that is, particularly, how we are like God = freedom] - [the choices are limited, through the harmonic constraints, by making some choices scary or costing more than others].
John 3
?. . .?
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit [is the wind down Liliuokalani or Walina today].
[The wind is actually following the processes that derive from Bernoulli's Principle. In the case of water going through a tube and a part of the tube has a smaller diameter, then the result makes [easy] sense at first glance and we [the student and the professor] are happy. But notice what winds do in a city with lots of big buildings, all in a row, and have distinct heights; then it is harder to grasp that this is the Bernoulli Principle. In Chicago, we call it the Michigan Avenues affect. In Waikiki we call it the Ala Wai affect.]
Ala Wai Condo's
Polymorphic Processing
The hands give the rhythm; the fingers tell the story.
Polymorphic linked lists look like this:
When you ‘capably’ program a computer, you recognize there are lots of things the system [as separate from the active program] is doing, and needs to do, that are not visible to whoever is using the computer. Knowing enough about the system I can recognize certain things [like delays and cryptic messages that blink quickly] as activities of the operating system [actually systems] in the background. This is what we could call the subconscious of the computer - and very parallel to what our mind is doing in the subconscious of the mind. But it appears to people, because they know nothing about processing, that all that hidden processing, in our mind, [and in the computer, too] is just spooks and demons [demons and dragons. What possible use could the mind [or computer] have for demons and spooks that need to be chased with pitchforks and torches.
One of the issues here [the reason for this special kine of processing] is that our mind is working with pictures, and “picture-like” related data, as the basis of our ‘sorting the data’. It is always very visual [or complex. so {the context must be part of the understanding}]; and another kine of information [besides the pictures themselves] has to equate [in comparisons and searches] with the visual, or picture, information [the context is part of he meaning and the search]. So the minds processing would [and actually more so because the medium is recognizing picture-like”data” that is harder to search and sort or save and retrieve than numeric data] needs to use processes that are bent to the needs of the different types of data. The minds search and sort is very much based on context - so there are problems with meaning when scientists want to scrub all or most context from the analysis. The lack of meaning - from a lack of context - in our minds personal search and sort mechanisms would produce havoc - or, at least, the decrease in the ability to function.?
These processes would not look the same as the computer kine, that we are familiar with, since the search methods developed for the machine based venues, are basically numeric; which has led us to search algorithms strong on numeric processing [Look for algorithm books by Mary Loomis ].
See also: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dancing-the-wheel-of-psychological-types-mary-e-loomis/1000050601 ; here Mary compares Jung’s personality typology to the Native American -Medicine Wheel. This is about algorithms, but emphasizes what I refer to as polymorphism in the "real" world. The medicine wheel is an example of polymorphism from sources not bound to narrow minded Newton Only thought and the languages of Europeans. And the medicine wheel develops an improvement to mandalas - the titles for the polymorphic relationships are included in the mandala picture itself - not in a separate text.
The Medicine Wheel
See also: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dancing-the-wheel-of-psychological-types-mary-e-loomis/1000050601 ; here Mary compares Jung’s personality typology to the Native American - Medicine Wheel. This is about algorithms, but emphasises what I refer to as polymorphism in the "real" world. The medicine wheel is an example of polymorphism from sources not bound to narrow minded Newton Only thought and language of Europeans. Actually Object Oriented designs are an extension of algorithms; and mandalas and medicine wheels are Object Oriented.
THE MEDICINE WHEEL IS THE ROSETTA STONE FOR MANDALAS
THE MEANING OF A WORD IS IN THE MANDALA LINKAGES TO OTHER WORDS AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE DEFINITIONS IN A MEDICINE WHEEL
Spelling Out Polymorphic Relationships
To Recognize Polymorphic Relationships
Sacred Geometry and your DNA
Mandala Therapy; Art of Centering the Self | Jung’s
Psychology and Mandalas
What is the Medicine Wheel?
Medicine Wheel TEACHINGS
Learning from the Medicine Wheel?
THE MEANING OF A WORD IS IN THE MANDALA LINKAGES TO OTHER WORDS AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE DEFINITIONS IN A MEDICINE WHEEL
The Medicine Wheel holds keys to particular polymorphic clustered linked lists. So each key represent a number of things that are related polymorphically. Then this key is the starting point for the clustered index of that set of polymorphs. This is how our cache [ref. short term memory] searches for a needed memory, quickly. Note there are ultimately more key polymorphs than this set, in this or any particular Medicine Wheel; and the specific name is different in different languages [shown in the picture]. The originating keys are unnamed 'meanings' that we ascribe a name to [as we are learning our local language] and when it becomes useful. The set of keys [as meanings] explains [Chomsky's Universal Grammar and Chomsky's Common Language {~pidgin}].
Overview of the Medicine Wheel
SFU -?
Object Oriented
All this could not be possible without Object Oriented processing. The mind is an Object Oriented program. Jung always insisted that polymorphism was very important, in the mind. I agreed with him from the beginning because I felt there is a need for polymorphism. As i followed through the design of such a program and I realized the mind was doing extensive data mining - and doing it through linked polymorphs. This internal data mining is strongly aided by polymorphic linked lists; and often start with polymorph keys.
Then in the debate over Chomsky's Common Language necessity; I realized that polymorphs were the basis for indexing the set of linked lists that make up our database. Of course that set of polymorphs [you have to read Tao Te Ching - and recognize why western thinkers choke at the polymorphic base for everything in the book]. Anyway the generalized set of keys to each polymorph linked list, in our mind, is the Common Language. In the Common Language, these are actually just concepts with no name. As we discover a name for them that fits our language we have discovered another link list of the Common Language.
These is the Diagrams for Standard Neural Networks
?
The Object Orientation of the Mind would be Similar to the activities of the Neural Networks but have processing beyond Tuning [that includes Peek-a-Boo, Hide, and Seek]
The Height of Object Orientation
Carl Jung began the battle of trying to sell an object oriented base for psychoanalysis. He talked about these objects, and their categorization, using Mythical descriptions. Campbell’s criticism of this and of Jung [making it appear that he was trying to get people to accept the myth itself {which he was not - at best he wanted to show that myth contained advise on how to deal with people of various, and obvious personalities}] were poorly aimed, This was not fair to existing science; as much of this area of science, and particularly psychoanalysis, used myth to describe issues in the areas of study we knew little about, like the mind. There were two reasons for that: The first one was that many people knew myth, at the beginning of this period [which was not true later since myth was getting ignored in education near the end of Jung’s period of working]. Second, is that myth describes some other people [as gods] that have definite and defining personality problems.
Things related to personality were often exaggerated in myth. The myth was commonly an attempt to describe particular issues but in exaggerated form [the gods were often stuck in retrograding patterns in the myth, so they could be examples of personal problems and perhaps how to solve them]. Personality traits, and relaying them by mythical characters, might protect the innocent, or maybe not so innocent, politicians. The fact that myth demonstrated exaggerated working out of exaggerated personalities; gave a venue for discourse on such subjects without getting personal.?
Archetypes and Personality Types as the Center of the Object Oriented Mind
Below, we are going to redraw these personality archetypes, following what others are doing; but doing it in terms of design patterns [of object oriented programming]. I hope, in time, to discover the classes and subclasses of these archetypes that can also be designed in object oriented extended design, but now do it as archetypes. Think of using Myers-Briggs or Discovery type categories as part of demythologizing. I will follow some of their processes but start with the Jung’s original archetypes.
The concern should be whether this list is complete [does it cover all possible personalities] or not. There is, also, some overlapping, but that must be minor; but then people might just be caught between two or more types.
?
Myers-Briggs
Myers Briggs Type Indicator should be familiar to most people [by now]; and is based on Jung’s Archetypes.. The test itself is done in a party atmosphere and positives rather than negatives are emphasized. This is shown by the list of categories you place yourself in [the https://www.mudamasters.com/en/personal-growth-personality/insights-discovery-part-3-16-types ? website also describes another evaluation techniques: See also?
Discovery and Insights Discovery below]:
Myers-Briggs Topics
I am more familiar with Myers-Briggs, than other methods, and have done that test at least 3 times at private or church parties. The third time they added the colors to make it more interesting.
-Insights Discovery
Psychological Types
There are more details available here .
In the Vedic tradition of Mandalas that you developed as a picture, and then described what that meant below [or in book it would be under] the design; in text. With the Medicine Wheel we put the explanation in polymorphically related text right in the Mandala. This is a most important step in understanding the meaning of the patterns in the universe [Yes, Virginia,' there are patterns in the universe]. THE MEDICINE WHEEL IS THE ROSETTA STONE FOR MANDALAS.
Learning from the Medicine Wheel
Here we add the First-Peoples polymorph term and then add in English translation - more Rosetta Stone processes.
Overview of the Medicine Wheel
?
SFU -?
This is 'The Description of Our Mandala -> Medicine-Wheel Processing'
EUREKA - ICH HABE ES GEFUNDEN
I think, when Archimedes said it first, it was not translated immediately into English, because English did not even exist then. If it was translated into anything it must have been German.
Ride On King Jesus - Teen Talent | Large Vocal Ensemble Winner
Cathedral Deep River?
Proletarian Music
Amazing Grace in Cherokee
?
See also: The New Rainbow
See also: Philosophy for a Harmonic Universe
Hashtags #DegreesOfFreedomUncertainty #mandala?#MedicineWheel #ObjectOriented #PolymorphicProcessing #harmonic
Embracing uncertainty like water shapes its path ??. As Lao Tzu suggests - mastering adaptability & harmony leads to understanding life's essence. Polymorphism in thought, akin to the Medicine Wheel, unveils patterns within chaos. ?? #WisdomInChange
Marketing director of ignite it marketing
9 个月This looks interesting! I'm going to be honest, didn't quite read the full article now. I'll read this article fully for sure on my free time!