DaveW -I'm glad you invoked Indra's net in this context. I'm not very learned in Hindu or Buddhist texts or ideas beyond the westernized superficial exposure that comes through various popular literature/science so I don't trust much if anything I think I know to refer to the original (or more aptly dependently co-arising?) intent of that language.
However, this continuing theme, often re-introduced by you (mostly) of the limits of language and in particular formal languages and ideas such Universal Computation never gets old for me.
I remember a perplexing conversation for both student and professor in College when I took my budding knowledge/interest in language and logic and philosophy into my physics classroom and asked (assertively) of my professor "why cant we just invent a language where only truth can be told? which was not far from the open ended contemplation among the small cadre of upper division physics and chemistry grad students that got thrown together in advanced physics seminars (because there was no graduate physics program). I say perplexing to both myself and the professor simply because my question was so naive as to feel like a simple statement of fact to me and to him I think it actually confronted his own naivety in the opposite way.
A year or two ago I stumbled into Glen with his occasional invocation of "the holographic principle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>" in physics, by imposing my own "excess meaning" (perhaps) into his use of this, wanting it to evoke the same thing Dave's "All Contextualizes All" does. While it is a "truism" that when you cut a (photographically captured interference pattern) holograph into pieces, each piece carries the entire hologram. Reductio ad-absurdum aside, it is the case that every little bit of the holograph carries a little it of every bit of the hologram, such that the quality/fidelity of the hologram is divided up as one divides up the holograph. The emphasis in Glen's use (as I thought I understood it sans my excess meaning) was on the dimension-reduction-without-loss-of-fidelity aspect.
Despite the proofs (by example?) that any dimensionally embedded CA could be implemented as a lower dimensional CA, I have always been mildly suspicious of the holy grail of serialization as an illusion. The phenotype-genotype duality exposes well the "dependent origination" of program and execution environment, albeit in a genetic/biological context. Embryology as well as "childhood development" seems to be no more (or less) than a study in "dependent co-arising". The scaffolding of complexity is what I find fascinating and I think maybe is key to DaveW's harping about LBL vs RBL and trying to "eff the ineffable.
A year ago maybe, SteveG reminded me of Hesse's last work "the Glass Bead Game" which is often considered an allegorization of Indra's Net in the modern (1949) idiom. I only made about 1/2 of that correlation to this conversation at the time. Everything unfolds in the fullness of time?
My own shriveled work with UNM/DTRA of over a decade ago on a project called "pre-incident indicator analysis" was aiming at implementing an Indra's Net of sorts as a "hairball of interrelated event reports" which would be organized into what we came to call a "faceted ontology" with the ontology speaking for itself and the "facets" being in some sense, pre-computed projections from the all-contextualizes-all hairball into a lower-dimensional space of one of many known-to-be-useful subject-matter-expertise areas. I still believe this to be the problem of internet search with human-in-the-loop solutions in the form (primarily) of Wikis.
I'm writing this in a mild-fever dream state of jet-lag and food poisoning. At the Reykjavik airport we grabbed a plastic-wrapped sandwich which it appears to have been the source of food-poisoning. Mary suffered the brunt of it, but I am more prone to acute jet-lag so we have been roughly equally miserable over somewhat different if overlapping reasons. The point of this point is the interesting (to me) way that dysfunction can offer a certain clarity (thus fever-dream) that is seems similar qualitatively to the dimension-reduction/projection of "the holographic principle" or the creation/utilization of a "facet". I forget the idiom used in the glass-bead-game precisely and don't know the equivalent in Indra's Net terminology.
For those who know Roy Wroth, Matt and Janire, and Jenny Q... they are all on our itenerary, though Jenny is traveling the wilds of Alaska while we inhabit her sweet little renovated bit of a 18c Farmhouse in Veesp for the month of June.
- Steve On 5/15/22 5:26 PM, Prof David West wrote:
Thank you Marcus for the insightful comments.I agree with you that the issue is one of communication, and in some sense, one of language. I would depart from your response with regard the assertion that the language must be precise; and further, the implication that equations, computer programs, or a simulacrum could constitute a "language."I would claim that a language with perfect and complete syntax and precise denotation will, necessarily be insufficient to express and communicate the vast majority of human experiences and knowledge/awareness/understanding. [This is a more nuanced version of my frequently made claim that, "science and math are only useful for the simplest of problems."]Humans can, with reasonable efficacy, communicate by means other than a precisely defined language. Evocative and connotative poetry, imagery, allusion, and metaphor, within a rich body of context is far more powerful than any formal language.Consider this alternative means of communication as a "language," RBL (Right-brain language). It seems reasonable to expect that RBL might be improved and extended, with added rigor, while avoiding the reductionism that exemplifies formal, precisely defined languages of math and science (left-brained all). I can imagine a RBL-grounded metaphysics and epistemology.A robust RBL might provide the communication channel essential to communicate the ineffable, the mystical, the psychedelic—with one big caveat, the lack of shared experience. RBL would be an evocative language, and that which is invoked in each individual must have sufficient experiential overlap with others that "that which is invoked" provides sufficient common context.Or one might assume Indra's Net where all contextualizes all. davew On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:If one wants to translate subjective experience into a narrative, or compare & contrast experiences, then negotiating some language is necessary. If one wants to carefully compare experiences, then one must be prepared to make the language precise. The language could be “equations”, or some computer program or some careful use of the English language, or it could be some use of a well-modelled physical system to mimic another physical system, etc. But it is must to be possible to create experiments and evaluate the results in an objective, reasoned way using a shared, deconstructable language. This says nothing about the Big Picture of the diverse things that happen in the universe by itself, of course. But the (presumably) narrow window we have on the whole universe can be categorized into knowledge we share – objective language, and private experiences we don’t know how to share, or are too large and complicated to compress into a readable academic paper (e.g. some massive generative learning system). If one wants to go further and say there are some experiences that can’t, in principle, be shared, that’s fine, but then shut up about it already! There’s nothing to **talk** about because it is private **and** subjective **and** opaque.*From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2022 4:51 PM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] quotes and questions I will channel McGilchrist here, not assert my own opinions/reasoning:The argument you have posited is an example of left-brain arrogance *(NOT MARCUS ARROGANCE)* in assuming that the left-brain perception and apprehension, a totally reductionist and representationalist one, of the universe is the only truth. All that holism, connectedness, empathy, stochastic dynamism, etc. that the right-brain believes to be truth is woo-woo nonsense and it can be ignored.There is also the purely pragmatic problem, ala the 19th century physics of Mach, that if you had perfect knowledge of every particle in the universe at time 1 you could predict with perfect accuracy its state at time 2. Replicating the totality of sensors and the variable range of sensitivity in context (e.g. changes in pressure as the water cools as a function of distance from jet), plus the variability in the pattern of sensors that are simultaneously reporting, and, and, andEven if true in principle, it is pragmatically impossible. davew On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 3:47 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I am sure I have said it dozens of times before: Create a robot > covered in sensors of similar pressure and temperature sensitivity. > Have it sit in the tub and use some algorithm to learn the distribution > of the sensors and how relates to the performance of its own motor > system.> >> On May 13, 2022, at 3:36 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote:>>>> On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:>>> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of equations.>> >> McGilchrist would assert that the "reality" that is apprehended by the left-brain is precisely that set of abstract equations. However, the right-brain apprehension of "reality" is the totality of the experience of sitting in the spa and feeling the bubbles and jets caress your body.>>>> The latter is not expressible in equations.>>>> davew>> >> >> >>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 1:47 PM, glen wrote: >>>> On 5/12/22 10:32, Steve Smith wrote: >>>> I personally don't think "Turbulent Flow" is an oxymoron.>>>>>> Exactly! That's the point. By denouncing negation, I'm ultimately >>> denouncing contradiction in all it's horrifying forms. It's judo, not >>> karate.>>>>>>> On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:>>>> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of equations.>>>>>> I'm a bit worried about all the meaning packed into "property", >>> "entailed", and "system of equations". But as long as we read >>> "equations" *very* generously, then I'm down.>>>>>>> On 5/12/22 19:54, Marcus Daniels wrote:>>>> Unitary operators are needed. Apply a Trumping operator you get a Biden and apply another one to get a Trump back. To make this work a bunch of ancillary bits are needed to record all the wisdom that Trump destroys. I am afraid we are dealing with a dissipative system, though.>>>>>> IDK. The allowance of unitary operators seems to be a restatement of >>> orthogonality. In a world where no 2 variates/objects can be perfectly >>> separated, there can be no unitary operators. (Or, perhaps every >>> operator has an error term. f(x) → y ∪ε) I haven't done the work. But >>> it seems further that we can define logics without negation and logics >>> without currying. Can we define logics with neither? What's the >>> expressive power of such a persnickety thing? Is it that such a thing >>> can't exist? Or merely that our language is incapable of talking about >>> that thing with complete faith? Biden is clearly not not(Trump), at >>> least if the object of interest is "too damned {old, white, male}". If >>> that's the object, clearly Biden ≡ Trump and ∀x|x(Trump) = x(Biden) ∪ >>> ε, where |ε| >> |x(Trump)-x(Biden)|.>>>>>> -- >>> Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙>>>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
OpenPGP_0xFD82820D1AAECDAE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
