Asunto: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
Fecha: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:46:32 +0100
De: Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com>
Responder a: karl.javors...@gmail.com
Para: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
CC: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, tozziart...@libero.it
Topology
The session so far has raised the points: meta-communication,
subject-matter, order, spaces.
a.) Meta-communication
Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references
that FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the
equivalence between energy and information or the concept of space in
the human brain. Whatever the personal background, interests or
intellectual creations of the members of FIS, we each have been taught
addition, multiplication, division and the like. We also know how to
read a map and remember well where we had put a thing as we are going to
retrieve it. When discussing the intricate, philosophical points which
are common to all formulations of this session, it may be helpful to use
such words and procedures that are well-known to each one of us, while
describing what we do while we use topology.
b.) Subject-matter
Topology is managed by much older structures of the central nervous
system than those that manage speech, counting, abstract ideas. Animals
and small children remember their way to food and other attractions.
Children discover and use topology far before they can count. Topology
is a primitive ancestor to mathematics; its ideas and methods are
archaic and may appear as lacking in refinement and intelligence.
c.) Order
There is no need to discuss whether Nature is well-ordered or not. Our
brain is surely extremely well ordered, otherwise we had seizures, tics,
disintegrative features. In discussing topology we can make use of the
condition that everything we investigate is extremely well ordered. We
may not be able to understand Nature, but we may get an idea about how
our brain functions, in its capacity as an extremely well ordered
system. We can make a half-step towards modelling artificial
intelligence by understanding at first, how artificial instincts, and
their conflicts, can be modelled. Animals apparently utilise a different
layer of reality of the world while building up their orientation in it
to that which humans perceive as important. The path of understanding
how primitive instincts work begins with a half-step of dumbing down. It
is no more interesting, how many they are, now we only look at where it
is relative to how it appears, compared with the others.
d.) Spaces
Out of sequences, planes naturally evolve. Whether out of the planes
spaces can be constructed, depends on the kinds of planes and of common
axes. Now the natural numbers come in handy, as we can demonstrate to
each other on natural numbers, how in a well-ordered collection the
actual mechanism of place changes creates by itself two rectangular,
Euclidean, spaces. These can be merged into one common space, but in
that, there are four variants of every certainty coming from the
position within the sequence. Furthermore, all these spaces are
transcended by two planes. The discussion about an oriented entity in a
space of n dimensions can be given a frame, placed into a context that
is neutral and shared as a common knowledge by all members of FIS.
2016. nov. 29. 15:15 ezt írta ("Karl Javorszky"
<karl.javors...@gmail.com <mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>>):
Topology
The session so far has raised the points: meta-communication,
subject-matter, order, spaces.
a.) Meta-communication
Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references
that FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the
equivalence between energy and information or the concept of space
in the human brain. Whatever the personal background, interests or
intellectual creations of the members of FIS, we each have been
taught addition, multiplication, division and the like. We also know
how to read a map and remember well where we had put a thing as we
are going to retrieve it. When discussing the intricate,
philosophical points which are common to all formulations of this
session, it may be helpful to use such words and procedures that are
well-known to each one of us, while describing what we do while we
use topology.
b.) Subject-matter
Topology is managed by much older structures of the central nervous
system than those that manage speech, counting, abstract ideas.
Animals and small children remember their way to food and other
attractions. Children discover and use topology far before they can
count. Topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics; its ideas
and methods are archaic and may appear as lacking in refinement and
intelligence.
c.) Order
There is no need to discuss whether Nature is well-ordered or not.
Our brain is surely extremely well ordered, otherwise we had
seizures, tics, disintegrative features. In discussing topology we
can make use of the condition that everything we investigate is
extremely well ordered. We may not be able to understand Nature, but
we may get an idea about how our brain functions, in its capacity as
an extremely well ordered system. We can make a half-step towards
modelling artificial intelligence by understanding at first, how
artificial instincts, and their conflicts, can be modelled. Animals
apparently utilise a different layer of reality of the world while
building up their orientation in it to that which humans perceive as
important. The path of understanding how primitive instincts work
begins with a half-step of dumbing down. It is no more interesting,
how many they are, now we only look at where it is relative to how
it appears, compared with the others.
d.) Spaces
Out of sequences, planes naturally evolve. Whether out of the planes
spaces can be constructed, depends on the kinds of planes and of
common axes. Now the natural numbers come in handy, as we can
demonstrate to each other on natural numbers, how in a well-ordered
collection the actual mechanism of place changes creates by itself
two rectangular, Euclidean, spaces. These can be merged into one
common space, but in that, there are four variants of every
certainty coming from the position within the sequence. Furthermore,
all these spaces are transcended by two planes. The discussion about
an oriented entity in a space of n dimensions can be given a frame,
placed into a context that is neutral and shared as a common
knowledge by all members of FIS.
2016. nov. 25. 14:44 ezt írta ( <tozziart...@libero.it
<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>):
Dear Joseph,
The Borsuk-Ulam theorem looks like a translucent glass sphere
between a light source and our eyes: we watch two lights on the
sphere surface instead of one. But the two lights are not just
images, they are also real with observable properties, such as
intensity and diameter.
Until the sphere lies between your eyes and the light source,
the lights you can see are two (and it is valid also for every
objective observer), it's not just a trick of your imagination
or a Kantian a priori.
Therefore, the link between topology and energy/information is
very strong. If we just think the facts and the events of the
world in terms of projections, we are able to quantitatively
elucidate puzzling and counterintuitive phenomena, such as, for
example, quantum entanglement
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-016-2998-7
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-016-2998-7>
Therefore, the 'eternal' discussion of whether geometry or
energy (call it dynamics, informational entropy, or whatsoever)
is more fundamental in the universe, does not stand anymore:
both geometry and energy describe the same phenomena, although
with different languages. In physical terms, we could say that
geometry and energy are 'dual' theories, e.g., they are
interchangeable in the description of real facts and events.
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
venerdì, 25 novembre 2016, 00:28PM +01:00 da Joseph Brenner
joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>:
Dear All,
Pedro should be thanked already for this new Session, even
as we welcome Andrew and Alexander. The depth of your work
facilitates rigorous discussion of serious philosophical as
well as scientific issues.
In Pedro's note of 2016.11.24 there is the following:
"Somehow, the projection of brain "metastable dynamics"
(Fingelkurts) to higher dimensionalities could provide new
integrative possibilities for information processing. And
that marriage between topology and dynamics would also pave
the way to new evolutionary discussions on the emergence of
the "imagined present" of our minds."
What Pedro calls here "the marriage between topology and
dynamics" reminds one of the 'eternal' discussion of whether
geometry or energy (dynamics) is more fundamental in the
universe. I just suggest that there are alternative terms to
focus on and describe the interaction between topology and
dynamics that are more - dynamic, and make an emergence a
more logical consequence of that interaction.
Best wishes,
Joseph
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
