<1>
Since all we can perceive are wholes and their aspects so the universe will always fall within this context. This context is 'invariant' in that it is the template for all of our 'maps' of 'reality'; the universe has structure and it will always be that which is like the way we perceive data.

<2>
There is no problem in using quantum mechanics methods to describe anything simply because the wave/particle dichotomy reflects how 'in here' perceives things; probabilities and 'waves' are not restricted to QM, they are applicable to all information processing simply because we work on the genotype(many)/ phenotype(1) dichotomy. Thus these are not 'QM methods'; but more our general methods of processing information that have been 'refined' by our work with QM simply because of the pressures to 'go deep' into identifying 'reality'.

<3>
If we use the neuron form of development where many inputs lead to a single output which is another way of describing the function of the 'wave-collapse', so this method is applicable to all cases at all levels; structure is maintained by simply changing scale and quantum weirdness comes from the methods we use to analyse things (many:1 dichotomy-based) and the wave-patterns emerge from changing levels of analysis from specifics (electron - the one) to generals (electrons over time - the many) where the smallest unit of analysis for generals is the undifferentiatable PAIR. Using dichotomous methods of analysis ensures the detection of a wave pattern when determining probabilities irrespective of MIR-MCR/MDR etc

<4>
I stress that the use of frames of reference (context) affects what you perceive. "looking' for an electron puts you into specifics mode and causes you to set-up experiments for exactly that. When we step-back so we change levels in that we move to a more 'general' frame of reference (a different level in hierarchic analysis) and so work in PAIRS (at best) and so 'see' waves (as I have asked before -- where is 'crowd' behaviour 'in' the individual? It isnt..we only see it when we deal with groups...it is a 'boson' function rather than a 'fermion' function; we are witnessing so-called quantum weirdness at the macro level simply because it is not 'weird', but the manifestation of our METHODS.

<5>
Henkel's emphasis on symmetry implies a preference for 1:1 mapping which is specifics biased and very 'totalist'. The 'fact' that we find a skewed distribution of left/right 'handedness' in the universe favours a more 1:many bias. The push for symmetry often comes from Science biased individuals since there is an underlying 'belief' in purity but the presence of a 1:many (specific/general) bias will always 'deny' attempts to achieve this; the best you get is an entanglement that is 1:2 biased - a probability system where genotype contains two potentials to the phenotype (expression).

<6>
In humans, gene expression is more 1:4 where the 'base' genotype is a mix
of TWO basics (dominant/recessive) and so a range of DD,Dr,rD,rr.

This is very 1:many with a further bias to DD over rr.

Its 1:many dichotomisations all the way..;-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lofting
<clo@fmsc.com.au>