ABSTRACT

In our attempts to describe 'out there' there seems to be a feedback process occurring that gives us insight into the operations of 'in here'. This feedback comes in the form of the structure of these descriptions ('maps') in that there is an ease in forming analogies across the disciplines that create these maps even though these disciplines, on the surface, appear very different. This suggests an underlaying commonality that is species-based and forms the template upon which all our maps are based. This implies that our models of 'out there' are more models based on projections of 'in here' functionality to a degree that resolutions to apparent 'paradoxes' can be found by looking IN - it is Psychology/Cognitive Science that can help resolve 'problems' in Physics.

<1>
The common language that we all share and that enables us to create maps of reality and establish a sense of shared 'meaning' is founded on emotion. (see later for more details).

<2>
This emotion stems from our use of dichotomisation when making these maps in that there is an emotive tie between every level of dichotomous development and the establishment of 'meaning'.

<3>
This tie implies that, at least for all dichotomously derived maps, all 'meaning' is registered 'in here' and does not exist as we know it 'out there'. This will be expanded upon later in this article but first some 'background'...

<4>
So-called objective approaches to reality are founded on what I call left-hemisphere biased behaviours that are rooted in the concept of location and direct, explicit identification and a tendancy to reductionism. These approaches seek 'self-containment' and an emphasis on independence. (there are some 'absolutes' - e.g. a cell, an electron, a sine wave.)

<5>
In the development of any model, initially there is a bias to the behaviours described in [4]. The emphasis is neutral to positive. The moment we get into 'deeper' analysis so emerges the use of analogy and an emphasis on A/~A and more refined categorisations.

<6>
Once we have reached a very refined degree of analysis so we start to use statistical methods since we have entered the realm of dynamic relational activity,BUT this area is also the area of metaphor, symbols, and the creation of illusions.

<7>
The area described by [6] is related neurologically more with 'what could be?' processes and the establishment of indentification through aspectual considerations other than 'location' - which is often only an approximation and so an emphasis on aspectual contexts (colours, harmonics). This is linked to right-hemisphere biases. (note that as we go 'deeper' in the structures so we find a mixing of left and right...). The creation of symbols and metaphor lead to the *replacement* of 'out there' with a representation 'in here'.

<8>
An RH instigated 'successful' identification is when all of the aspects 'join' to create an apparent 'fact' - something I can point at and say "YES - THATS IT!". This neurological behaviour is abstracted in QM to the concept of a wave collapse.

<9>
From these points, there is the suggestion that our manner of making maps has stucture and this structure is then projected 'out there'.

<10>
If we now include the workings of our senses we can detect even more qualities of QM that are in fact qualities from 'in here'.

<11>
For example, our visual system has a real problem with dealing with complex line drawings that are ambivalent - e.g. Necker Cubes. Once the pattern of the cubes are detected within the drawing, so the mind oscillates between the two forms; there is difficulty in seeing two things occupying the same space. (note that by adding colour - a harmonic - so things change).

<12>
Our auditory system, on the other hand, has no problem in dealing with apparent superpositions in that the elements are treated as harmonics of a whole and we can be more precise about our responses - we can listen to the whole or else emphasise one of the harmonics (or oscillate). This control seems stronger in audition than in vision (in the visual system we have to turn the drawing around so that we are again dealing with a complex 'whole' - but the brain soon picks this up and goes back to oscillations.)

<13>
The difference between <11> and <12> deal with containment in that <12> has text and context combined in
tighter configuration than <9> simply because <10> is biased to dealing with concepts like superpositions. (note that in vision, colour is a later development and even in humans there are genetic related disorders that still cause degrees of colour blindness...and mostly in males who seem to have a more 'objective' LH-biased perspective on reality.)

<14>
Let us now consider the concept of 'particle when we look' and 'wave when we dont look': it has been noticed in QM that the stucture of an object depends on the manner of analysis, such that in the double-slit experiment, if I place a detector at one of the holes then I detect a particle. But if I accumulate data and just look at the photographic plate I detect a wave pattern.

<15>
The distinction made in <14> reflects brain structure (see TA3 for details) the 'what is' bias of the left - particle - versus the 'what could be' bias of the right - waves - but also notice that the photographic plate shows BOTH elements in that I have the black dots made by the particles that AS A GROUP show wave behaviour.

<16>
The distinction in <15> regarding the format of the photographic plate demonstrates the MIXING of LH and RH processes in our making of maps of reality - our mind affects our perceptions as well as the manner in which we create experiments.

<17>
So let us analyse this mixing closer. We note that the photographic plate contains TWO types of information -specific locations of dots where photons have 'hit' the plate and an explicit pattern that emerges OVER TIME that suggests (implication) some sort of wave interference at work.

<18>
Now note that this development of a wave pattern is like the development of ANY statistical model over time - the SUMMING of aspects to create a 'whole' - and in fact resembles the SAME development process I have outlined regarding the brain's methods of analysis - the process described in <4> to <6> above in that OVER TIME we move from direct identification to indirect identifications and the latter is wave oriented.

<19>
To refine the analysis of 'what is happening' we make the 'simple' observation that the most talked-about experiments in QM deal with dichotomies - the two holes of the double slit, the single hole of the Airy pattern that functions between the state of closed or open, and the use of polarisers.

<20>
In all of these there are 'strange occurences' that need explanation and these can be done through dichotomous analysis: (a) In the double slit experiment, it is based on EITHER one hole is open OR the other hole is open OR BOTH wholes are open. In this, the LATTER is the MIDPOINT between the former conditions. (EITHER left OR right). (b) The single slit is based on EITHER the hole is closed OR the hole is open OR the hole is HALF closed/open. Again the emphasis on the MIDPOINT and it is when at this point that the interference pattern occurs (Airy used electrons to fire through the hole and then to travel on to a photographic plate). (c) The polariser experiment is based on a vertical polariser followed by a horizontal polariser that then has a HALF (45 degree) polariser inserted BETWEEN the two. (similar to (b)) When we introduce the HALF system so photons appear the other side of the experiment having passed through ALL three systems.

<21>
In all three cases of <20> implied wave interference patterns emerge when we introduce the MIDPOINTS; when we move from EITHER/OR states to BOTH/AND states.

<22>
What we see here is that we start with a dichotomy of A/~A (EITHER/OR) and the inclusion of midpoints introduce C = A AND ~A (this is the intersection). In logic this is called the excluded middle and is supposed to be 'empty' - it isn't for it contains all the POTENTIAL states - all of the POSSIBLES - the BOTH/ANDs, and leaving these experiments over time helps to accumulate examples of all of these possibles.

<23>
SO? you ask. How is it that this pattern can be seen to be 'a wave'? Well, I reply, it deals with dichotomous relationships - the root of 'The common language' - which I deal with next:


<24>
Studying the manner in which the mind categorises leads one to the observation that there is a lot of 'pairing' going on and this pairing has two forms. One form is relational in that we consider 1:1 relationships where both elements are 'independent' but have some sort of dynamic link. The other form is hierarchic (what Charles Peirce called 'inherital'). This form is interesting in that the elements in the relationship can be seen as 1:1 but also as 1:many or even many:many. Furthermore, the *identity* of each element is *dependent* on the existance of the other element. For example, an assertion does not have to have its opposite 'in existence' but a negation does. Thus the moment we go beyond 'one' to 'two' we introduce negation: A/~A and this process is the step from <4> to <5> mentioned earlier (also in TA3) regarding brain development.

<25>
The above mentioned aspects of inherital dichotomies implies that the dichotomy is aspectual and so parts related, the elements being aspects of a whole are forever 'linked' simply because to seperate them means to seperate the whole and so lose the distinctions. Also note here that this structuring implies hierarchy and so ANY process of inherital analysis leads to permanent element linkage.

<26>
Inherital dichotomies are applied to refining our understanding of 'a whole'; as we analyse so we move from gross forms of description to more refined forms. This occurs by the use of feedback in that my initial distinction of something being A/~A is refined where making closer examination of A/~A I find SOME ~A in A and SOME A in ~A.

<27>
As the process of analysis goes on so the original A/~A distinctions become 'diffuse' and I find I am dealing with a MIX of both (Note that at all times I am dealing with a 'whole', which, by defination, is a closed system and everything is linked to everything else, thus maintaining the integrity of 'the whole'. In Taoism, a whole does not exist as long and you can *distinguish* yin and yang - which are the PARTS of a whole - like text and context).

<28>
When we get to refined levels of analysis, each step in the analysis has created another dimension (a dichotomy) and we find that a qualitative analysis suggests that the original A/~A distinction only represents a small percentage of 'the whole'.

<29>
In fact, when we 'map' all the possible findings based on ANY dichotomous analysis, what emerges is a normal distribution curve - simply from the analytical method applied. This 'curve' shows the emphasis on MIXING, where the area of highest probabilities is in the middle.

<30>
Thus, if I analyse something to six dimensions (1/-1) I will get 64 possible 'states', and so the number of possible states is 2 raised to the power of the number of dimensions.

<31>
Now comes an interesting phenomenon. As we develop our analysis so the states reflect developments OVER TIME and since I am dealing with a dichotomy there are FOUR *temporal* possibilities in two consecutive time frames:
A followed by A
A followed by ~A
~A followed by A
~A followed by ~A

<32>
Now, if I am in a position of NOT knowing which comes where then I have in fact THREE possibilites AA, [], or ~A~A (note that [] is ~AA OR A~A). (the experiments set-up using laser beams and interferometers generate these conditions in that a SINGLE photon of energy X is CUT into TWO photons of energy X/2. This is inherital dichotomisation. The paths are set-up such that I have the above possible mixes where BOTH can/cannot go one way or they go BOTH ways).

<33>Going back to the normal distribution curve, since it is static in form, and we are now considering temporal relationships, some changes are required in that explicit representations of A~A and ~AA are no longer valid - they must be combined. For example, going to six dimensions gives 64 possible states which we can symbolise with a sequence of characters - say L for left and R for right: e.g.
RRRRRR
LLLLLL
LRLRLR
RLRLRL
By considering temporal processes that are indeterminate I must reduce these in pairs, thus LR and RL become onesymbol, [], and so the above set becomes:
RRR
LLL
[][][]
[][][]
and when we do this and group those elements that are now 'the same', irrespective of the number of dimensions we have used, we find a set of possible states that numbers 27.


<34>
When I then 'graph' the number of elements that 'fit' into one of these 27 I find a wave interference pattern in that 8 of the states are 'zero' (or to be more precise have only ONE element as a member) and 19 having varying multiples of 2 as members. (see diagram below). This same graph is created when I plot the apparent wave interference patterns on the photographic plate of the mentioned QM experiments with the number of 'center' hits going outwards and getting thinner with 'blank' spots (the '1' areas) in between implying to the observer wave cancellation (I get 19 'obvious' bands where bands leak into each other and explicit 'blank' spots):
number of members: 121242121242484242121242121
states 1 to 27........ : 1--------------------------------27
The more detail you add the more 'rounded' become the nineteen 'peaks' you see in this. (in the photographic plate, the darker become the 'rings'.) but if you look carefully you see that the middle section is a doubling of the two outer sections:
121242121 242484242 121242121
and they ALL are multiples of a fundamental - 121.
121 242 121 242 484 242 121 242 121

<33>
What this demonstrates is the emergence of implied wave interference patterns whenever I consider ANY dichotomously-derived relationships over time and *this is a function of the statistically-biased method*. Furthermore the middle position is the sum of the outer positions.

<36>
The first occurrence of this 'lumpiness' in QM was Planck's consideration of black-body radiation which is a dichotomy-derived *temporal relationship*.

<37>
This pattern is part of the RH-biased aspectual processing system (as is the normal distribution curve) and again demonstrates 'in here' mapping and the 'fact' that any relationship over time will be 'lumpy' - some work and some dont, some are strong and some are weak.

<38>
In our attempts to map reality we use dichotomy in Science - in fact we use dichotomy in all categorisation systems simply because over time the middle gives us the areas of highest diversity and so choice - this is evolution at work. As we refine our maps so we enter the area of dynamic relationships - some of which are 'fact' and many of which are illusions.

<39>
In these areas we must be HIGHLY selective about what aspects we choose to get that "YES - THATS IT!" experience; especially when considering 'meaning' and 'reality' and it has been a lack of selectivity that perhaps has led to the current confusion amongst many regarding the 'nature' of QM.

<40>
With the above description I hope the reader can 'see' the mapping of 'out there' is influenced by the behaviours of 'in here' and I now wish to extend this into the establishment of 'in here' meaning.

<41>
In the process of categorisations, we use dichotomous methods. These are applied over time that 'moves' from a wholes biased analysis through a parts biased analysis to relational analysis between parts and between wholes and so an emerging degree of complexity that is 'rooted' in powers of 2. (Using Charles Peirce's terms of first, second, third, whole analysis is firstness, parts analysis is secondness, and relational analysis is thirdness. In these we find emerging contexts - one in firstness, two in secondness, and four in thirdness. Any further refinements will lead to increasing contexts but these will always emerge WITHIN these three steps and so be refinements rather than independent entities but the hierarchy of this implies that thirdness leads to a new' firstness that can be interpreted as 'real' whereas it is 'illusion' in an objective context but very 'real' in a sociological context.)

<42>
The moment we move beyond 'whole' analysis so we move into areas of differentiation and it is here that 'meaning' is refined and it is here the negation emerges.

<43>
At this point, our nature, combined with our nurture, enables the understanding of 'wholeness' in that it generates a 'feel' for what wholeness means.

<44>
As we deepen our analysis, so we start to make comparisons - the distinctions between 'a whole' and NOT 'a whole'. These distinctions create 'feelings' that are linked to these distinctions and can be generalised.

<45>
Finally we get to areas of thirdness where even more refined distinctions are made (and we enter the world of metaphor and symbol) and there emerges four types of 'meaning'.

<46>
From firstness comes an emphasis on blending where text and context are one.

<47>
From secondness comes an emphasis on bounding where the distinctions of text and context are made.


<48>
From thirdness comes refinements to blending and bounding in the form of relational considerations - here linked to the terms bonding (static) and binding (dynamic).

<49>
Thus the "Common Language" is that of MIXING text/context, whole/aspects and using terms that are synonymous with this mixing. Furthermore, the creation of metaphors creates a base of four modes of representation within highly developed categorisation systems.

<50>
Thus the process of dichotomous categorisation comes with a linked set of 'meanings' and it is these that are refined through degrees of metaphorcation - thus 'blending' can be linked as text to a 'bonding' context giving a more complex overall emotive expression and it is this underlaying template of meaning that allows us to make analogies across many disciplines and find 'shared' meanings - this is the "Common Language" which forms the 'context' for all metaphors, analogies, symbols and enables a degree of resonance which enables 'understanding' and 'meaning' and it is this context combined with relational considerations that gives 'intuitive' assessments where the 'correct choice' of aspects give a 'sudden' awareness of something.

<51>
All of the 'in here' behaviour described above are used in the making of maps. Science and and Mathematics are just as much metaphor of 'out there' as are Astrology and Philosophy, but perhaps not as 'strong' in that they have not gone through many levels of abstraction/ symbolisation. However in conclusion we need to consider that, if life has evolved by adapting to the environment then perhaps we have adapted by internalising 'out there'. It is interesting to note that our cosmology reflects much of 'in here' characteristics (RH summing leading to blackhole concepts as well as the possibility of 'wormholes' etc)


(Von Neumann noted that the QM wave collapse seemed to occur 'in the mind'...NOT the brain... THE MIND. If we treat the brain as a huge neuron and the mind as emerging from feedback then the transition from dendrite activity to axon firing becomes abstracted to a collapse of aspectual data (dendrites, right-hemisphere-like activity) to an explicit identification (axon firing, left hemisphere-like activity).
Thus the moment of collapse is the trigger in the soma. If we then synchronise these firings and abstract that concept, we then have a system that maps the hierarchic biases observed in brain and mind...and 'out there'.)

(Copyright (c) 1997 C.J.Lofting)

[Chris Lofting is an analyst/programmer with Computershare Systems.
e-mail <clo@fmsc.com.au>]