ABSTRACT

The more refined our understanding of our brain/mind so the more it becomes noticeable that our maps of 'out there' are very-much synonymous with the maps of neurological functioning 'in here'; we make our maps by projecting 'in here' to 'out there'. This may seem 'obvious' to some but to many others the descriptions of 'out there' are deemed to be 'independent' of 'in here'. This article, in response to Raman, aims to emphasise that without recognising how 'in here' processes and categorises data so we can drift more and more into 'illusions'.

<1>

In the abstract of TA5, Raman emphasises the phrase 'Levels of Reality' (LR) which "..arises from quantum physics [and] may be extended to include..chaos.."

<2>
I wish to point out that LR is very much a property of how WE process information and does NOT 'arise' purely from quantum mechanics (QM) since QM arises from *OUR* methods of perception. Thus any LR are our constructs and not necessarily ' out there'.

<3>
In [1] and [2] Raman makes the distinctions between precision and approximation. Precision requires the explicit assertion of a 1:1 relationship and is very much an aspect of classical, 'particle-oriented' thinking; thus something IS or IS NOT -- there is no 'middle' and so an explicit emphasis on independence and 'totality'. This happens to be the manner in which our 'left-brain' processes information. [NB my emphasis on left/right is here 'extreme' in that there does appear to be more of a continuum of states emerging from the MIXING of these left/right fundamentals, however the initial context, either left or right, influences all that follows so I retain the left/right distinctions if only 'rough'.]

<4>
Approximations move us into probability estimates and a statistical bias and it is here that we move into levels of reality (LR), which in [3] Raman points out the possibility of finding 'different' laws.

<5>
I wish to point out that when we move from a 1:1 to a 1:many, or many:many, methodology so we have taken a step BACKWARDS and the price of this is a loss of resolution. Thus ANY statistical analysis has as it's 'base' element a PAIR of something rather than a UNIT of something.

<6>
What we are supposed to gain from this is the emergence of a behavioural pattern; a generalisation rather than a specific (Peirce makes this emphasis as well in his concept of thirdness), and this pattern is supposed to demonstrate the presence of some 'law'.

<7>
It so happens that this is how our 'right-brain' seems to works in that it sums aspects that then lead to the creation of a symbol/metaphor for the perceived pattern; the righ-brain is very potentials and multiple contexts oriented and so 'wavy' and more BOTH/AND biased rather than the EITHER/OR bias of the left. Furthermore the right-brain can emphasise aspects that are in fact illusions -- which is what it is supposed to do, to hide or enhance, to transform and symbolise; pattern matching and mismatching. Thus 'laws' are perceived aspects that occur concurrently and so imply a 'law' at work. However these can be illusions but become hard to 'resolve' if they get hold in the context of the culture (context being where all 'rules' etc 'live', for it is context that guides, suppresses, represses and this is also true for the self-contained in that context is 'inside' rather than 'outside').

<8>
The 'wave' collapse concept used in QM works like our brains (since that is where the 'idea' came from), in that the wave is a 'list' of probabilities linked to specific universal states and the result of the experiment leads to one of these states being manifest and so the 'wave' collapses; so we 'move' from right-brained potentials to a left-brained 'actual'. This wave is at all universal states and a probability factor which gives you something like (is) a normal distribution curve (NDC); the 'collapse' is when one of the possible results becomes the actual result. If I a ran the experiment unlimited times and 'graphed' the results so I would see an emerging 'wave' (NDC) - my list of possibles would correlate with actuals. (see <11> below)

<9>
What is of note is that as we have lost resolution power in physics so we have 'drifted' from the precise left to the approximate right and then *up a level* where we combine the methods of BOTH to enable our deeper analysis of 'reality'.

<10>
However, the loss of resolution and the use of 1:many analysis creates patterns that are part of the method of analysis and so are not intrinsically part of 'out there'; we no longer take the 'total' but just select aspects and these create 'patterns' that are of OUR making and not necessarily 'real'.

<11>
For example, using a statistical methodology, the closest we can get to a 'fact' is in dealing with PAIRS and we see this in the numerous experiments used to 'show' the duality of QM. What physicists fail to see is that it is the METHOD that creates these patterns (and these methods are externalised in the construction of experiments and associated equipment) -- physicists then confuse 1:1 thinking with 1:many thinking and then assert a 'paradox' -- there is none, for the moment you switch to pairs (and so, at least, dualistic thinking) so it is the moment you lose all determination of the elements of the pair and it is this loss of determination that CREATES a wave interference pattern -- irrespective of 'what' you are looking at; this is NOT a feature of QM but a feature of PAIR analysis and so is perceived as a 'different level of reality'.

<12>
To then say there is a paradox here in that, when we look for a specific electron we see one (1:1) wheras when we dont look and instead observe as a group we see 'waves' (1:many/many:many), is 'meaningless' in that the CONTEXT of the observations is not considered. (as Raman says there are 'different' laws at work -- namely the 'laws' of perception ;-))

(NB:I can 'lay' this out for you if you wish where the explicit formats of each element are displayed followed by the formats resulting from a loss of resolution).

<13>
The difference between 1:1 processing vs 1:many is that of context in that in 1:many processing the previous data 'adds' to the next and so emerges a context-dependent method which is *very* right-brained in form (hierarchic, dependent, where refined analysis leads into complexity and chaos.)

<14>
There is a concept I call the context ratio that demonstrates these processes and I here include a section from an article of mine:

"If we consider only the events at each timeframe, then each frame is considered as independent of all others, and thus there is only one context applicable, the one that is part of that timeframe concerned. This implies that each frame is considered to be independant from all previous frames ith the exception of it's position in the sequence of frames (the only context is time with each moment being 'seperate' from every other).

By deciding to take into consideration previous contexts, we move into the realm of dependence. Within this context, variations emerge that influence the degree of information available. If, for example, we considered only the previous two contexts, and numbered these as we developed and summed the contexts, so we would discover the emergence of a Fibonacci sequence, as shown in fig 3. If we chose to consider *all* previous contexts, then a binary sequence emerges.

frame 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 ....

system

1 frame 0 1 1 1 1.... (independence)

2 frames 0 1 1 2 3....(Fibonacci sequence)

3 frames 0 1 1 2 4 7....(Tribonacci sequence)

4 frames 0 1 1 2 4 8 15....

5 frames 0 1 1 2 4 8 16 31...

6 frames 0 1 1 2 4 8 16 32 63...

..

n frames 0 1 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 etc

Fig 3. Emergence of the binary sequence from a Fibonacci sequence
when considering previous contexts.

We can determine the degree of development by dividing one element by it's predecessor. In the Fibonacci sequence, as we move up the scale, so this value oscillates around 1.618. At the binary sequence the development factor is 2.

What is noticable in fig 3 is that, starting from frame 0 of each sequence, we have the beginnings of a binary sequence that is extended by one frame for each sequence. What ends the sequence is where we find the next binary sequence number - 1 rather than the next binary number. Numerically, this is a way to determine which context ratio is applicable for a given system, with the emergence of the binary sequence emphasising maximum detail as well as maximum stable developmental energy. I give this feature the overall name of the Context Ratio.

A good area of research for this is the stock market, based on the dichotomy of profit/loss. As we shall see, to go beyond a development factor of 2:1 leads us into the world of complexity, attractors, and increasing chaos implying that the window of 1.6 to 2.00 is a window of stable development. Lower than 1.6 is decay and above 2.00 is unstable but allows for 'emergence' of possibly profitable new forms. [Verhulst showed this with the number line; Mandlebrot showed it with the complex plane. This is where we enter Raman's Complexity [4] and Hypercomplexity[5]. As far as nature is concerned the common presence of the fibonacci series shows us systems that are developing at the 'base' level in the use of minimum amounts of energy and feedback that still ensure growth. The complex 'high' energy binary series we find in DNA/RNA/Protein processes...]

The principle of dichotomy functions within the development ratio set by the binary sequence. This emerges since in dichotomy the previous action, both text and context, becomes the whole context of the next action and is thus 'cut' into two.

As we move through each frame, we are moving from a gross state to a more refined state in that 'meaning' is becoming more precise since our assessments of the current state use all of the previous states as context. Thus what distinguishes refined from gross is an increase in the number of states at a level resulting in finer descriptive choices, since each state associates with a specific description of whatever is under dichotomous analysis. " (full article: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/dicho2.html)

The emphasis on a more 'complexity' level of scaling (i.e. beyond 2.00) is made by Salingaros (1995) : "This paper proposes three laws for combining matter together in a coherent manner: 1. The small scale is created out of coupled opposites. 2. The large scale is made coherent by connections and symmetries. 3. The small scale is linked to the large scale through a hierarchy of intermediate scales with scaling factor roughly e = 2.718"

<15>
Overall, what this says is that the generic form of graphic representations is pre-determined by the method; in PAIRS analysis the wave interference pattern only emerges after considering 2^6 states but beyond that we just get refinement to the overall form (thus in the interference patterns the bands get 'darker').

[What is noticeable is that there IS an alternative to 1:2 analysis and that is 1:1.618 analysis...havnt investigated this in detail though but since 'light' follows the 'easiest' path perhaps this does need consideration in that it reflects the 'easiest' form of context-dependent development.]

<16>
If you 'look' at units then you will get something like a normal distribution curve (where any skewing comes from the nature of the dichotomous questions set). Since QM is fundamentally statistical, so the wave pattern is one of it's properties regardless of 'out there'; the wave interference pattern comes out whenever you consider paired relationships and it does not matter if we are dealing with photons or persona relationships -- some 'work' and some 'dont' and so all maps of relationships come in 'lumps' (as social psychologists find and as Planck found -- we are not 'constrained' by the micro/macro distinctions).

<17>
In [7] Raman introduces the free-will/determinism question. I wish to comment that this 'debate' re free-will and determinism emerges from HOW 'in here' determines reality. The left brain is biased to assertions and 'namings' that are 'independent' and 'free'. This is a text bias. The right brain is biased to [literally] pointing-out context-resident patterns that influence, and so 'dependence' and 'determinism'. (and so cultures have different symbols for the 'same' patterns).

<18>
'We' mix this such that the 'random' namings of context-resident patterns is the independent element that then become part of the culture's context and so become transforming and determining. By this I mean that the 'random' noise that gives the pattern an explicit identity -- i.e. its tonal 'name' -- becomes part of the cultures knowledge base and so its context and is then 'deemed' to be 'real'; something independent, but it is the NAME that is independent rather than the PATTERN (where the PATTERN could also be illusion and so lead to things like false imprisonment, false categorisation, etc etc that become VERY hard to remove if allowed to become too entrenched in the cultures context; like the 'objective' wave/particle 'duality' of QM ;-))

<19>
We need to be very wary of all of this in that as our work in psychology and neurology becomes more and more refined we are discovering that in our 'objective' maps we are in fact looking at ourselves projected 'out there', and ontology is just 'hard core' epistemology rather than the latter 'existing' in the context of the former. This said, there is the thought that if we have adapted to our universe by internalising, at least 'local' characteristics then in the abstract world of information processing 'in here' is as 'out there'...and this includes dichotomisation (Cartesian processing); both the relational 'independent' type (1:1) and the inherital 'dependent' type (1:many, many:many). [to see this 'out there' take a look at the valence shell of the basic elements in that the point of highest diversity (potential) for any dichotomy is in the 'middle' and lo had behold this gives us Carbon and Silicon -- two of the most commonest elements in the universe and the ones 'closest' to 'life'.]

<20>
From this we see that as we lose resolution at the 'base' 1:1 level so we enter new many:many levels from which seem to emerge 'new' 1:1 states! This is a feature of complexity (bifurcations) and shows 'illusion' at work in that changing mental levels does NOT 'stop' 1:1 reductionism, it just makes it more of a challange, especially when there is a bias amongest the more left-brain single-context oriented to 'ignore' hierarchy with it's multiple contexts or else to 'idealise' a context at a time - which can destroy the overall pattern at work.

<21>
I conclude with commentary regarding our catagorisation of the four forces of nature and the 'coincidences' with neo-cortical function. These four forces are Strong force (keeps the nucleus of an atom together), Weak force (expressed in radiation), EM force, and Gravity.
<22>
As I have emphasisedpreviously, neocortical biases favor the left as being precision biased, fundamentalist, specific, 'independencies', particle-like and the right being approximates bias, relative, general, dependencies, wave-like.

<23>
'Looking' at the attributes given to the basic forces we find that we can group them into two sets: Specific bias (single atoms 'particles') - Strong Force, Weak Force General bias (waves) - EM force, Gravity.

<24>
Research has linked the Weak force with EM force -- thus EM is a general of the specific, and this suggests a link of the strong force to gravity, where gravity is a general of the specific. But these descriptions are based on describing neocortical function 'in here' -- even to the degree where the left are more 'text' like and the 'right' more context-like (in that context serves to guide, limit, suppress, repress etc. like EM and Gravity) and where we find hierarchies of sub-particles etc. (hierarchy being linked to the use of aspectual analysis by 'in here', and where we find 'fractal' states in that, zooming in on the generals of EM and Gravity, so we find the same 'split' where EM has a more left bias and Gravity a more right bias. Zooming in on EM we find the same split (E/M) but with gravity? I dont know....)

<25>
We can take this further by 'looking' at the categorisation of 'basic' particle categorisations, the fermions seem to 'follow' left-brain categories (including 'independence' expressed in the form of the Pauli Exclusion Principle to which all fermions conform -- they cannot occupy the same 'space' [quantum state]), and the 'other' lot, called bosons, seem to 'follow' right-brain categories (wave like -- can share quantum states and so 'superpositions' allowed).

<26>
When we 'look' at the neo-cortex we find a 'flow' from left to right and back and we also find this 'flow' in fermion/boson interactions where fermions interact via bosons; thus singulars interact via generals -- particles interact through 'laws'; text within context; our descriptions of 'out there' are always based on 'in here'.

<27>
Thus our maps of 'out there' are in fact analogies, symbols, and metaphors for 'in here' processing. What this implies is that by determining 'in here' processing then we can describe all of the possible states of 'out there' since 'out there' is at best a projection of 'in here'. (I mean this in the context of 'meaning' which is basically what much of this is about -- a search for, and the assertion of, identity). [NB since maths seems to have its roots in whole/aspects distinctions, which I propose are fundamental to how we process information (see next few sections) so 'pure' maths CAN create patterns that we WILL find 'out there']
<28>
I have elsewhere described a 'template' that describes wholes/aspect interactions, and I have suggested that this template is 'in here' and is in fact the template upon which all analogies/symbols/metaphors are based; Science is metaphor/symbol for describing whole/aspects interactions and the template is 'middleware' in that it sits in-between neurology and psychology as chemistry sits in-between physics and biology.

<29>
The closest we can come to 'out there' is 'in here' descriptions, where feedback from 'out there' helps us refine our maps, but we will always find that 'out there' will always conform to 'in here' -- at best we can establish an abstract 1:1 link of whole/aspects 'in here' to the same 'out there' -- but psychology shows that INTENT goes towards determining what is a 'whole' and what is an 'aspect', what is reduction and what is illusion, and so there is always a degree of subjectivity; the whole/aspects template works 'across' the 'in/out' boundary as well as either side.

<30>
This emphasis on intent introduces levels of reality; even if they dont exist 'out there', but since our descriptions of 'out there' will conform to 'in here', so we WILL perceive these levels and some may be 'real' and some not -- some will be illusion that we must be wary of.

<31>
Finally, considering the above, we can deduce that WE are an illusion -- in a strictly reductionist sense of course. ;-) Thus we need to be self and others-wary as well as self and others-aware.


Chris Lofting.

[Analyst-Programmer with Computershare Ltd -- the rest of the time I am trying to figure out what the !@#$ is going on 'in here' ;-)

e-mail <clo@fmsc.com.au>]