A Whole infinitely self-interrelating and the Table of Symbols and Relations

[Psalehesost]

The following has evolved over a number of days. I would appreciate critical feedback of the contents if they are "off". I would have liked to write a couple of additional paragraphs, but I really need to read and learn more if I am to get it done well. For now, this will do.

EDIT [2009-08-04]: Begun about a month later, a 2nd version incorporating some external considering and filling in some blanks. Hopefully beginning to get a bit understandable.

EDIT [2010-06-11]: Third version. Added two paragraphs (new first part), deleted four and rewrote remaining (of old second part). More substantial - fwiw.


A Whole infinitely self-interrelating - Creating infinite Relations, shown manifest in existence.

Limiting self-relations, forming roles dividing All - Bringing manifold existence with no parts.

---

A Table of Symbols and Relations - Boundless throughout creation, permeating existence.

Existence mental, all within the Eternal Mind - The Table, structure of its contents, being its Self-Knowledge.

On every level defining, of it all knowing part - The Table defines the structure of All.

A structure inherent in all - Every mind on every level having a table of its own, a table with a subset of all there is to know.

To Learn is to Grow, expanding one's table - To Know is to Be, encompassing part of All.

Through one's table that thought of is accessed, the mind reaching relations Known - Each relation a gateway, pointing out towards symbols and tables still further on.

As the connections span the mind of All, so the Table of Tables unfolds.

 

[Psalehesost]

This was an attempt at creative writing - I remember a year ago there being many thread views, though no input - perhaps because it "wasn't even wrong" the way it originally was.

What is now to be read in the post is however a rather different writing (or rather two writings, the latter being derived from the original contents of the post, the former being based on newer thoughts), hence this reply to make it known that something new has been posted, fwiw.

(I am torn on whether posting this is noise or not - I err on the side of getting a mirror if so)

 

[nwigal]

The following has evolved over a number of days. I would appreciate critical feedback of the contents if they are "off". I would have liked to write a couple of additional paragraphs, but I really need to read and learn more if I am to get it done well. For now, this will do.

EDIT [2009-08-04]: Begun about a month later, a 2nd version incorporating some external considering and filling in some blanks. Hopefully beginning to get a bit understandable.

EDIT [2010-06-11]: Third version. Added two paragraphs (new first part), deleted four and rewrote remaining (of old second part). More substantial - fwiw.


A Whole infinitely self-interrelating - Creating infinite Relations, shown manifest in existence.

Limiting self-relations, forming roles dividing All - Bringing manifold existence with no parts.

---

A Table of Symbols and Relations - Boundless throughout creation, permeating existence.

Existence mental, all within the Eternal Mind - The Table, structure of its contents, being its Self-Knowledge.

On every level defining, of it all knowing part - The Table defines the structure of All.

A structure inherent in all - Every mind on every level having a table of its own, a table with a subset of all there is to know.

To Learn is to Grow, expanding one's table - To Know is to Be, encompassing part of All.

Through one's table that thought of is accessed, the mind reaching relations Known - Each relation a gateway, pointing out towards symbols and tables still further on.

As the connections span the mind of All, so the Table of Tables unfolds.

I find it interesting that there seems to be two schools of thought concerning roles and relationships. Do roles determine relationships or do relationships determine roles? Those I know that operate from a false self seem to let relationships determine what role they play.
Those I know who do the Work seem to have a sense of an a priori existence of the role, which determines the relationships. Considering the various concepts of the archetype, the morphogenetic field, the densities, the fusing of the centers, pattern language, ect., it seems that one's perception of the dynamics involved between roles and relationships can reveal a lot, OSIT.

 

[Psalehesost]

I find it interesting that there seems to be two schools of thought concerning roles and relationships. Do roles determine relationships or do relationships determine roles? Those I know that operate from a false self seem to let relationships determine what role they play.
Those I know who do the Work seem to have a sense of an a priori existence of the role, which determines the relationships. Considering the various concepts of the archetype, the morphogenetic field, the densities, the fusing of the centers, pattern language, ect., it seems that one's perception of the dynamics involved between roles and relationships can reveal a lot, OSIT.

There is the question of at which level the roles and relationships are; I think you apply the idea of those at a much less abstract level. A more complete description of how I see this, describing more levels, would be:

The All in its role (and polarities of All in their roles)
->
Relationships between the All and the All (self-interrelation), where Being and Non-being is combined in an infinite number of ways to give an infinite variety of manifestation (pure Being being non-manifest, pure Non-being likewise, and the limitation of Non-being combined with the potential of Being giving rise to concrete forms)
->
Roles - the above-mentioned 'concrete' or 'manifest' forms - each entity of every density can be seen as a 'role' of the All, as the All 'limited' by itself to manifesting what appears a 'part' of itself
->
Relationships arising between manifest beings and between the 'same' being at different levels, such existing simultaneously
->
Roles in interactions
->
Relationships between said roles
->
Meta-roles
->
Meta-role-relationships
->
etc., etc. (???)

Then, just as 'beings' come into existence beginning at a high level, knowledge does, and so, rather than going towards a 'bottom', I think this chain might at some point (?) reach the 'top' again, though I do not have a very clear idea of this. Perhaps it is simply that it goes both way, that the progression written above could just as well have been written in the reverse order.

So, 'a priori existence of the role'? Yes, from the point of view of any of a number of places in the above. Similarly for the relationship in any of a number of other places, or when going in the other direction (?).


Anyhow, it gets quite interesting when you think of the idea that each part of creation includes the whole and not only vice versa, combined with this idea of the self-interrelation of All as described above; it suggests for existence a recursive structure of some kind. Thinking about how things are related to each other in this way, one (at any rate I do) gets the intuitive notion that 'scale', 'distance', 'location'/'placement', etc. do not actually exist, which corresponds to what has been said regarding higher densities beginning with 4D.

 

[Buddy]

Anyhow, it gets quite interesting when you think of the idea that each part of creation includes the whole and not only vice versa, combined with this idea of the self-interrelation of All as described above; it suggests for existence a recursive structure of some kind. Thinking about how things are related to each other in this way, one (at any rate I do) gets the intuitive notion that 'scale', 'distance', 'location'/'placement', etc. do not actually exist, which corresponds to what has been said regarding higher densities beginning with 4D.

That stimulates thoughts about similarities between subjects like teamwork, knowledge as inner patterns that allow recognition, the mechanics of perception, the fractal quality of some aspects of 3D nature's physical structures, holograms and phase conjugate devices.

Starting with the cosmological view, what if the Big Bang theory is correct, but instead of everything coming from a 'singularity', everything comes from a single compressed 'seed' structure - a blueprint or set of rules, and one each of everything that will later become a distinct '3D 'thing'. Sort of like the DNA of an acorn seed. The seed theoretically contains only one molecule of 'bark' with a 'rule' for how to add energy to start its dividing into as many more molecules as needed to grow a tree. Like a Jpeg2000- algorithm that compresses a structure, eliminating all redundancy and substituting a mathematical 'rule for decompression', reproducing the whole using some input of energy quanta.

So just after the Big Bang, light is moving very, very quickly. So much more quickly than everything else is expanding that it would have made the circular journey around the whole expanding universal sphere very quickly. The effect of this on any structures forming in the universe at the time would be to mix them up, like putting a stick into a gallon of paint and stirring it. That might explain the idea of the multi-fractal distribution of galaxys because even on earth, we know that a good way of getting chaotic, fractal patterns is to start with a well defined structure and stir it up in exactly this way. The recursiveness would be in the algorithms that create the structure and the unobstructed energy flows in various parts of the expanding 'system' could naturally and theoretically be traceable recursively.

The hologram part comes in by thinking about what might be going on during the period of mixing. Parts of each section of the structure of the universe would have been distributed into every part of space. The effect of this is to make each part of space representative of what is going on in all of space. The universe before and after mixing is like the difference between a photograph and a hologram. Each part of a photograph holds a different part of the image, so if you tear a corner off a photograph, you've only got one part of the image. A hologram isn't like this. Each part of a hologram contains bits of all of the image, although it does so with less clarity (resolution) than the whole hologram contains the whole image. Tear a corner off a hologram, and you can make out the whole of the image in it, from one angle. Could this property of the universe, that a part can be used to understand the whole, be the basis (or part of it) of that hermetic axiom "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above"? Could it also make sense of the C's comment concerning how we are microcosms of the universe - everything already inside us?

The idea of inner recognition and the ten-step perception model seems to be related to a particular subject where the 'rules for reproducing' seems to be equivalent expressions, but in different contexts:

In case the idea is unfamiliar to some people, there is an optical technology called "phase conjugate devices" or "phase conjugate mirror (PCM)". I believe these things were first developed for use as death rays on battlefields or something like that. The problem with using lasers as death rays is that the beams are defocused by the atmosphere that they must pass through on the way to the target.

A tight and highly destructive beam that can cut steel in a fraction of a second originates from an attacking tank, but by the time it reaches the target it has been defocused by passing through moving, shimmering air currents containing water vapour and other impurities, enough to take quite a bit longer to make a hole. This gives the target long enough to use a phase conjugate device in a particularly fiendish way.

Part of the attacking beam is allowed to enter a component in the device with optical properties that change depending on the amount of light passing through it. There the attacking beam forms a constantly moving pattern, which contains information about the atmospheric conditions the beam passed through (because we know the beam started out as a perfectly focused laser beam). Then this constantly moving pattern within the device is treated like a hologram - just like the printed holograms found on credit cards - which is illuminated by a very powerful beam generated within the device. The result is a powerful and defocused beam emitted by the device, which passes through the atmosphere in the exact opposite direction to the attacking beam, and gets focused into a point by the exact atmospheric conditions the attacking beam passed through as it goes! No more attacker. Phase conjugate devices work, so the idea of using a real time pattern, held in something that can respond to it, to detect or modify something else that is entering the same device certainly works.

So then from the perspective of energy, a human being might be said to be like a hologram of energy fields (even the physical body is a field of energy). Memory might be likened to the pattern in the PCM. The incoming data streams enter through the body's various senses. The entire collection of data bits that are present in a moment of time, light up or match up with the corresponding bits in our being, and the individual 'recognizes' as a process of perceiving the closest possible match with incoming data. If the individual is still in the ego or body-centric view, then what he sees from that one angle is how he interprets the sense data and creates his perception of the world, reinforced by the internal dialog of narration and social conditioning.

If the person was flexible enough, maybe he could choose from multiple angles of view for the same data in the same moment of time and perhaps be able to see something entirely different or some "pattern within a larger pattern".

In such a case, the statement: "the intuitive notion that 'scale', 'distance', 'location'/'placement', etc. do not actually exist..." would be true because such notions depend on which angle is chosen for viewing 'things'.

The teamwork idea is also related to the hologram idea in the sense that no one individual in any team should be the holder of "all the knowledge" in a given topic to the exclusion of other knowledge. In essence, the distribution of knowledge throughout the team must be more like a hologram than a photograph. As an example, let's say that I need to know a lot about my job, and a little about yours. You need to know a lot about your job and a little about mine. The little I know of yours must be a true and fair representation, no matter how bizarrely I may seem to express it from your point of view. Then you and I can talk to each other and maybe get some coordinated action going and the team could steam-roll through it's goals.

It's interesting, indeed, to view familiar subjects from several angles and see them interrelate within a whole. :)

 

[nwigal]

Anyhow, it gets quite interesting when you think of the idea that each part of creation includes the whole and not only vice versa, combined with this idea of the self-interrelation of All as described above; it suggests for existence a recursive structure of some kind. Thinking about how things are related to each other in this way, one (at any rate I do) gets the intuitive notion that 'scale', 'distance', 'location'/'placement', etc. do not actually exist, which corresponds to what has been said regarding higher densities beginning with 4D.

That stimulates thoughts about similarities between subjects like teamwork, knowledge as inner patterns that allow recognition, the mechanics of perception, the fractal quality of some aspects of 3D nature's physical structures, holograms and phase conjugate devices.

Starting with the cosmological view, what if the Big Bang theory is correct, but instead of everything coming from a 'singularity', everything comes from a single compressed 'seed' structure - a blueprint or set of rules, and one each of everything that will later become a distinct '3D 'thing'. Sort of like the DNA of an acorn seed. The seed theoretically contains only one molecule of 'bark' with a 'rule' for how to add energy to start its dividing into as many more molecules as needed to grow a tree. Like a Jpeg2000- algorithm that compresses a structure, eliminating all redundancy and substituting a mathematical 'rule for decompression', reproducing the whole using some input of energy quanta.

So just after the Big Bang, light is moving very, very quickly. So much more quickly than everything else is expanding that it would have made the circular journey around the whole expanding universal sphere very quickly. The effect of this on any structures forming in the universe at the time would be to mix them up, like putting a stick into a gallon of paint and stirring it. That might explain the idea of the multi-fractal distribution of galaxys because even on earth, we know that a good way of getting chaotic, fractal patterns is to start with a well defined structure and stir it up in exactly this way. The recursiveness would be in the algorithms that create the structure and the unobstructed energy flows in various parts of the expanding 'system' could naturally and theoretically be traceable recursively.

The hologram part comes in by thinking about what might be going on during the period of mixing. Parts of each section of the structure of the universe would have been distributed into every part of space. The effect of this is to make each part of space representative of what is going on in all of space. The universe before and after mixing is like the difference between a photograph and a hologram. Each part of a photograph holds a different part of the image, so if you tear a corner off a photograph, you've only got one part of the image. A hologram isn't like this. Each part of a hologram contains bits of all of the image, although it does so with less clarity (resolution) than the whole hologram contains the whole image. Tear a corner off a hologram, and you can make out the whole of the image in it, from one angle. Could this property of the universe, that a part can be used to understand the whole, be the basis (or part of it) of that hermetic axiom "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above"? Could it also make sense of the C's comment concerning how we are microcosms of the universe - everything already inside us?

The idea of inner recognition and the ten-step perception model seems to be related to a particular subject where the 'rules for reproducing' seems to be equivalent expressions, but in different contexts:

In case the idea is unfamiliar to some people, there is an optical technology called "phase conjugate devices" or "phase conjugate mirror (PCM)". I believe these things were first developed for use as death rays on battlefields or something like that. The problem with using lasers as death rays is that the beams are defocused by the atmosphere that they must pass through on the way to the target.

A tight and highly destructive beam that can cut steel in a fraction of a second originates from an attacking tank, but by the time it reaches the target it has been defocused by passing through moving, shimmering air currents containing water vapour and other impurities, enough to take quite a bit longer to make a hole. This gives the target long enough to use a phase conjugate device in a particularly fiendish way.

Part of the attacking beam is allowed to enter a component in the device with optical properties that change depending on the amount of light passing through it. There the attacking beam forms a constantly moving pattern, which contains information about the atmospheric conditions the beam passed through (because we know the beam started out as a perfectly focused laser beam). Then this constantly moving pattern within the device is treated like a hologram - just like the printed holograms found on credit cards - which is illuminated by a very powerful beam generated within the device. The result is a powerful and defocused beam emitted by the device, which passes through the atmosphere in the exact opposite direction to the attacking beam, and gets focused into a point by the exact atmospheric conditions the attacking beam passed through as it goes! No more attacker. Phase conjugate devices work, so the idea of using a real time pattern, held in something that can respond to it, to detect or modify something else that is entering the same device certainly works.

So then from the perspective of energy, a human being might be said to be like a hologram of energy fields (even the physical body is a field of energy). Memory might be likened to the pattern in the PCM. The incoming data streams enter through the body's various senses. The entire collection of data bits that are present in a moment of time, light up or match up with the corresponding bits in our being, and the individual 'recognizes' as a process of perceiving the closest possible match with incoming data. If the individual is still in the ego or body-centric view, then what he sees from that one angle is how he interprets the sense data and creates his perception of the world, reinforced by the internal dialog of narration and social conditioning.

If the person was flexible enough, maybe he could choose from multiple angles of view for the same data in the same moment of time and perhaps be able to see something entirely different or some "pattern within a larger pattern".

In such a case, the statement: "the intuitive notion that 'scale', 'distance', 'location'/'placement', etc. do not actually exist..." would be true because such notions depend on which angle is chosen for viewing 'things'.

The teamwork idea is also related to the hologram idea in the sense that no one individual in any team should be the holder of "all the knowledge" in a given topic to the exclusion of other knowledge. In essence, the distribution of knowledge throughout the team must be more like a hologram than a photograph. As an example, let's say that I need to know a lot about my job, and a little about yours. You need to know a lot about your job and a little about mine. The little I know of yours must be a true and fair representation, no matter how bizarrely I may seem to express it from your point of view. Then you and I can talk to each other and maybe get some coordinated action going and the team could steam-roll through it's goals.

It's interesting, indeed, to view familiar subjects from several angles and see them interrelate within a whole. :)

Since I've been back on-line, I've gone back to reading what research I can find on DNA and neutrinos. I have this question (partly inspired from the transcripts-thanks, Laura) : could the additional strands of DNA allow a phase conjugate function, leading to access and perception of the information in neutrino fields? I don't know, but the research sure is fun!

 

[Joe]

That stimulates thoughts about similarities between subjects like teamwork, knowledge as inner patterns that allow recognition, the mechanics of perception, the fractal quality of some aspects of 3D nature's physical structures, holograms and phase conjugate devices.

Starting with the cosmological view, what if the Big Bang theory is correct, but instead of everything coming from a 'singularity', everything comes from a single compressed 'seed' structure - a blueprint or set of rules, and one each of everything that will later become a distinct '3D 'thing'. Sort of like the DNA of an acorn seed. The seed theoretically contains only one molecule of 'bark' with a 'rule' for how to add energy to start its dividing into as many more molecules as needed to grow a tree. Like a Jpeg2000- algorithm that compresses a structure, eliminating all redundancy and substituting a mathematical 'rule for decompression', reproducing the whole using some input of energy quanta.

Hey Bud, I suppose you didn't hear what mainstream science has to say...

People not smart enough to understand universe: scientist

June 13, 2010

A top British scientist says we may never know all the secrets of the universe because, quite simply, we're just not smart enough.

"Just as Einstein's ideas would baffle a chimpanzee," said President of the Royal Society Lord Martin Rees, gaining a full understanding of how the universe works might not be possible "simply because they're beyond human brains."

"Just as a fish may be barely aware of he medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains."

Lord Rees made the comments to the Sunday Times in London in response to the fact that scientists have been yet unable to create a unifying theory to describe how the universe works.

He suggests that the idea of multiple parallel universes, human consciousness and the very idea of reality may be simply beyond our understanding.

It's as if a fish is swimming in one pond, completely unaware that thousands of other ponds exist mere meters away from it. Understanding that those ponds even exist, let alone understanding their connection to the original pond, is understandably beyond the comprehension of a single fish.

Similarly, that parallel universes could exist in up to 11 dimensions - while humanity is restricted to three spatial dimensions and time - is beyond human understanding.

"In theory, there could be another entire universe less than a millimetre away from us, but we are oblivious to it because that millimetre is measured in a fourth spatial dimension and we are imprisoned in just three," he said in the interview.

Maybe you'll prove him wrong... ;)

 

[Buddy]

Maybe you'll prove him wrong... ;)

Maybe we all will prove him wrong. Me? No way. Like nwigal alludes to: "the research/learning is fun". And it's good exercise for the brain. :D

 

[Joe]

Maybe you'll prove him wrong... ;)

Maybe we all will prove him wrong. Me? No way. Like nwigal alludes to: "the research/learning is fun". And it's good exercise for the brain. :D

Indeed! And I wouldn't necessarily give much credence to what "Lord Martin Rees" has to say anyhoo! :P

 

[Psalehesost]

Since this has become sort-of a general thread regarding the seemingly (and suggested) recursive structure of existence, and roundabout matters, I decided to post this here as a split-off from the recent thread on mathematics and infinity.

First, for context, I link the part of the Wave quoting Ouspensky on how our minds determine the number of 'dimensions' of our world that we perceive. That description addresses perception of the physical world and mental functioning, and in this way ends up describing to some extent the difference between densities - densities being different modes of perception and interaction with the same underlying reality, as I understand it.

My thoughts are very simple and abstract by comparison. Now, quotage on c:

Total number of points on a line is infinite, that is okay. Actually, since line is continuous, the number of points equals c (continuum).
But, since there is no higher power of infinity than c [in this context], the total number of points in a square is, again, c, and not c-squared.
Yes, I know, it's mind-boggling, but it's true.

And not only that - if you take any line segment, like [0,10], then its power is c. But also, any of its subsets - like [0,1], also has c elements.
Or rather, the total number of points of any line segment is the same as the total number of points of an entire line.

It's beginning to intuitively make sense. There being an infinite number of points besides, infinitely close to, and between any points, there is no limit to possible points. And so, adding another dimension of the same does not change this, because there is already infinite possibility for more points.

Any subrange of the real numbers have c; as such different ranges of real numbers could be seen as different ways of representing (maybe not proper mathematical word (?), but will do) the same infinity.

Any part of the whole here contains the whole in terms of having the same infinity. This can perhaps be a good analogy to (and mental model of) the idea of any part of creation containing the whole and not just vice-versa.

Different continuous lines have the same infinity, and the same infinity as squares (in turn cubes, and so on) in terms of number of points. Or, seeing that same infinity as analogous to the "same underlying reality" - going from one density to another could then be likened to going from representing this reality as a line, to representing it as a square, and so on, each having the same infinity, only 'read' or 'represented' and then 'interacted with' differently.

By having a mental model of the continuum infinity in the case of lines and squares and then seeing the relation, perhaps one can get a vague mental feel for the 'mapping' from one way of reading the same reality to another.

OSIT.