UNPUZZLING THE PUZZLE

Integrity is the dynamic ability for information processing. It is the tendency toward maximization of kinetic stability via mechanisms of elastic resilience and information transcription, that enables an entity to maintain its existence via adaptively mutable ffunctions. The openness and ability to handle a range of energies (inputs, outputs and transfers) is the hallmark of all dynamic systems.

That also means not being restricted to some singular mechanism of information processing. Which retranslates to 2 basic boundary conditions. The first, which is the one current physics is built upon, sees an event as a self referential closed system.
It is therefore possible to specify a fixed value for potential plus kinetic energies and establish dynamic relations around that "conserved number". E_u + E_k = E_T , where E_T is a boundary of the system. Most of our science is built on this rule of conservation: logic, energy, symmetry, harmonic motion et al. The other boundary condition permits openness, and is more reflected by Fuzzy Logic. It considers closely bounded systems, but allows for extraneous interaction events with the environment. It monitors the information in a more complete open way, from an external vantage point, that constantly re-evaluates the internal proceedings of a system as heading toward some goal state that is reachable "within" the relationship states of the system. Such systems are not closed bounded and self controlling from within, but can be monitored apart from the homeostatic ffunctioning of the system itself. This creates asymptotic approaches to stable or goal states. Adjustive re-corrections done on one side of an energy-hill, rather than harmonically diminished from several sides.

The distinction here is tantamount to Gödel's terminology of Formal vs. Informal systems. The perceptual qualification I make, is that no matter which perspective you happen to choose or use, there is still a continual flow of interaffective energy and information that persists regardless. Any "bound" is a happenstancial one, or convenient one, or higher efficiency one. Remember the story of the Philadelphia Orchestra? If we just wanted to hear the music played, then the only thing we would need are working musical instruments, competent musicians, a music score, and combining them all together. That would suffice. But. If we wanted to hear it in the "best possible" way, then the boundary - the parameters needed to be considered in order to achieve that goal - has to include the acoustics of the location, the techniques of the musicians and conductor, the quality and tune of the instruments, and all the other factors that can be accounted for. As all of these things are "fine tuned" ahead of time, a desired end can be achieved. Information coordination. A fuzzy process.

In most systems, survivability is as strongly dependent on "non-knowledge" (potential information) as it is on actual knowledge (information present). That is, a system or extant will always be of such a construction, that it will have the potential to process future energy/information encounters.

Theories to-date - especially the ones connected to Chaos and Complexity - have been pursued strictly on the tacit assumption that only "more" knowledge and "more" information will illuminate, explain and describe everything. The hope is that there will be mathematical formulas equally applicable to the growth of mold, or the paths of river flows, or meteorology as well as to economic forecasting. There is a maddening rush to acquire and apply more data - en mass and in computable formulations. But, even though there have been many successes using this approach, there is something missing. The "essence" of systems behaviors can't quite be grasped. The more we try to rigidify the world into "clock-work" mechanisms...no matter how sophisticated or elaborate or novel...the "why" is always missing!

Not whether or how this system or that "does" follow some model of behavior or another...but why they should in the first place. Why couldn't there be a whole diversity of models that are equally valid? Such a state of affairs is not outside the realm of possibility. So, we are led to ask: what is it about all existing diverse systems that they should follow discernably similar rules at all? And, if we have more and more "information" about any given system, why do we still have trouble predicting behaviors, beyond a limited degree of accuracy? In one sense, the coordination of data and schematics into models of higher and higher accuracy and data-content, is a procedure that actually runs counter to the "quality" of the systems they try to represent. The reason is that the models themselves have become less adaptive (under current strategies) by over-specifying specific responses. They remain very "mechanistic".

Rather, in kineticly dynamic systems, both organic and inorganic, there is a latitude of possible responses, for any given set of conditions and construction. Moreover, not only does a given system have a group of possible valid responses, but, the evaluation/response becomes one of the conditional factors that affects successive effect responses.

The extent and temporal orientations of these phenomena can even help elucidate the humorous fact that even though we are constantly moving "forward" in Time, we spend the majority of our lives "living in the past". We literally "think backwards" in the frame of behavior. I nicknamed it Reverse Extrapolative Causality Linkage (trying to come up with the acronym RECALL). Actually, we are constantly dealing with the past and the future, in order to successfully interact with each "now".

Our minds work in a way that is paralleled by the following note I wrote to a friend of mine on a computer network bulletin board. The service provided two ways of getting messages - electronic mail & bulletin board notes. When signing on to the service, first access was to the e-mail. Getting to the bulletin boards took several later steps. I found my self in a situation where I was writing a bulletin board message first which I was going to follow up by writing a longer e-mail to him. I realized that when he would log on to the system, he would have access to the e-mail first and only afterward, to the bulletin board message. He would "experience" my messages in the reverse order of the sequence I had written (or was about to write) them. How I structured my references between related information texts in the two notes had to be done with a lot of forethought!

"Dear Jim,

I have already attempted a new methodology....but won't put it on the BB. You'll have it by e-mail, by the time you read this note.

You see, the information path for e-mail interacts with you along your information/experience processing network earlier in that form than in this one... even though I haven't written that one yet. Rather relativistic, wouldn't you say? I experience "now" before "then". You will experience my "then" BEFORE you experience my "now". Does that infer we are out of tune with each other? Will you have reacted to these notes differently, because they are developmentally sequential from MY perspective, than if you had been seated next to me as I was writing them? Or will how I have yet to phrase the e-mail (which you have already read at "this" point in time), color your reaction. Should I refer to this note in the e-mail? Should I only consider MY flow of thoughts, and let you sort it all out after you will have read everything?

You might reasonably infer that somehow, in MY universe, I experience disjointed Time (!). The thought patterns within each note seem to flow "time-forward", yet when you correlate "e-mail" with "BB" ... they seem to flow "time-reversed" (!) My,oh,my! Such a conundrum <g>! What should I DO? (or "have done"...as you are reading it now). Do/did I pop-into your e-mail consciousness, as if you had read this already....which will be impossible. Should/have I refer(ed) to this note in the e-mail, so that you will have some idea of what you will/have-already read and will not be made to feel like a turtle trying to walk with its back on the ground? Is this "predestination" or is it "free will"? Is this funny? or is it NOT? Then why am I (did I) sit here chuckling the whole time I write/wrote this? Or should I say, "wrote/write" this? (There IS a difference, you know, said the reborn Walrus!)

Such a quandary...such a DI-lemma (g) !!! What WILL I do ????? What have I....DONE ???? (you'll know before I do) (did) ?

......calling Lewis Carroll, calling Mr. Carroll !!!!!!

Jamie (rolling on the floor laughing!!!)".

In point of fact, I believe this is how brains process information. Every encounter at every moment requires that we continually recall and call into action every possible Integrity supportive bit of information that is retained in memory and is appropriate
for a current or anticipated encounter. This is a reverse-exploration process that continues even as we constantly progress time-forward (the internal vs. external processing rates being as diverse as "neuronal rete vs. the capacity for expressing that knowledge", as we interface with our immediate environments. The internal ffunctions are a network of co-processors. The external interface transfers are essentially linear Turing operations...the 5 or so distinct "sense" apparatuses). Our brains are a blend of might be called "oppositely directed" activities. Psychologists might label this "searching for appropriate behaviors". I call it Recall, that always functions with reference to Integrity maintenance.

As a youngster, I loved doing puzzles. And I noticed something fascinating about solving mazes. Trying to find the correct path by starting at the "beginning" wasn't always easy without a lot of trial and error, previous experiences, or intuition. But, if I took a large overview, and started at the "goal" and worked backwards, the solutions became eminently easy to find. This made me aware of several things. First, I realized that nearly every maze-puzzle has some sort of bias built in to its design...probably from the designer's own personal tacit perspectives, or by the nature of "junctures" (intersection angles, increasing or diminishing options)... whereby it is easier to establish the various patterns and causal connections in the goal-to-source direction than in the source-to-goal direction. An "entropy" gradient in the design so to speak. An important factor in that technique was also being able to constantly maintain an overview of the flow and design of each maze - being able to quickly evaluate side paths at each juncture. Working backwards, side paths tended to be of shorter length (and therefore quicker to evaluate) because of "environmental" compaction that existed. In biological terms ... a competition for limited econiche space. In any closed-bounded domain, the number of options present when any juncture is progressively reached - and the number of options fixed - diminishes the remaining space available to create additional separate paths. That alone is enough to create a "decision differential". Each use of space within a boundary reduces the choices left available at subsequent locations.

"Original experience" typically proceeds slowly by the source-to-the-goal constraint. Yet, once the information net is expanded ... and the thought or process space is defined (retained) ... the connections become relational and are forever perceived and evaluated "in larger context". Whorf's "experience becomes perception (expression), which in turn, becomes "experience"". Mental operations then ffunction primarily in a time-reversed mode, because that activity is supportive of quicker response times and therefore greater security-stability, ie, Integrity. "Recall". Everything universal proceeds "time-forward". Information retention in quantities over-and-above minimal "stasis" requirements permits the re-use of that information, "retrieved" in paths that are basically directed contra the paths of acquisition. Over and over again. We "go forward" into our pasts, to deal with "now", and anticipate the future. The improved ease of retrieval - defined by constant positive feedback to whatever Integrity states are involved - is achieved by the constant re-processing of those success-loops, and are known to psychologists as "reinforcement" behaviors.

Artificial Intelligence research has reached an interesting plateau, in this regard. The micro- and nano- circuitry available , combined with co-processor redundancy, is producing some spectacular results. It would be worthwhile (in my estimation) to go one step further. It would be wise to use the programming and computer architecture that has been developed in the machines that play Chess! Those programs already ffunction as Recall operations in evaluating moves and strategies. They use "probability for success" evaluations - several moves deep - for each initial response choice, and see those options in terms of the move-space available. Some routes are open ended. Some close off rather quickly. Others lead to obvious failure vis a vis some "goal". The choice-set improves as the game continues. The menu of action choices improves as the game progresses. In the closed environment of chess, this leads to winning strategies. But the same process can be applied to holistic open-environments. In this case there is a duality of options that can be developed: safe conservative choices that re-enact and re-enforce past behavior choices, and, adventuresome behaviors ... keeping and applying the repertoire of other infrequently used choice-options which might find new appropriateness as new situations and conditions arise as the environment continues to expand.

Applying this to artificial intelligence would give it a ten fold or better increase in desired performance, by "evaluation synchronization" of input from several distinct parts of the electro-magnetic spectra. Each evaluated separately, then internally in synchronous coordination. Each choice-moment evaluated under the synchrony of Fuzzy Logic.

The ceptualization that becomes most obvious is that it is right here that we find the true difference between living and non-living systems! Human-made artificial systems are close-bounded, where as "natural" systems are open-bounded on all levels. A "robotically" devised system has some framework architecture that is distinct and separate from the programming. That framework will always ffunction as a boundary limit of possible behavior. A chess board is a closed-field of 64 locations. A robotic AI will always have x number of circuits, gates, connectors and processors - no matter how large that number may be. And the "programming" will only be as applicable as those constraints allow. "Living" systems will always be distinguishable because every level will never be limited by those restrictions.

My youngest daughter - by age twenty months - had been shown and exposed to a variety of experiences and concepts. Among other things, she had been taught "in", as in you can put things "in" a cup. Among her toys - dolls, whistles, bells, books, rollers, etc - was a single soft cat figure. It was the only one open on the bottom and we had shown her how to put her hand up inside, and we called the thing "puppet". An obvious thing to older humans ...a figurine that could be manipulated to resemble a living creature. Well, I walked in to her room one morning to take her out of her crib. She was sitting toward one end of the crib, back resting on the spokes, holding and playing with her milk bottle. As I walked in, she glanced up at me, then very matter of factly turned to look down at her feet again. Without a moments hesitation she took her bottle, which was the disposable insert type (open on the bottom)...and put it on her foot with wriggling toes. "Puppet", she announced, very proudly.

There it was. No face, no figurine likeness. It didn't matter that it was a foot up inside this thing and not her hand. Out of all the experiential information she was capable of processing, she was open enough to recognize what another essence of "puppet" was...from among all the other noise/data she had experienced...and apply that special real version and meaning to the world around her. Would even the most astute AI programmer be able to include every potential option to account for all known and unanticipated interactions and viable Integrity responses? Are past experience or practiced biases truly the sole reliable guides for designing the future?

All energy transfer - and components of that transfer - is information. The only "apparent" difference is ffunctionality. "Useful" energy is information. Energy which seemingly has no use, purpose or pertinence, is "noise". This is the limitation inherent in whether a given organization is "open to making connections" or not - from the flurry of all possible information. An openness which "artificial" systems cannot exhibit, that living systems can. Within the capacity of every life form is the ability to encounter and respond to all energy as potential information. Artificial systems are constrained by the imagination and awareness limitations of their creators. And deficiencies or inadequacies in preplanned preparation end up being displayed as limited-performance-operations. Closed-boundedness. Living systems are open-bounded. Gödel is closed. Integrity is open.

In computer hardware, one of the primary limitations of size reduction (as a measure & technique for improved performance) is the amount of heat produced by the movement of so many electrons through the circuitry. In living systems, heat removal has been co-developed along with the information processing structures. For some life forms, the general environment it exists in is the "heat-sink". In others, such as ourselves, circulating fluids (blood, eg) are a co-ffunctional system for conveying energy containing molecules into where they are needed, removing waste byproducts out, and heat-removal. All (and more obviously) dynamically interactive in accomplishing several requirements simultaneously. (This being another indicator that several entropies are co-operating in any given process.)

This is the difference between a Biota or Gaia, and what humanity has created "artificially". We haven't yet been able to pre-plan for the extraordinarily wide spectrum and interconnectedness of information and energy transfers....the integrated integral Integrity co-dependence. Fuzzy Logic is one of the steps in the right direction, because it opens up the channelizations and connections of possibility. It enables a mutually singular-coordination of information, energies, ideas, and potential. Dynamically focussed toward the smooth ffunctioning of some identifiably unique organization - which is open to balanced adjustments by a spectrum of inffluences. In a way, this is a window toward appreciating just how extraordinary Creation is. Just as AI entities are insufficient models for us and our conscious-ness, we too, ...all life... are insufficient models for the Essence behind Creation. I can't help but sit back and laugh, thinking that we ... all of us ... everything in the Universe ... just might be the God-head's idea of "Artificial Intelligence"!! As incredible as all of the Universe is, it still pales in the light of that Essence. Absolutely fantastic and awe inspiring.

The ffunctional mechanics of Fuzzy Logic - which is the predominate process for handling information - comes into strong focus here. In the current state of analysis about Fuzzy Logic, there is a strong requirement to re-evaluate existing (read: human expert interaction with subtle system controls and manipulations) procedures, and code/translate them into a spectrum of weighted and interaffective rules. ( In one sense, this re-establishes the smooth informational continuum of the Calculus... designating a finer and finer mesh netting of information "infinitesimals" that blend into continuous but alternative options) In the primary analysis though, the "bounds" and "goals" must be predetermined, the language and choice options pre-evaluated, and the Fuzzy control deployments built around that knowledge. As the control process continues it must constantly refer back to such "net-goals" and "bound parameters". The re-loop is a RECALL process.

For "limited parameter" and AI systems, this is easy enough to recognize and define. We bring "information" into the system (extract it from observations, then purposefully re-organize it), just like the old imagery of Maxwell's Demon. But what happens when we evaluate organic "living" systems that have malleable bounds and adaptive goals and priorities, that "self-creates" complexity from inside-out. This is just where the entropic gradients of the Integrity Principle are most apparent. Maintenance of the several dynamic stabilities of the nested levels of ffunctional organization are the bell-curve medians around which Fuzzy-logic operates. Compatible symbiotic interprocesses "within" levels of organization, and "among" levels of organization. The "singular directive" which allows and requires all latitudes of behaviors, and is the perpetual reference and rule which evaluative dynamics adhere to.

Summing to our thematic overview, the Ceptualist Integrity Paradigm is grounded in the experiential "facts" of everyday experience and even "experiment". "Ideas" are the biological acting out of relationships "discovered" by "encountering-events". Projecting broader possible ramifications, is what our "theoretical ideations and ceptualizations" then attempt to accomplish. When such efforts sometime fall short...it usually happens because some unappreciated factor existed outside the knowledge rete, that ended up substantively altering the "predicted" outcome.

From my point of view, all these phenomena require non-discontinuous domains. It may be that the "operations" of Quantum Mechanics are very explicit and distinct...vis a vis...verifiable physics phenomena. BUT, to me, the over-riding importance is in the fact that QM calculations exist in a BROADER unbroken continuum of what we label the "number-line". The number-line is NOT quantized!!!. WE may have no better tools (yet) than "quantized integers"...that is: our understanding of QM as quantization is not a RESULT of nodal-machinations, rather, they are expressions of qualities PRESCRIBED at the very beginning...because it is built on Integers that began as distinct quantums!

We only have a simple ACTIVE FUNCTION that is "infinite": the Calculus. Simple singular dimensional differentials - used linearly one at a time - are the first usable attempt at designing more elaborate ceptual tools... but we are not done yet. There must be new operators ...fluidic-continuum operators...that can be used to establish the total continuum environment ... in which, QM exists and functions. Quantum Mechanics and Continuum are co-extants in the holisitic functioning of the universe.

That brings up the intriguing images which I proposed before: the possibility (nee: probability) of companions to Calculus - such as "amounts" (Indefinite Integers, or, Indefinite Bits) that have usable qualities and mathematical functions and relationships, yet, can not (or NEED not) be affixed and specified. Crucially, we also need Operators that can topologically translate between fluencial continuums....an exponential version of the Calculus.

The other topic that needs to be addressed in the "language" of Mathematics is its lack of symbolic elements representing dynamic impetus or cause. That feature must be added, each and every time anyone examines and evaluates mathematical formulations. The simplest way of explaining this is to recognize that if you input even the most powerful equations or computing analogues into a computer, the "machine" just sits there like an inert blob of junk...until a sentient mentality inputs a "go to" or "do" or "compute" or "start" COMMAND. The equations, as they exist in today's repertoire of symbols, just sit inside the computer as "potential" and cannot generate temporally relevant valuations and domains unless the "motivation" is added. Equations remain as statements of relationships of static and independent conditions --- an interesting collection of "comparators" with nothing to connect them.

Like viewing a snapshot of a satellite orbiting a larger mass... formulas will show frozen correlations that have no relevance to the phenomena that is happening "over time". Until we say, "ok, do the next step." Do you catch my drift? Mathematics contains no temporally equivalent "do" symbols, to set the equations in motion. How can a mathematical photograph of an instantaneous collection of spatial relationships even begin to convey how those bodies are moving in kinetic relevance with each other? Is the small body moving "in orbit"? Is it plummeting into the larger mass? Are they repelling each other? The dynamics is only apparent when you "start the ball rolling"! Chaos math is restricted by this dilemma. It relies on the old standard symbols and operators that do nothing to elucidate the dynamics of forces "in temporal balance". How could it possibly even begin to discuss "causes" that might give a temporal kinetic direction and speed to events in the universe? Currently...it can't. All it can do is make "pretty pictures" and plead ... "can't you see the wonderful things going on here?" (NO.) Because there are tools missing ... words ... symbols ... to express the crucial ideas of ... motivation, cause, purpose, goal, process. What reason is there for things flying around space the way they do (from the infinitely small to the infinitely large). A more subtle foundation that precedes even Celestial Mechanics. Modelling of phenomena requires our constant interaction with the analogues in order for representations to remain "meaningful". It would behoove us to designate analog-Operators that would self-propel the models in correspondence with physical extants.

Where does a new concept like that even begin to show up in all our mathematical machinations? It has to be perceived ... understood ... defined ... then put in ... and applied. There will be no resolution or holistic understanding until that is done first. It is just as valid, if not more so, than defining "A" or not "A". Right now, equations can wander haphazardly ... uncoordinated and random ... without synchronicity or mutual relevance. Oh, we can grab this formula or that and say, "see, it fits. It works." But application depends upon sentient evaluation. And now, these sentient beings - us/we - are looking for behavioral motivation.

Motivation won't be found by tearing down a mechanical engine into its material components (or atoms into constituent sub-particles). It will be found over there on the table ... in the volatile liquid filling that jar ... labelled "gasoline" ... (next to the hand crank or starter motor(!)). We need new ideas and new words.

In the realm of human consciousness, we must begin to account for all the diversity of opinions, points of view, social and conceptual and behavioral organizations, spiritual cognitions ... everything that we attribute to human existence (without putting VALUE JUDGEMENT on them)? Just the mere existence of all this incredible diversity ... for our species alone, let alone all the other life forms that do, or have, existed on this fair planet ... speaks to the NATURAL connected pathway of interconnected events (linear only in the sense that we are ignorant of the unsuccessful path options that were tried). THAT is what my work focuses on. A way to account for all this diversity ... in a fluidly connected way, including the discretums of Quantum Mechanics ... not just in a mathematically describable continuum of infinitely nested dimensions ... but more importantly ... to comprehend a "behavior" that is common and applicable to all phenomena.

Even to the point of being able to see anomalies and disjunctions as exactly what they are ...normal and natural in the goings and comings of the universe. Any particular behavior or action or thought might not be situationally appropriate for its environment (like "anti-social" behavior, when judged in the context of a given social system), yet, can be a valid and "normal" behavior in a different system...or more generally, in the spectrum of what is possible. There are connections and interrelations. There is a reason why a given activity or behavior can be acceptable in one context and unacceptable in another. According to my ceptualizations, there is a connection between the structure and behavior of sub-atomic particles ... and the behaviors of complex organisms. There are "boundary" conditions ... within the spectrum of nested infinite continuums ... whereby the diversity of behaviors can assist in the maintenance of each next higher level of complexity. This dictum is as true for the microscopically small, as for the macrocosmically large, or the inordinately complex. There is "actual" existence (Aristotelian), and there is "heterotelic" existence (existing because of something else. Such as:"between" ... which only "exists", so to speak, when two "actual" things exist) <"transcendental" existence>. The beauty of the universe rests in the absolute surety that ALL "things" are so interrelatedly similar, that things constantly and always interact. It is Perpetual Interaction Capability that underscores the mutuality of all existence. Mutuality of architecture. Mutuality of environmental continuums in which to interact. Mutuality of everything.

Recall my comments on the beginnings of Mathematics. Math was built upon the notion of distinctions/differences. Its "first-order" component is "integers". That may seem trivial to you, except, it is NOT. It is fundamental to EVERYTHING and anything else derived from that condition.

Mathematics was not born complete and fully formed out of the mind of Athena...even as nice a mythological image as that was for some of our cultural forebears. Relational-reality (that underpinning environment..."Mathematica") is elucidated as we explore how it is expressed in the functions and behaviors of physical existence. We experience existence first. It is only after that...in our processes for coping with energy and information and events ... that secure, maintain and promote our existences ... that we cognize and ceptualize "us" and "environment". We make distinctions and qualities of variance. The "me/not-me" matrix transforms via establishing the experience of "two", of duality, long before it becomes a cognitive "understanding". Organic beings "store" information. And for us, who are only more organically sophisticated (but not "superior" in organic functioning than even amoebas), reflexively use that information.

Here we are, a couple of million, billion years along in the process of organic evolution, we organize our experiences .... the experience of Mathematica functioning in around and through us .... into information transcribing "languages" (all still a natural process, not only extension, of primal physical dynamics). Mathematics then, MUST work well. We designate it that way...derived from our collective experiences of interacting with existence-dynamics. <I know that this all comes across as very clinical, but in my mental images it is really rather organic ... even machines, plate tectonics, and black holes (!). We "discover" what already exists. And all our efforts effect refinements of what we understand ... how well and how correct. All, because it DOES make a difference on how we continue all those other ways in which we survive and exist, in and "of" the universe.

The fact that math "mirrors" physics...even predicts states of being... should be no surprise. Discerned relationships should be consistent at all levels of functioning, even if we started with the simplest: i.e. "counting"....1,2,3,.. . That is why I put so much importance on the Mutuality of existence...the realization of objective-fundamentalism. ("I hate using words that I know instantly as I use them, will probably be misinterpreted." "Oh well", he mused, chagrined at the situation.)

The situation that is "objective", is that every proton and every electron (et al.) will function like every other one in the universe. Our cognition that this is the true state of existence, is fundamental for doing anything ....everything. What we do or experience "today", will be just as true tomorrow. A billion years ago as well as billions of years in the future. Every "subjective", personal, individual, distinct event...for any extant in the universe, only helps us elucidate the range of statistically possible activities that a "thing/being" can participate in, or act out, during its time-of-existence. I have no problem accepting the "truth" of quantum-reality, as the functional expression of continuum-reality. Leibnitz and Newton discerned ways for taking the numerical continuum to the infinitely large and small at the same time, and what resulted were quantum-nodes. Only they called them differentials, instead of "quantum" states. But the relationships are there, even in basic geometry(!).

All this speaks to why I keep insisting on evaluating everything as temporally-kinetic instead of a collection of differential "instants and states". It is the constant flux of field-imbalances that "motivates" and drives all reactions of involved components. Under current paradigms, a particle is considered to be the "carrier" of force. I suggest that idea to be a misnomer. Particles ARE dimensionally condensed waves. Isospin and other qualities of subatomic existence are an interactive blend of partial-components that compress, expand, codify and de-codify Confluencially, entropy providing the asymmetry (the drive and motivation). Dimensions are topological domains through which information is constantly transcribed. Determinable conditions specify existences as "wave", others specify existences as "particle". As such, we are surrounded by "particles"... but experience wave-fields. The only difference between waves and particles is in the degree of information compression and coding of portions of their dynamic architecture.

Electrons jump around in orbital shells the same way that you or I walk across streams of water, jumping from dry stepstone to dry stepstone, countless times. We move in an environmental continuum from one place of kinetic stability to another. We act in ways that help maintain "us"...in the best possible condition...as we move from one place to another. Encountering energy events around us, and "inside" us, and in general, functioning in all the dynamic ways possible maintaining and assuring our Integrity An electron does the same thing(!). It just has less components to maintain. (Its "internal" structure is more closely aligned with basic principles and architecture). Yet its "behavior" is EXACTLY the same as any other Integral form of existence in the universe. The fundamental forces act entropicly, in the promotion of Kinetic Stability, which can take many forms...not just frozen stasis. Improving the ability to adapt to as yet unknown and unencountered situations, is an especially crucial Integrity mechanism. So. Gathering information... schooling, for example ... improves the kinetic stability of cognitive ceptualizing beings... by assuring life-supportive responses for any encountered situation. It opens up new reaction choices...different possible paths of processing the information and reacting to it. Expanding the interlinkages with the environment...people...life...ourselves. We can understand EVERYTHING....because we LIVE it.

We can posit that Quantum Mechanics was a natural CONSEQUENCE of that situation. It was not a mysteriously arising happenstance that we chanced upon along the way. Math started with discrete quantums. They were there at the outset. The first true way that any effort was made to go beyond Discretums, was the invention of the Calculus. It inferred an "infinite" series which progressed toward an "idealized" state of infinity which could be meaningfully used and applied .... even though "numerical digitation" would never be able to EXPRESS it. Leibnitz and Newton got a solid grasp on what had been wrestled with since the beginning of thought, since the ancient Greek philosophers grappled with "the infinite".

The frustrating difficulty with the state of physics and math today is that it is heading for the same conceptual brick wall that the ancients labored with. Only now we have this outrageously massive amount of quantitative data that has us floundering around in the region of the "nearly" infinitely small. And all we basically brought with us is "numerical digitation" ... now relativisticly transformed and reduced to both extreme "scales of existence".

Somehow, the "virtual" continuums of Leibnitz and Newton generate quantum plateaus. But at the limits of investigation, we don't have any phenomena to attach them to. We are being backed into the conceptual corner of having to develop a mathematical "structure" for VACUUM. And...even though we have better conceptual tools to work with than our forebears, we still confront a "limit" that they already took note of....even on their scale of ceptualization....the choice of labelling/quantizing the many states of forms of "infinity".

A new addendum of the Calculus is needed. A new way to blend the "discrete" with the "continuous". A possible new cept is the "Indefinite Integer"(c) 1993,. The new architecture being "Nested Infinite Continuums"(c) 1993,. It is a blending of Cantorian Infinities and non-Aristotelian Logic. It is a beginning.

The lack of a "direction" in Mathematics (that would give meaningful contextual clarity to the calculations) is due to the lack of a "temporal gradient" (!). There is no broad temporal environment written into the mathematics ... the net effect being that math is terrific at saying "what" will happen but it is at a loss to describe a holistic-dynamic of the "when" or "why". (That is what I am so intent on defining and adding to current math machinations) "Time" is a "conffluencial" (c)1993 (my word for multi- dimensional). It can be treated as any other dimensional domains and evaluated in terms of "transcription of information through n-dimensional continuums".

No one handed Leibnitz or Newton or Euler (or any of the others who built the math edifice we use today) any of the calculations and functions they put together. (!) They struggled for conceptual ways of "getting from here to there". A way of manipulating information that would correlate it and put it "together". They modelled relationships as they found the necessity. WE can do the same thing. WE can add to the structure of mathematics what is missing....and NEEDED in order to make it more complete.

I've got some pieces of the puzzle...I don't think I have it all yet. I'm not exactly sure how it all fits, but I do know that I'm on the right track. My ceptualizations show a simple yet concrete path how to start with the recognition of basic topological principles...merge it with calculus and information theory...and you can't help but get primal electro-magnetic relationships.(!) I wasn't looking to make that particular connection...I was looking for something else. It just a as a natural consequence of these other relations. That is why I'm so sure I'm using the correct reasonings and ceptualizations.

We may live in a complex world, yes, but "complexity" does not equal "unsolvable" or "unknowable" or even "uncontrollable". There is hardly a citizen of this world who does not have the intelligence to understand his or her own existence and respond to it positively... who they are, who we are, and even, where we are in the spectrum of existence.

Mathematically it comes down to Heisenberg: the subtlest variances in "initial conditions" create new conditions. An event of information or energy transfer alters the next set of adaptive reactions available. Any perturbation, even the slightest at any moment in the sequence of events, will affect a system.

The date is February 27, 1994 as I write this small addendum. I am about to take you on a diversionary ceptual side trip. I hope you enjoy the view <g>!  .....

[end Part14]   2025 Copyrights ceptualinstitute.com