can it be simpler?

23 11 2009

I watched a TED video. The chap looked a bit geeky, and didn’t seem too accustomed to people listening to him. Krank-like, I guess. However, his name is David Deutsch and he’s highly respected in the multi-universe physics world. Anyway, he offered a solution to why science has worked since the 16th century (namely because there is low variation), and this definitely rings true. (In my language: not surprising, really, since science is rooted in objective reality, independent of our minds, so there is less variation in terms of interpretation as we hone in on a explanation that matches actuality.) Of course, his concern is with the multiple interpretations of quantuum physics within science itself, as well as the plethora of new-age assigned interpretations…

So, what about XQ and the subjective side of maths? Reasonable amount of intuitive guessing going on here: notions of negative and the mind’s filitering, or addition and category systems. These are speculative. Clearly.

My only answer to this, as I think about it now, is that the amount of variation increases the more complex the maths we deal with. It is like smoke from a stick of incense. Especially when we consider iterative equations, or Riemann Spheres. Seems to me, then, that the simplest thing is where we might meet with more subjective alignment. That is, as close the burning ember as possible. And in maths, that’s counting, isn’t it?

When we count, what exactly are we counting? It looks like we are counting things, however, if the things are fabrications of our mind, how we cloth actuality, then is this a self-referential exercise? We are counting things that are fabrications of our mind, and if mind is process, then at some level we are counting processes, we are counting in time. The real abstraction, our side of maths, is that we are counting in time, and not any thing out there. This is demonstrated in the way we learn our multiplication tables, through repetition of counting steps. (Extract from One Two Many, from the XQ booklets.)

So, is this something which strikes you as true? Or, are there other interpretations, apart from the obvious that we are counting things. And this is the root to our understanding why music holds its endless fascination for us…

Somehow the mind compiles a soundscape of the environment in terms of events. Subjectively speaking, we are particularly attuned to patterns of sound in time, from simple rhythms and melodies in music to the near chaotic jumble of words. Music elicits movement from our bodies, from the tapping of feet, the nodding of head, or the gyration of our hips. Certain melodies grab our passions, others lift us to sublime heights. It is as if we are the instrument, we resonate to the frequencies. We can also invest music with our memories, with rich associations, with specific events. We may link the music to the performance, the violent extraction of sound from the instrument or its gentle teasing, or it may be completely divorced from production. Our primary attention can be led to follow a particular continuity of sound, focussing on the melody for example, enabling us to predict what it to happen. Complex interactions within the soundscape can be simultaneously appreciated, thus deriving our deep affinity to music. (Extract from Haphazard Sensory Observations, from XQ Conditional).

groups and networks

17 11 2009

Found this old video…

Relationships that are inherent to us, as opposed to those that are artificial. This correlates family versus eg like-minded groups, to multiples or primes versus a set solution… Does this make sense?

%d bloggers like this: