A fractal way of making sense of our experiences. Please contribute!

[jehovajah]

OK, I'll bite - but first I state that I am only an armchair philosopher and only vaguely aware of terms such as ontology, empiricism etc.

Thanks Dave.

The vagueness of the terms are what i think need clarifying. However when they are clarified it is important that it is agreed by consensus that they are clear! So i feel that some discussion or analogy on this aspect alone is worthwhile.

Your set of propositions and beliefs are fascinating, and only go to show that there is more wisdom in the "unlearned " than the scholars give credit. Why shouldn't you be right and bang on the money?

Your ideas and opinions are as valid as Einstein's or Newton's or Feynman' s . How do we test which views are useful and which are not? Do we need to know which are true and which are not?
Can we ever justify just believing?

[jehovajah]

Recently i surveyed the empirical evidence we have amassed for a finite universe and concluded that the only paradigm that makes sense of it all is the Principles of Fractal Geometry. That is not to say that Benoit's Fractal Geometry is the bible, far from it. It is to say that like relativity in its time, Fractal has become a powerful paradigm of its own that founds all aspects of our knowledge making, and our belief systems.

This topic is old because no one wants to deal with the everyday notion of empiricism, because your daily life is not fractal enough?

Come on, make a cup of coffee and put your fractal "experiences" to good use in a discussion of how we "sense" this crazy world we live in.

[jehovajah]

Seeing as we, myself included , have no appetite to do the basic work i envisaged in this thread, i thought that i might refer to my recent biog post as a possible agent provocateur.
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2012/07/02/the-conception-of-magnitude-language.

[jehovajah]

I want to make this thread accessible, so i changed its name.

Empiricism is defined in Visuals contribution, but can you give us an anecdote or a story that makes sense of that definition?

Ontology is nicely defined by visual as well, but can you give a more accessible example?

Heres one that affects me, on ontology. I regularly get mail, which i leave unopened, after a quick decision about its relative importance. I end up with a pile of mail i have to sort one day, but a pile of low grade information mostly in terms of impact on my behaviours.

Occasionally i miss something really to my advantage, but only occasionally. I have to balance this disadvantage with the huge advantage of extra time to pursue what i find interesting and important, and a less cluttered mind.

My "ontology" is a simple one, let us say i divide my mail into 3 categories: bill; family,everything else.

How have i arrived at this ontology? By experiencing the consequents of a few others and selecting by trial and error the one that suits me most, weighing the advantages against the disadvantages. This is what i mean by an empirical method.

Any body got any examples like that or your own anecdotes?

[filagree]

Come on, make a cup of coffee and put your fractal "experiences" to good use in a discussion of how we "sense" this crazy world we live in.
[/quote]
Ah, the quotidian world- it's empirically everywhere..standing in a queue for tickets, groceries..whatever. How one might stand while waiting, the nature of thoughts passing thru one's mind....Certainly we all develop reflexive body patterns ( external & internal) that  might be glimpsed in things like which box of cereal chosen to how much of an impulse buyer one might be. The latter possibly a mini example of someone who hasn't worked out an empirical ideal to, say, save money, or only get what they really need.

Getting what one really needs. Call me a semi -pessimist re the state of the larger human spirit-mind (please, please let me link them),but
altho' everyone must have worked out a personal roster of ways & means  for themselves I worry there's some kind of hollowing out of real self scrutiny/understanding. Am not one to generalize- would fail as a statistician. Do we drown out a critical inner refrain with our ipods, cell phones, incessant contact-mode, background noise at -all-costs thingamajiggy...? Is that inner chord involved with some fractal aspect ?
Frak me. Yes , a Battlestar Galactica fan. No, the new one.

How much is too much self-scrutiny ? How aware should one 'try' to become- I wonder if the simplest way is to see the moments, inhabit them ( as in being in the now) & then feel/live one of the many off-shoots of this which would be a more whole-cloth mind and body awareness. And think of the sweet spot of EACH iterative moment. A daisy chain of moments. OMG.

I should add that I sincerely believe the only undeniable "true fact" is "I think therefore I am", beyond that everything is speculation.

There's a wonderful little dialog in the ( highly recommend) movie "Get Low" with Robert Duvall. He's asked how he is and he answers " I am". This is someone contemplating having a pre- death funeral. Speaking of death, think of all the biological fractal cascades that must occur during decomposition. Anyway, the above quote got me ruminating on the concept of a brain dead person. They still 'are' but are not 'am'?  Could there be some sub thinking manifestation that all our astonishing machinery just cannot plumb ?  This of course is part of the enormous ethical dilemmas inherent in keeping people alive. Think on the weird empirical dances that have developed over letting somebody 'go' who's in this twilight land- mix up of a fandango & a waltz. The heart trying to guide what theory cannot.

Maybe there exists an exquisite inter-dimensional/between the numbers level of energy existance where a life- force can dally while the body is in arrears. A lay-away for the filament of consciousness that might return if circumstances allow. Wishful thinking ? Sally Morgan?

Not to be savage- but a thinking animal waiting in line to be stun bolted, or any of the issues connected enduringly to it , well, what's the supporting empirical evidence to support this. Off topic.

Can we ever justify just believing?

Although I see that 'just believing' is outrageously popular in our mainsteam life ( ie: visualisation, vibratonal intent/aka "The Secret", even
(most respctfully) prayer) I don't think it could be rigorously justified. Although, since part of this line of questions requests anecdotal evidence , I can see this raining down on me just for saying that. I commented in fractal cpu that I am personally comfortable with the mysteries inherent in living/ growing/ changing one's mind.....comfortable leaving an open ended, music still being written, line of sight .
Am reminded of how you can sometimes return years later to a book that just fretted your mind the first time you tried it- made no sense. Then you pick it up again at the RIGHT (whatever that may mean) time and it feels like a door opening, a personal manifesto into some new level of insight. Hey is insight a fractal animal ? Can it be measured in an equational sense ?definition: capacity of understanding hidden truths, etc. Fractals sometimes seem hidden, like brownian motion, but never-the-less, remain stunningly omnipresent.

  Gosh- did Mr K. add more emoticons to the menu ?

[jehovajah]

Thanks filagree. Great contribution.

One cannot separate as we are taught to do these internal and external connections, we can only agree to ignore or downplay some. Does that consensus distort the fractal experience?
What is the fractal experience?

[jehovajah]

I just finished a speculative piece on quanta, which begins to make sense of quantum physics to me, in terms of fractal processes.
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2012/07/16/quantity-of-twistorque.

I s this my fractal experience?

[jehovajah]

Just realised that my latest empirical meanderings are taking me to NASA. I have already seen fractal sand patterns on Mars, and the explanation of the heliosphere is too fractal to miss!

The more I look outside at the growing data sets we may now comfortably call knowledge bases, the more fundamentally important an empirical fractal philosophy becomes.

Similarly, but less intuitively, the quantum data sets are starting to reveal the fractal structures beneath the atom. Some experiments are even attempting to tackle the Planck limit. Whichever way you go it's fractals all the way, at least empirically.

[jehovajah]

When I started this thread it was to fulfill a responsibility I felt that the fractal paradigm should be developed on the philosophising of those engaged in the work of this forum.

Dotted about in various threads responses have been posted that show the depth of wisdom available to this task. I think particularly of the thread started by Lar2 with regard to the fractal CPU.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/v1MnNO4I9aU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/v1MnNO4I9aU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
Today I watched a BBC  documentary on the secret life of the cell. Much of it I already had researched as part of the empirical data required to support the fractal paradigm. The cgi and the collected information makes it a recommend from me, although I do not endorse the narrow militaristic paradigm it uses to portray viruses. Nevertheless, it packs a powerful punch!

For a wider view, you are welcome to see/ read my blog on Bacteriphages.
Just google jehovajah!

[visual.bermarte]

Sorry for getting back to you so late.
Just a few links, regarding ontologies, that may be of interest.
Dichotomous Thinking IS related to ontology.
For the ontologists a complex systems is nothing else than the sum of its parts; like complex patterns are the result of simple interactions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).
When we are talking about 'representing parts-whole relations', we talk about mereology: it could be seen as a logic language/system similar to the one used in set theory, but made in a way to avoid antinomies (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/ and http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/I/Papers/iced99.html).

This is a small example to see the difference in taxonomy and ontology (from http://www.ontologyweb.com/2009/10/difference-between-an-ontology-and-a-taxonomy/):

TAXONOMY:

Cats
    Related term: Housepets
    Narrower term: tabby cat, black cat, kitten
    Broader term: Housepets

ONTOLOGY:

Cats
    LivesIn: House
    Chases: Mouses
    CrapsOn: Carpeting

And here is an attempt to describe the formation of Cantor set, made following the mereology of Lesenieski.
See http://air.unimi.it/bitstream/2434/126674/2/Valore%202006a%20Topics%20on%20General%20and%20Formal%20Ontology.pdf pag.53
<- http://www.stanford.edu/~boas/science/ftext/ 

[jehovajah]

  Yay visual, thanks for that. Can't stop smiling at the cat crapson attribute!

A lot to digest and discuss in just this one post! I for one hold my hand up and say I do not get the fine distinction.

Ontology has a long history so I am not dissing that. My friend Vasil gave a talk in Bulgaria on it, and in Bulgarian! So I still do not know what he was on about! Lol!

The way I like to approach these things is to suck it and see if I think it is useful, so a discussion can ensue.

Also I have to say I am a bit dubious about taxonomy in its finer distinctions. However, in a computer database world, a taxonomy Ontology distinction might just be what is needed to pass the Turin test!

Certainly your humorous example makes a very valid point! Imagine a computer that could come up with that. It would almost be human!

[Alef]

or do we have empirical fractal proof of the existence of a supreme God?

It is impossible to have empirical proof of G-d. That is totaly nonsence exept when you wiev G-d as some kind of miracle machine as Vatican beliews. You do this and that, and then miracle machine do what you wanted.

But King David clearly hadn't been the greatest king ever, Chingiskhan (Gengishan in english) were much greater. As were hittites. But now there are more Davids than Chingiskhans and hittites taken together.

In Russia in early 30ies there were 10 commandments of communism builders, but they kind of not sucseeded. All the world lives by 7 day week with hollydays at the end, but it is secular like 10 commandements of communism builders or western values of "thou shall not kill". And it is kind of working even if there are disputes does it extends to eutanasia and abortions.

Charles Darwin could be a one of the gratest genius ever lived, but nationalistic exUSSR eastern european states built upon principle "survival of fittest" with first enterprises run by crime lords tops the world in suicide rates (in Latvia largest external cause of death is suicide). From here population are running including to Russia. Papua New Guine (were lots of missionaries were eaten) soon will outperform Moldova, but GDP per capita of Trinidad of Tobago (Tobago once was colony of  Dutchy of Courland) allredy are higher than GDP per capita of Latvia (with Courland being integral part of it), and in Trinidad & Tobago they don't need to warm their homes.

But Haiti with its premodern woodoo mindset are complete disaster. Earthquake spared Dominican Republic, probably becouse they had normal homes built according to laws and regulations.

If you want, I can put prooflinks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_and_Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Per capita $17,158

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia
Latvia
Per capita $13,316

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola
Angola
Per capita $5,144

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)
Georgia
Per capita $3,210

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova
Moldova
Per capita $1,968

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Per capita $1,900


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
List of countries by suicide rate. Lithuania seems to be least happy, however data is somewhat old.



Whatever about G-d, but if you take 3D plane and iterate some whatever bulb, iterations looks like 4th dimension, the time. Iteration number and time allways goes just in one direction, to the increasing enthropy. You can not go back in time as you can not go back to previous iterations, but you allways can go further. There are casual dinamic triangulation I kind of not understand, but it sound simmilar to iterations.. Iteration number consists of discrete units, but well, there are plank unit of time too. Maybe this can lead to new formula, maybe where 4th part of quaternion is iteration number.

[David Makin]

Although I believe evolutionary theory can be applied to many things other than genetic evolution I don't think you can mix separate subjects like genetics, race (as in Nationhood not genetics), social policies, economic policies, religion, traditions etc. and apply a single combined evolutionary path to all.
Inherited traits are purely down to the genes, which genes get mixed is very independent of *all* the others - for instance the overall population change throughout the world over a period varies only a little and usually it's the less economically successful that have too many births - admittedly they also have too many deaths
Economic policy is almost completely independent of genetics, as is fiscal policy though as I say an evolutionary system could probably be applied individually to both individually - I'm not saying that these different things don't affect each other, just that the way they do so cannot be boiled down to something as simple as an evolutionary model *for the whole* and most certainly not in a short-term way, perhaps considering whole millennia but then the older data would be a little sparse

[jehovajah]

It is impossible to have empirical proof of G-d. That is totaly nonsence exept when you wiev G-d as some kind of miracle machine as Vatican beliews. You do this and that, and then miracle machine do what you wanted.

......
Whatever about G-d, but if you take 3D plane and iterate some whatever bulb, iterations looks like 4th dimension, the time. Iteration number and time allways goes just in one direction, to the increasing enthropy. You can not go back in time as you can not go back to previous iterations, but you allways can go further. There are casual dinamic triangulation I kind of not understand, but it sound simmilar to iterations.. Iteration number consists of discrete units, but well, there are plank unit of time too. Maybe this can lead to new formula, maybe where 4th part of quaternion is iteration number.

We do not often speak as we find. We mythologise, and do so to make sense of the "raw" data. When you put your data together, what sense do you make of it? How do you communicate this to your fellow man assuming you want to?

The gods of mythology have always been a standard device for communicating these abstract relationships. The principles of evolution have become another standard device. The idea is to take "non sense" data and make sense of it. But to do so means we have to come to some consensus on terminology and definitions, and we have to agree on process.
In this forum the process paradigm is more fractal more iterative and recursive than in common sensibility in the west. In certain eastern cultures the cyclical nature of time is a standard paradigm. The usual question is combative, adversarial, antagonistic: "which paradigm is right?!"
The question here in this thread  is: "which is empirical?"

There is always a third "way" , in my opinion

[jehovajah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mwx64
Ontological Argument, existence or experiential continuum