In our extending of the categories we showed how through hyperbolic development we can jump very quickly from 8 to 4096 categories and beyond. These jumps also come with qualitative changes in expression such that the category of 000 as a base quality takes on 'refined' elements when in the form of a derived quality. Thus in the analogy of 000-000, the second 000 has a more refined quality than the first 000 and when the analogy is converted into a 'pure' quality in the form of 000000 the range of possible expressions of this quality given different contexts is identified by deriving the 'quality vector', aka the tensor concept, for the symbol.
The 'dimension of precision' identified in IDM allows for the analysis of trust
The focus is on the dimension of total trust in another/others to total trust in oneself. The total trust in others is reflected in an openness to the local context as a source of aiding in asserting identity, social interactions allow for conservation of energy that is slowly diminished as trust in others lessens to be transformed into an increasing trust in oneself and as such the focus on integrating with the context is changed to a 'need' to take-over the context, to assert one's own as a replacement of all others.
This increasingly 'single context' perspective can lead to conflict in that as the focus becomes increasingly single context so it can act to alienate others. The fact that the increase in energy can also lead to a 'transcendence' is beside the point in that that transcendence could be total war and as such a transcendence not necessarily 'of value'.
We can see IDM trust issue through the 'eyes' of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in the form of the categorisation of temperaments, four in number. These temperaments, when mapped to interactions with context reflect the following distributions:
The concept of 'trust in others', or more so focus on linkage to the context and so a dependency on others, is reflected in the NF & SJ types (IDM II and ID). the concept of 'trust in self', and so a focus on self-containment where dependency is on one's own context, is reflected more in the NT & SP types (IDM DI and DD).
When we analyse the distribution of these persona categories across a collective, here we use the data on the USA, we find a distortion in the above diagram:
When we analyse the basic characteristics of the dimension, the above comments on trust reflect a common difference between the more social, more energy conserving vs the more energy expending in that the 'trust in another/others' reflects the recruitment of others to enable assertion of one's identity - e.g. parents living through the successes of their children, individuals living through the successes of their sports club, country, faith. The focus on 'living through' acts to aid in assertion of one's identity as compared to the more 'trust in self' individuals who live their life through themselves - their charisma acts to determine the path to take (and as such these types become leaders through which others gain their identity)
The feedback processes involved in the processing of data allow us to represent our processing of stimuli and our choices in response such:
a = stimulus
b = response
c = new representations
f() = mediation function
f(a,b) = c
Thus if a stimulus elicits a response that fails, or if there is no specific response that maps to the stimulus, and so we use a general instinct that is 'out of context', then mediation takes over in the form of analysis of the relationship of stimulus/response that can lead to the creation of representations in the form of (1) a symbol of the stimulus, and (2) a habit as a response. These representations allow for the symbol to elicit the response to the same degree as the original stimulus, thus the symbol feeds into the 'a' variable and the habit into the 'b' variable of the mediation function and we can repeatedly refine the representations of c through the use of that function.
Given the above dynamic, we can abstract the original stimulus and the instinctive response into more refined distinctions applicable at a universal level but also create 'idealist' perspectives, sets of possibilities & probabilities, some of which are fantasies when we do not include basic laws of the universe as part of the mediation process (or when we distort these laws where exaggeration is a property of the mediation function and so allows us to distort such concepts as time, converting the thermodynamic to something mechanical and so stoppable/reversible)
We can identify here the operations of differentiation and integration where the mediation functions allows us to zoom-in, to make finer differentiations, that we then use to integrate stimulus with response and so create a habit that becomes unconscious and conserving of energy. The dynamics of the mediation function reflect the ability to derive from oscillations 'meaning' (see the page on paradox processing as a source of meaning) - this dynamic focuses attention on the Transcendence function as the source of new insights, paradigms etc. where repetition feeds the Transformation function and so the formation of long-term associations etc - habits.
In the analysis of the structure of our categories IDM has identified a duality in the form of the more archetypal from the typal where the archetypal stems from the high energy focus of exaggeration of sensations and the category of those exaggerations. The focus is on 'purity' and its maintenance and this includes exaggerating the isolation perspective that comes with the high energy focus on 'something' such that identity is achieved through assertion of the boundary - a perspective of 'us' vs 'them' develops. (thus in Physics the focus is on electrons or photons etc that within each category are 'all the same' in essence; as are species members.)
This realm of the archetypal is also the realm of ontology creations where the 'purity' in describing being, in describing IS-ness, leads to very refined, very precise, 'maps', but can become sterile. The relief from sterility is in the acquiring of 'fresh blood' and so the surrender of the sense of the pure and the immortal for the mortal but also diverse; ontologies need to be placed into reality to achieve anything - and that includes their own demise where it is found that they dont 'fit' in that we shift from an exaggerated mechanistic perspective to the 'true' nature of the Universe - the thermodynamic perspective.
In the use of recursion to derive categories, so the initial process, reflecting the intense differentiations we use to identify, will define structures, pure expressions, and as such a focus on the archetypal and so 'light' vs 'dark'; the white and the black, the EITHER/OR. Secondary processes reflect the transition from archetypal to typal where the dichotomy of 'light/dark' transforms into the diversity permissible in 'male/female'; the realm of colours, of harmonics that allow for mixing. These differences in perspectives, the shift from static to include dynamic, from objects to include relationships, reflect that mentioned previously in the distinctions of the 'Everyday of the Universe' - archetypal, light vs dark - and the distinction of the 'Everyday of the Species' that includes the development of the typal and the human sense of the 'spiritual'.
'Real' meaning for most is in the form of a clear, precise, explicit, expression.
But that is not our nature. In the realm of habits/instincts you are always working with approximations (and so
able to fit a general instinct into a specific context and then refine it). 'Real' meaning is ideal meaning - object
oriented, discrete. Recall the consequences of applying energy to analysis of 'something' - you will actually distort
the time element and as such move from a thermodynamic perspective to a mechanistic perspective such that 'real'
meaning is a distortion, a useful one at the level of the particular in that it allows for us to gain some leverage
by understanding the details of this local 'something' BUT in the eyes of the 'big picture' (as in the 'everyday'
of the universe), if you maintain this distortion and generalise it, it can lead to problems in interpretations
in that you can be, will be, over-precise and so miss the forest from the trees.
Consider the EPR paradox in Quantum mechanics - through IDM we can show that the properties of this experiment, the patterns derived, stem from the method used 'free' of any context, I can create the 'wave interference' pattern etc using pen and paper through combining recursion of a dichotomy with indeterminacy in that we move from a differentiating perspective - sensors flush to the slits etc - to an integrating perspective, the photographic plate etc. That act forces a change in perspectives from a unit level of precision to a PAIR level of precision and so from local to non-local.
If you are not aware of this shift from local to non-local, a shift identified in IDM, and so focus attention of 'what you see is what you get', you take what you see literally, then you will have problems in interpretations from the level of the universal. (the EPR experiment BTW reflects the consequences of being too precise where reality is the realm of AS IS and so INTERGRATED (non-local) but is interpreted as if differentiated (local). Reality is the state vector, a realm of potentials, and context determines expressions of particulars - one context gives you 'waves', another gives you 'particles' and, as IDM shows, there is a realm of variations on these themes.)
TO summarise, to get the idea of 'wave/particle' duality you just need to get
the idea of recursion of a dichotomy given some indeterminacy. It is CONTEXT that determines the perception of
wave OR particle such that, in the EPR experiments, the structure of these experiments is based on (a) forming
a dichotomy (as in left slit/right slit (double slit experiment) or half-closed/full-closed (single slit experiments
e.g. Airy patterns) or 0/90 degrees (polariser experiments)) and (b) changing the CONTEXT as in 'point of view'
Thus having two slits and putting detectors flush to each slit will give you A OR B in your results - a very precise reading where the measurement is in single units. Introduce a photographic plate just behind the slits and you move from a differentiating perspective (A XOR B) to an integrating perspective (A AND B). In the realm of integration the unit of measure is no longer a single particle, it is now a PAIR.
This has consequences re interpretations etc., mostly so in that we see that the 'duality' is at all scales for any dichotomy we like to make - we can derive the 'wave interference' patterns using pen and paper based on listing all of the possible A/B patterns over X number of trials and then introducing 'indeterminacy' for each trial (as in no detection of WHICH slit, only an IMPLICATION based on looking at the photographic plate etc).
The set of POTENTIAL states for an experiment is 2n where n = number of trials. Thus for 6 trials there are 64 possible states reflected in a string of values such as LLRRLR (L = left slit, R= right slit). We can sort these in order from LLLLLL to RRRRRR. When we introduce indeterminacy, since we are working now with PAIRS so we have pairs of:
Due to the pair nature we cannot determine the ORDER in each pair and so we introduce a distortion in that:
LL is reduced to L
RR is reduced to R
LR is reduced to X
RL is reduced to X
and such results as LLRRLR become LRX. With our original 64 states these are reduced to 19 where the reduction is in the form of superpositions (and so 'waves') for the X states.
When you map out all of the possible results over 6 trials you get a pattern of 'wave interference'. See the diagrams on the bits page. (Also see links on sensory perspectives affecting our map making and in particular the concept of the state vector.)
In the above 'experiment' the more trials you have the bolder becomes the pattern. This is regardless of working with dichotomies in 'reality' or in theory, regardless of 'actual' waves or probability waves; the process of recursion combined with some form of indeterminacy guarantees 'wave interference' patterns regardless of scale (and so 'self-similarity' rules)
Note that any statistical perspective sets a context of INTEGRATION as the base and that means a unit of measure no less than a PAIR and so all interpretations will be skewed to 'pairness'. ANY form of 'pairness' moves the perspective from a 'fermionic' perspective to a 'bosonic' perspective and so we enter the realm of superpositions etc. When you go that extra distance, to differentiate, so you will get your particles where the detectors are 'flush' to the slits etc (and so a more 'fermion' perspective)
The normal or guassian distribution curve is the 'standard' form for statistical models and reflects the use of recursion of a dichotomy where the energy distribution of the QM dichotomy is skewed and the normal distribution curve is made-up of mapping the dichotomy as it is applied recursively add-in indeterminacy and the normal distribution curve is 'distorted' to reflect 'wave interference' patterns.
All of this comes down to the METHODOLOGY used to derive meaning - all meaning is determined by the method used to derive it and so the meaning is expressed in all of the possible patterns derived by the method and the wave-interference pattern is one of those patterns possible when using recursion of a dichotomy.
Since recursion seems to be a 'fundamental' for our neurocognitive processes in deriving meaning (as identifed previously, the recursion has its roots in a passive form ) so 'wave/particle' duality is 'natural' as a product of our manner of interpretations.
All our experiments do is REPEAT what our minds do with the addition of extending the range of our senses but in no way changing the METHODS.
As such QM is an invention of ours. No matter how 'abstract' you want to be, all disciplines serve as metaphors for what the brain deals with - objects and relationships (as covered in the IDM material). QM is a discipline used in a highly specialised area that has developed with little understanding by the users of the nature of our being and as such can disappear into gagaland at times - the initiating physicists knew nothing about how we as a species function 'in here' and how our methods can introduce patterns that we associate with 'out there' rather than understanding them as side-effects of 'in here'.
That said, our adaptations to our environment favours 'internalisation' of useful properties and methods and that includes the use of dichotomisations (rooted at the level of fundamental particles a la fermions/bosons) such that the success of our maps are due to their reflection of 'out there' but in our terms. We are too precise in our analysis - we move into a parts perspective and, due to our individual consciousness believe that perspective to be a wholes perspective and so we experience paradox at the local level.
Back to Index Page