Abstract
The make-up of our neurology determines all we can ever know. This make-up
reflects the properties and methods of a power law and as such what we find
‘meaningful’ reflects the qualities associated with power law dynamics.
The qualitative descriptions of the expression of a power law are fixed other than the creation of LOCAL labels
to equate the law with a particular context. Thus at one extreme we can equate such concepts as ‘universals’, as
clear, high energy, highly associated, events, and at the other concepts associated with a lack of clarity, lack
of energy expression and of association. A common association is the difference between an internet hub such as
Google vs one’s own, limited links, website.
We can derive generic qualities of a power law ‘dimension’ from the recursion of a dichotomy such as differentiate/integrate
in that the differences in precision in the elements of the dichotomy, FORCE a power law pattern to emerge in the
recursion in that the differentiating element will focus on pushing AWAY associations with others other than by
choice, whereas the integrating element will focus on pulling TOGETHER and so reducing differentiation. This reflects
the observes ‘small world network’ that comes about with forming a dichotomy of ‘random linked’ networks (full
differentiation) vs ‘fully linked’ networks (totally integrated)
ANY dichotomy that takes on this format will reflect power law dynamics where one end reflects high differentiation,
high universalisation and the other more integration, more a focus on conserving of energy as compared to expending
of energy.
As we apply recursion to the elements of a power law dichotomy so the dimension produced reflects ‘hard coded’
qualities that are thus applicable to the description of ANY power law or more so are the core qualities to which
all WORDS, all LABELS are linked. Thus from the sameness of these qualities we derive difference through labelling
the quality with a term that ties it to the context in which the law is expressed.
Working from an abstract perspective, if we associate ‘1’ with Differentiating and ‘0’ with integrating, so the
dichotomy of 1/0 can be symbolised through three levels of recursion thus:
[0] ‘Universe of Discourse’
[1] 1 / 0
[2] 11, 10 / 01, 00
[3] 111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000
The symbols at level 3 reflect the ‘power law’ of 1/0 fleshed out into a dimension of qualities where ‘111’ reflects
total differentiation and so total ‘expression’ as a ‘universal’ and we move along the dimension to the other end
of ‘000’ that reflects total lack of differentiation. Furthermore, the symbols reflect the movement from the GENERAL
(000) to the PARTICULAR (111). We can represent this by such expressions as: “I differentiate so I can differentiate
and then integrate’ where this term describes the pattern 110.
This movement of general to particular reflects the basic power law dynamic where we move from the obscure to the
explicit; we span qualitative differences in expression, and so levels of a hierarchy.
The asymmetry present in power law mappings reflects the asymmetry in our brains, as in, for example, left-hemisphere/right-hemisphere
dynamics, or anterior-brain/posterior-brain dynamics. We can in fact trace this pattern down to the humble neuron
with the dichotomy of axon/dendrites reflecting the two forms of information processing in neurons, FM./AM. In
the context of abstract information processing, the focus is on issues of BANDWIDTH/TIME. Thus a ‘universal’ reflects
maximum bandwidth in understanding, no more needs or be added to communicate.
These patterns are in fact manifest in our categorisation systems. For example, in the realm of ‘all colas’ there
is no differentiation, all colas are ‘same’, but in the realm of power laws so from this ‘undifferentiated whole’
emerges what become ‘universals’, i.e. “Pepsi Cola” and “Coca Cola”.
This process leads us to recognising TWO types of dichotomies – The ‘gaussian’ form that appears to operate
between elements of ‘equal’ value but opposite sign, and the ‘power law’ form that reflects more one element having
emerged from the other; the gaussian form stays within a level, the power law spans levels.
Thus a gaussian dichotomy is Pepsi vs Coke (or Prozac vs Zoloft) and a power law dichotomy is PepsiANDCoke vs all
other colas.(Prozac&Zoloft vs all other
generic brands) If we equate this with [3] above then pepsi and coke map to the 111/110 positions in the power
law dimension and all other brands to the
other elements in the dimension with generic ‘cola’ at 000.
In the analysis of how the brain derives meaning, it appears that it does so using the dimension identified above
where the generic qualities of [3] are derived from recursion of the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy, where that dichotomy
is a synonym for differentiate(objects)/integrate(relationships) – IOW the power law pattern is in our heads.
We can map the qualities to more basic notions of WHOLES and PARTS thus:
[0]WHOLE
[1]EXPLICIT WHOLE / IMPLICIT WHOLE
[2]WHOLE : PART / PART : WHOLE
[3]WHOLE : STATIC : PART : DYNAMIC / DYNAMIC : PART : STATIC : WHOLE
Here the 111 end reflects wholeness as an explicit, clearly, eternally, labelled thing, as compared to 000 reflecting
wholeness by implication, lacking any differentiation other than a sense of ‘whole’.
The terms ‘Static’ and ‘Dynamic’ reflect categorisations of RELATIONSHIPS, and so cover the space in-between. The
qualities of [3] can be refined to reflect FEELINGS and so a set of meanings that appear to exist pre the spoken/written
word. In other words all neuron-dependent life forms appear to have these basic qualities with which to derive
and communicate meanings. This is demonstrated in that our neurology can derive emotions from the recursion of
the Fight
(Differentiate) / Flight (integrate) dichotomy (the former reflects asserting the context, replacing the current
with something ‘better’. The latter with a need to use the context for defence, to integrate with it and so ‘disappear’
– an overall focus on coexisting rather than replacing or being replaced!)
The generic FEELINGS I have derived are:
WHOLES – Sense of BLENDING
PARTS - Sense of BOUNDING
STATIC RELATIONSHIPS – Sense of Bonding
DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS – Sense of Binding
My IDM material shows the derivation of
qualities from neurocognitive processes that are then recruited by our consciousness to map particular contexts
and so create specialisations all reflecting power law dynamics. (see summary .PDF file “the
Language of the Vague”)
It is this sameness that allows one specialisation to serve as a source of analogy/metaphor to describe another
specialisation. In other words the underlying qualities associated with a power law dimension allow for communications
of meaning by resonance; different words, derived from arbitrary assigning of labels in local contexts, all point
to the ONE set of qualities, those reflecting a power law.
In the above website I use FOUR examples of specialisations that all reflect the ONE example of generalisation.
These are:
(a) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
(b) The I Ching (Chinese divination/philosophy system).
(c) The mapping of human emotions.
(d) The types of numbers, their qualities, we use in Mathematics.
In other words, ALL of these specialisations have their roots in power law relations and in so doing share the
generic qualities associated with power laws in general and so reflect ‘small world network’ characteristics.
Below is a sample of power law dichotomies and so dichotomies that will reflect the SAME generic qualities ‘behind’
the often very different terms – in the below list is also representatives of hierarchy such that what was differentiating
in one level becomes integrating in the next:
Differentiate/Integrate – core format. Precision issues FORCE a power law perspective.
Aristocratic/Egalitarian (as per ‘small world network’ research – see works of D.Watts, S.Strogatz, etc)
WHAT/WHERE
PARTS/WHOLE
Personas/StructureOfPersonality
left brain/right brain
temporal lobe/parietal lobe
anterior temporal/posterior temporal
axonic/dendritic
FM/AM
'dot'/'field'
precise(explicit)/approximate(implicit)
'As Interpreted'/'As Is'
Single context/multiple contexts
Universal/Context sensitive
WITHIN/BETWEEN
Objects/Relationships
Syntax/Semantics
Idealism/Materialism
Exploit/Protect
Consciousness/Speciesness
Freedom(escape/assert context)/Determinism(adapt to context)
Transcend/Transform
Exaggerate(harmonise)/Balance(neutralise)
asymmetry/symmetry
LOCAL/NON-LOCAL
particular/general
Dirac-Fermi Statistics / Bose-Einstein Statistics
fermions/bosons
discrete/continuum
Pauli Exclusion/Superpositions
Random Graphs/Lattice Graphs
far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium
negentropy/entropy
short term (local)/long term (non-local)
mRNA/DNA
protein/mRNA
concentrated/distributed
static/dynamic
analytical/dialectical
A = A / A != A
mechanistic time/thermodynamic time
'changeless'(sense of eternal)/changing (perculating, flux etc)
binary/unary
positive-negative/neutral
positive/negative
A XOR B (sym)/ A AND B (sym)
A IMP B (asym) / A XOR B (sym)
etc etc (note the examples of levels - mRNA is to DNA what protein is to
mRNA etc etc)
male-female/Androgyny
male/female
T'ai Chi/Wu Chi {the differentiated WHOLE - the VOID (implicit integrated
whole)}
Yin-Yang/T'ai Chi {harmonics of the WHOLE - the WHOLE}
Yang/Yin
Also note that the recursion ensures that within one element is the other, thus we find WITHIN the differentiated
the expression of the integrated in the form of highly concentrated sense of 'correctness' - IOW a focus on syntax
derived from the 'correct' linking of parts to reflect a whole. IOW the Syntax/Semantics dichotomy reflects a power
law relationship where as we become more differentiating so we become more 'precise' and semantics in general gives
way to syntax in particular being the only source of 'meaning', eliciting an overall sense of 'correctness', of
being 'right', of being 'true' and that being so 'forever'.
In the context of human experience, as we become more differentiating so we pour in more energy and in doing so
distort the experience of, the categorisation of, time. The high precision focus favours high bandwidth and so
a focus on the immediate, on the NOW. From this our notions of time moves from its thermodynamic form to a mechanistic
form. Materialism gives way to Idealism and a 'hybrid' reality emerges mixing our consciousness, our ideals, with
the materialist universe.
When we focus on the integrated, the differentiated is present but very vague, in the form of an encapsulation
as large a field. As we move more into differentiations so the 'dot' size gets smaller as the 'field' fragments.
The fragmentation as we move to increased differentiation allows for an increase in 'cuts' and so an increase in
border areas and so an increase in
complexity/chaos dynamics, expressed ultimately in the form of phase-transition/far-from-equilibrium bifurcation.
(from a sociological perspective, a drive develops for each individual to develop self-containment, self-sufficency
- we are all encouraged to compete, to learn the 'best algorithms' etc but in doing so we become 'same' inside,
only the external is locally 'different', as like Pepsi and Coke ;-) - it is that internal sameness that comes
with power laws that allows for phase-transitions (and so 'flocking' behaviours where a collective can take on
a life of its own based on individuals making only local distinctions)
IN all of the above there is an overall dynamic of RIGHT element TO left element, egalitarian to aristocratic.
In this process of development there is feedback of the left onto the right and so a pull/push dynamic overall
where we have:
(a) from the right is expressed a PARTICULAR, a distortion of some form, be it a charismatic individual or an idea
etc
(b) the rest of the group become either attracted to the distortion, as moths to light, OR another distortion occurs
to OPPOSE the original and IT attracts ITS followers.
(c) a dependency develops between the 'aristocrats' and the collective that acts to 'lift' the collective overall
to the position of the 'aristocrat'. This causes the 'loss' of the 'aristocrat' position - 'false prophets' abound
and the 'old aristocrats' get their wings clipped.
(d) due to the collective now occupying a position of 'aristocracy' so any idealist 'egalitarians' will become
corrupt in that the context DEMANDS an aristocratic perspective and so -- another distortion, another 'leap' takes
place.....
We see here the overall 'boom/bust' nature of socioeconomic systems a la capitalism. We also see the 'balancing'
agents of socialism/conservationism/interventionism at work BUT a limitation on that work in that the role is to
BALANCE the exaggerations, not BECOME and so COMPETE WITH the exaggerations - that act will lead to corruption
from within these sorts of organisations and so eventual 'bust' after the 'boom' etc etc.
We also see the 'oscillation' where what was once 'differentiating' becomes the source of integrating at the next/previous
level, and visa versa. Thus when aristocrats fall, if they survive, they fall into an egalitarian context and so
become 'idealist' egalitarians! The overall focus is on the fact that CONTEXT will PUSH our buttons. Consciousness
allows us to 'modify' that but we are still learning how to do that.
With the development of technology and the collecting of information, so the boom/bust cycle speeds up but can
also be 'managed' in that the technology
refines standards such that any 'fall' is not as far and some bifurcations take place where 'alernative' lifestyles
survive. See the diagrams in the summary .PDF
file or read through additional material on social dynamics.