Friday, December 02, 2005
Center of Excellence Proposal
à
The Taos Institute
(on the possibilities)
[bead thread on curriculum
reform]
Ballard’s
communication on information theory advance
à [258]
Richard,
Your note reflects many things that I have been thinking about and wishing were more publicly known. Your work is part of the tip of an iceberg – whose time has really come at last.
In understanding what you are proposing, one needs to be prepared in two ways:
1) a certain amount of re-programming is needed in regards to ubiquitously claimed universality of classical logic and the perfection of precise theories of ontology (as in the W3C standards).
2) an educational curriculum for K-12 is required so that citizens may come to understand a new world where not only some things can be precisely understood, but many things related to the process of living can be comprehended (in some sense that is not within the current science.)
In the future after your paper is completed and published, the Taos Institute may become a place for the discussion of the issues that your extension of Shannon information theory reveals.
I do not wish to distract you from the code development for the Mark 3, and yet I hope that Paul Werbos will think carefully about the proposal you are making about QM and give us an opportunity to field a critic – from Paul as someone who knows a great deal about the various theories and has his own internal representation of QT (Quantum Theory) that he also has not been able to publish.
Paul (W), the key issue that you may wish to address has to do with self orchestrated collapse. Is, as Dick will say, this collapse (whether by an “external” self intension, or by “environmental affordance”), always finitely constrained.
How is this finite constraint, if it always exists; localized?
1) the localization must have some parallel to how chemical molecules are formed through the field mechanics caused by the actually present of a specific distribution of atoms, as well as the environmental affordance.
2) J. J. Gibson’s term “affordance” was intended by Gibson to mean, an strictly external (environmental) cause impacting the formative process during the emergence. So an enslavement process (Prigogine) is routed along specific lines rather than being determined by something “stochastic”? Karl (Pribram) mentored me extensively in the early 1990s on why he felt that Gibson’s behavioral leanings were incorrect; and that there were “internal affordances” in addition to “external affordances”. This mentoring lead me to the tri-level architecture where “anything” is an entanglement of a ultrastructure and a substructure; both existing in a separate level of organization (that can not be observed) .. as in the Beables in QT. (Some thing should also be said about Maturana’s term “autopoiesis”).
Paul Prueitt