Hi Folks,

Joe’s email has launched me a bit this morning and I have to share the rawness of it…

 

This image is KICKING MY ASS right now in such a beautiful way it hard to put words into…

Love to all,
G

 

 

Dear Joe,

 

  One more point of follow-up here. In this exchange between Roger Penrose and Eric Weinstein, a frequent point of contact is the Reimann Sphere. As they note, this “conceptual operator” just keeps showing up in the bridging between mathematics and both quantum mechanics and general relativity at a very fundamental level.

 

Here is a depiction of that Sphere:

 

I believe this correspondence with the iQuad coin more than purely coincidental 😊:

If we can place the humanistic knower into the equation, we might just be able to unravel this mystery.

Best,
Gregg

 

 

Dear Joe,

 

  Thank you. From one human to another….this was beautiful 😊. Everything you say here is correct.

 

  First, though, let me say a word about “intimidation”. If a friend said to me “wǒ kàn bǐsài” this would be completely alien, and I would have no idea what was meant. Does it follow that I would be “intimidated”? Maybe, if the guy had power over me, and I was being evaluated and was claiming I had mastery over many Asian languages. But that is not the context here. At least I hope not. Unlike me, if you speak Chinese and English, you see the sentence clearly as “I see the game” because you have knowledge I do not. My point is to encourage folks to not be intimidated in any kind of competitive egoic sense when I drop into “Garden-speak”. I invented the language game of the Garden. Given that, it simply follows that others can’t speak it, any more than I can speak Chinese. So I encourage us all to try to de-identify with ego. Remember, according to JUST, the ego is fundamentally organized as the mental organ of justification that is tied to an intuitive barometer of social influence. It can serve an important function, of course, and is the center of personhood. However, too much egoic identification with status markers leads to neurotic loops. As Rob Scott notes, I encourage us to make the fundamental shift into “isness” and then engage in adaptive/wise identity shifting to realize valued states of being.

 

Shifting now to my trail of thought that lead to the iQuad path, as is almost always the case, a key feature of understanding requires awareness of the language games that are being played. Since you offered that beautiful narration, let me share more of my language game, both for us and anyone following this line. To make the point, here is a slide from a lecture I gave on the idea of the Garden Language Game, although I am not sure I was successful in that talk. My sense was that most people walked out of it like I would have walked out of a lecture offered in Chinese.

 

  From the vantage point of traditional language games, like standard math and physics, the iQuad proof makes a violation that is unjustified, and thus it will be appropriately identified as quackery by anyone operating from those systems of knowing. There are two obvious problems. First, I allow a straight jump between the language of algebraic matrices (a language Heisenberg and others applied to quantum mechanics) and standard physics (the stuff of E = hf). Second, and even more problematic, the Henriques Equivalency (i.e., 2p i f = 1)  allows for “f”, which is the metric “frequency of oscillation per second,” to be on one side of the equation, but not the other. If your metrics don’t cancel or align perfectly, then you have blended logic/language in a problematic way, and the equation should be killed. Thus, if you follow the proper “rules” of math and physic language games, you point that out the conclusion is it is wrong and appropriately move on. And this point is absolutely correct, as far as it goes. For starters, it means the frame will not “commute” in a traditional way. Which is, admittedly, a major problem and significant limitation, although as your note suggests, it might be able to be translated and become functionally commensurate with traditional systems down the road. Nonetheless, the combination of the critique and the failure of the system to commute is why we need to place the descriptive marker “pseudo” on it to identify that we are not operating from the traditional language game perspectives.

 

However, once marked as such, the “pseudo-proof” comes alive, at least from the “emic” perspective of being within the Garden. That is, from the inside, we don’t need to interpret that justification marker “pseudo” as just a “negative” in the “bad” sense that I am engaged in quackery. The equation is quackery only from the “outside” etic perspective. Ironically and sincerely, it also serves as a “positive negative” in two important ways. One is that it signals to people: This equation is different. It is sort of like the seemingly oxymoronic “fuzzy logic”. And, like that concept, I believe it can come on line if enough people learn how to speak the language game I am playing. However, one definitely needs to realize we are not in a traditional language game space, and we need to mark it as “pseudo”. But the fact of your note shows that other people can start to learn the game, which is why it is so heartening for me to see.

 

Indeed, your note carries the language game change that is needed. In many ways, I am playing a humanistic language game here, which is exactly why I opened it up by saying I was operating from “within” the story of the Garden. Inside the language game of the Garden, it all works, beautifully (note, I say this with deliberate intention—the third step on the iQuad path enables me to “empirically capture” the concept of “mathematical beauty” via the Euler Identity in the process of aligning the deductive path). The reason the “radical mathematical humanistic” equation is beautiful to me is because e^pi + 2p i f = 0 affords me ontological and epistemological “consilience” with the ontic reality. That is, it transposes and collapses across the phenomenological, behavioral, cultural, and social systems epistemological frames identified by Wilber. And it collapses across the ontic levels and dimensions identified by the ToK into PTB. Hence this depiction of the ‘quadrant quadratic’:

 

The insight was qualitatively confirmed by my particular experience of knowing that spanned from 1997 (the birth of the ToK) to October 27, 2017 and the completion of the iQuad proof that linked the Garden to the outside world via the deductive path. In 2002, I knew from the ToK’s analysis of physics that 2p i f = 1 somehow represented the key conceptual operators that linked physics and math. Now, neither math nor physics people tend to think much about human knowers or processes of justification. They see through their knowledge and justification, but they don’t know how to take their glasses off and look at them as objects of inquiry. That is, they are blind to human psychology and the social processes of knowledge construction. Indeed, science is very much about the methods of anti-subjective/social knowing, which is why I developed the concept of the anti-knower in the language game of science. Physics also don’t know where human knowledge exists on the cosmic coordinates of the universe. The ToK affords us angles on both of these positions, and I knew that via that lens I was seeing something deep. To see what I mean here, consider the relationship between Hawking’s map of the observer observed relationship and my map of human knowers, that includes the “anti-knower”. The mirror image of these two graphs is the point I am making.

 

The story takes on the full shape it does in our family in part because Andee, who definitely has a deep intuitive knack, spontaneously brought me home the book “Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being” by Lakoff and Nunez. I mention this to again highlight the humanistic meaning of the story. We were poor and she would rarely spend that kind of money on a book out of the blue that I did not ask for. She did so because she had a “sense” it would be useful to me and splurged—thus this links her to the story in a cool way for our intersubjective field of valuing this whole experience from within. That is, from the etic outside, who the hell cares about this part of the story? But from the emic intuitive subjective space and culture of our relationship, it matters quite a lot.

 

A cognitive scientist and mathematician, Lakoff and Nunez helped me fill in key details on the conceptual bridging between how humans make sense, and the logic of mathematics. That is, they helped me see the human lens and its connection to math as a construction developed by human knowers. And, at the end of the book, they apply their analysis to the Euler Identity, in an example of what they call “mathematical idea analysis”. That was the FIRST time I had ever heard of or seen that equation, which shows just how mathematically illiterate I was. (Also worth noting regarding being “intimidated”, my ToK language often interferes with my understanding of regular math, so that I am now a kind of a math dyslexic. I don’t speak advance math and my eyes glaze over as soon as a serious equation appears—in college I had a knack for it, but now I am corrupted and get language system interference).

 

But as soon as I saw why e^pi = - 1 worked the way it did, a profound shift happened. Right in front of me, in this profoundly simple equation, were the conceptual operators that I had pulled out via the Henriques Equivalency. That is, it included the circle, point, line, and wave, and the real/imaginary complex grid. And, remarkably, it also included “change”. You see, e, is the natural log constant, which is, as Lakoff and Nunez put it, “intimately involved in the mathematization of change” over time. This was the “behavioral frequency” conceptual linkage I needed to understand why “f” was in the equation. Standing as I was on the top of the ToK, at the 5^th joint point, I could see that the Euler Identity served as a central node in the conceptual backdrop that mathematics offers modern physics. That is, math provides modern physics with the tools of logic and deduction to determine the laws of the possible. Physics, then, bridges from that frame of the logical possible into the real-actual-empirical world (to use terms from Roy Bhaskar). To return back to the radical mathematical humanistic equation, “e” bridged to “f” and time, complexity and rate of change now are bonded and accounted for in the language game I am playing.

 

Ultimately, when one embraces the ideal case of the thought experiment of seeing a single photon with a single wave frequency released from the energy-matter decoupling at the Big Bang into one’s phenomenology of being which is Identity of the knower in the matrix equation, then one conceptually aligns the experienced event from within to the behavioral process from without via a unique cultural justification system that resides in a macroscopic systemic world.

 

This imagined-into-known “isness” is then felt as the epistemological quadrant ontological quadratic collapse into the singular “knower = known” positionality. That is, is stands as an authentic unified theory of knowledge from my point of view.

 

And it is super cool that another person can really start to pick the language game I am laying down. So, thank you, brother. I appreciate you cutting through the brush to see the potential of the oasis on the other side!

 

Best,
Gregg   

 

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.