Toward a Third Revolution in Psychology

Toward a Third Revolution in Psychology

L. Edgar Otto     Saturday, 08 December, 2012

The human perspective as opposed to a machine is still seen as natural patterns of an intelligible and logical nature yet with passionate irrationality.

We seem to have certainly gone beyond the usual arguments of nature and nurture in the changes of view of ourselves and the universe.

The diversity of passionate but irrational clinging to a learned methods, in the sense of what we can measure such as of the second psychology revolution as behaviorist reflects this irrationality in the claims of various new disciplines from drugs as the center arising to that of a grounding as organic neurology and the measure of supposed first psychology hidden levels of influences to what we actually believe, think or do in the world.

Much is made of what we learn or develop or have innately as to what is an illusion that does not fit into the world view of the day and what perhaps is the natural reality.

Consciousness, in its most reduced simplified form as a matter of algebraic and geometric properties seems to me at least potentially or actually these very possibilities as if in a logical patterning and connecting of paths if not something fundamentally more to it is an overview or generalization that in principle and with choices or decisions in effect a higher human absolute freedom of will- the human element needed although a response by a machine may rarely show moments of decision thus act in irrational directions- these are reasonably explained by the lesser power of the machine on its own logical level to be a machine only or a program that may become locked up and still need the input of human or virtually human interaction to so free the programs action.

We should not assume this is the final nature of our consciousness based on any of the present ideas as advanced as they seem, it is more like we have to understand the mathematical basis of illusion that from the wider freedom, nonnecessity, of nature illusion and what is concrete is foundationally a very relative stance of which humans still have the upper hand in the interpretations.

For me the scope of understanding can be expanded as with our simple ideas at the foundation of our geometry and algebra ways to express the unity of scientific model by wider assumptions of how we interpret the core ideas and how they are applied to the issue of space and number itself.  We should not assume a system is illusion any more than that perhaps the universe is a thinking, living, and yes a passionate but irrational creative or growing less stumbling learning entity as it writes its own programming.

But for humans at least how can be be sure our work and thoughts are in a wider context sound and purposely more intelligible? - We can "fool all of the people some of the time..." that is in a democratic system the total control of our minds cannot long last to which those who would apply them or observe them from the outside naturally react with the fear of the irrational although it may be possible we are dumbed down to become for all social and practical purposes but machines.

Rights freely asserted and expected although not a necessarily God given, a result of something not forbidden in the free choice, even of the choice to a direction of more fixity among possible orders that too a right, is the product of this sense of higher levels of freedom that does not undermine the evolution and unity of the whole.  Order in the widest sense over the "illusion" of time or clock time or as something that might be explained by holographic connectionism is at once reversible and irreversible, symmetrical and asymmetrical.

Science might accept psychology in general as such an emergent illusion as a secondary discipline of phenomena compared with its proper physics and mathematical highest stance, even then it may depend on the mathematics as if that were but the lesser skeleton of the physical science.  But in practice not only does it strive to contain irrational ideas as if into a mysterious realm of our not knowing, it in effect acts like a mysterious system underlies its core method, Platonism perhaps, while it speaks in concrete terms.  Not that this method is not philosophically a core part of the bigger picture and as useful as all such hopeful sources of influence.

But what then is science that from the beginning looks into the deeper and hidden processes of nature as if now explicitly holding the proposition that we look deeper into the "Mind of God or universe" but into these emerging elements of His subconscious, the theoretician then doing the physics as if it were first psycho-dynamic psychology?

Some of our early ideas at the dawn of behaviorism and our conclusions about it concerning our minds relies on rather simple geometric ideas, some of them new to us as a little outside our need to learn and so understand to survive our encounters with our future and the world.  Such new ideas as perhaps children learn or are born with an idea of right or left are part of the cleaver explanation, new because as Pinker points out this aspect was not as essential on the awareness of our environment as say up and down, and figure and ground cues despite three space camouflage and motion.  He also dismissed the nature nurture issue as fundamental although lately we say these are both part of our unified organic picture, the second physics stating it a matter of so much percent of one or the other as probability.

The almost ridiculously simple diagrams and thoughts I have posted here concerns some core ideas of a wider and what has long seemed to us methods that strive to marginalize the irrationality.  My geometric methods at the mathematical foundations I realize now are equally well described by the algebra, after all we know both disciplines are the same description.  But as it deals with singularity in a restrained yet nonnecessary ground of the real it allow what on the face of it assumes at least as a working method, something meaningfree or meaningless as a dynamic division by zero of which it follows that 2=0 as the first conclusion.  But this can have a rational stance (after all in a sense in Riemann zero can equal infinity in his complex plane and sphere rotation). Let us not forget however this can also be 2pi=0 and from some zero things can equal 1 or minus 1 also.  Let us think then that Eddington as the old "plus one" of his calculations to fit the experimental reality in the application to the various dimensionless constants as not that far off if we allow a many-fold and more general physics than his own quantum relativity of 1929.

The nature of dimension, while simply a matter of whole number patterns that are elaborated to the extent something like the Pythagorean theorem is not that far away from relativity save in the slow exponentially growing centuries unto now (perhaps this is the resonance of supposed meaning to the Mayan idea of the end of the world and makes enough sense major governments reassure its people against the myth in case, but really afraid of ideas.  After all we see from highly educated people terms like "an end to history", and 'end to the knowledge of the physical world", a post economic era where money or the lack of it becomes meaningless".

To accept this more general way to see dimensions and numbers shows up our achievements as rather simple for all the elaboration and prestige, and inventions and power the elaboration, such also with civilization and its seasons of chaos, as if the core ideas as nothing, vacuum, are marginalized and rejected and the emergent society the real.

The original insight of Riemann as to the nature of dimension in a sense, in the further unification of geometry, leaves in retrospect his program as over simplification and reductionist   This is evident in the heart of his treatment or wonder at the half real value of his zeta numbers of which in a wider context we should not be surprised the problem very difficult and the proof hard to put the universe within.

So in the rigid powers or layers of groups or dimensions we keep distinct the even and odd dimensions as to what may be a center.  Things equal to zero in the even and for the odd equal to a residue of two.  But of our counting and the ideas of symmetry involved, even if we allow the ideas of complex number systems the idea in interaction between the dimensions and various representations may not keep distinct the idea of what is even or odd.  I have called this aspect of the general "quasic" plane or brane the quite ancient and forgotten idea of numbers as having gender.  So 2 can equal zero in some relative and structural senses.

But for all the elaborate language and formulas we still find on the overall grounding of them these simple ideas of how we should find from a wider view these issues of labeling and counting.  They do seem to underlie some of the more weird ideas of quantum theory such as super-positioning or exclusion or condensing of state of matter.

All this I have worked on the level of how atoms appear in our normal space of four or five dimensions which of course needs to be worked out before we can build on a theory that has yet to have some form of experimental proof higher reasoned out theories involving vaster worlds of space and dimensions.  In a sense where time and space may be thought to be unified we can in a sense measure the distance, in the 3 +1 quantum formalism as the sum of three cubes that equal a third cube.  The 4D direction then one as if a space distance.

But in the core conductibility of physical objects at least in the universe the higher dimensions interacting need not be strictly separate yet contiguous over their various higher or lower binary power continua (or beyond),  while (1+1)^n is true and (2+1)^n is true of orthogons we may find the view to keep separate and not confused in our calculations of (3+2)^n as well as an alternative decision to consider or dismiss of (2+2)^n.  In other words we find new aspects and potential influences of values between the fourth and fifth dimensions.
We also find as with Coxeter the lesser dimensional representations of the eutactic star vectors of shadows of these higher possible spaces into intelligible counting such as embedding five cubes in a dodecahedron.

Now, from the science magazine yesterday I find this most interesting observation beyond our normal ideas of now a century old set of theories of higher space.  It concerns a new concept of chemical bonding where in the universe we find very large magnetic fields measured in Teslas  It would be a theory I could build on if I had not done so already- again an intuitive building for the author in his modeling suggests the idea may await experimental or observational verification.  Just where do we trust our computational proofs and modelling- on what analogy such as the quasic ordering may we feel assured our results enable accurate mathematical induction of prediction in the wider cases without bounds in the counting?

This suggests to me one important new idea.  It seems we have been stuck a long time on the nature of Maxwell's equations as regarding the magnetic part.  The answer suggested is that we need to further refine what we mean by monopole, perhaps in the higher spaces these are more multiple entities than just an entity capable of leaking the force of all similar electrons in the quantum theory or keeping the geometric and arithmetical count finite but very large over Eddington's origin of the monopole as a single balancing singularity quite like the vanishing technically into but 8 of the logically presented color rules of supposed "gluons".

These arguments by symmetry and the conclusions from it, and the anomaly of what it cannot explain even by equivalent stances of the same level system of interpretation may apply, a quasic question of fundamental similarity, even if all such generalizations remain asymmetrical when generalized, that to part of a fundamental theory. It is but a step from here for us to imagine vast new applications and explorations into new mathematics and physical theory.  Do we build on the wisdom of the past or is science fundamentally the falsification of old ideas and the great souls that dared to ponder them?  In the end it is a matter of taste and a decision, burden even, for the generations if given a chance to be part of it, in our clear future.

* * * * * * *