Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect; or no statement is both true and false.
Let us start with the easy one.
To a Map Thinker™ truth is virtually nonexistent. Those truths that do exist are ephemeral. This state of being existed at this specific time at this specific place. The most enduring truths are relationships and they are complete abstractions.
For example Pi.
Unfortunately the exact truth of Pi can never be known to the final digit and if it were it would be useless knowledge.
As Steven Hawking points out: In mathematics it is often the case where two different, even opposite, models can explain the same phenomena. Which one you use is a matter of choice or convenience. One of his sentences I love is that all P-branes are created equal.
Truth is not an issue.
Usefulness is.
To a Map Thinker the simplest solution that yields a useful result is the best solution.
Now on to: Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.
Aristotle expressed this as A(A and not A).
Lets examine this a bit. In poor Aristotle’s defense, ( I do pick on him a LOT) he had no way of guessing our formula for A: An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n -> Q = I <- Pn . Science of the time, while more advanced than many people believe, was not what it is today.
What he was looking at as A was Q = I.
In simple words he saw the forest and thought it was the thing itself. He did not see the trees that made it up. Sort of the opposite of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
In complexer terms he saw the qualities expressed by(RsiRpi )n and thought this I(dentity) was in fact the thing itself.
And yes, I do know “proper grammar” does not include “complexer”. Someday I will write a “Map Thinker’s Guide to Creative Grammar™” Just because I can.
R -> Q = I <- P
R = Ripn
Lets take a closer look at R.
R = (RsiRpi )n means that A (Tree for example) is both the sum of its parts and the proportion of those parts. Thus to reiterate what was said before: It is possible to hold a rock in one hand and a glass of sea water in the other that both contain exactly the same ingredients. The only difference being the proportions of those ingredients.
But just like a stew can contain salt or not contain salt, or contain oregano or not contain oregano and still be identifiable as stew, so can sea water and a rock can contain or not contain different ingredients and still be identifiable as both a rock and sea water.
Tiny differences in the DNA of trees tells a scientist which tree was involved in the crime.
Some scientists tell us an interesting possibility about emus.
It seems that birds and reptiles are virtually the same creatures. Every feathered friend that exists is a potential scaly monster from bygone eras — If you knew how to flip the right switch.
Therefore an Emu is a potential tiny dinosaur of the same size and shape.
Is that true?
It remains to be proven.
Gene splicing, cloning, DNA fiddling… this could get confusing.
So the law of non-contradiction that Aristotle was so fond of is in reality a pleasant fiction that bears no relationship to the world of reality — Only the world of appearance.
Once we replace A = A with we are forced to replace NOT (A and not A) with A = An and Rn where An equals slight variations in A (possibly over time) Rn. When Rip as perceived by Aristotle had a large enough difference he saw A as something entirely different.
Let us say A = grass.
If grass is given the right nutrients it will provide your lawn with a richer, more bountiful color to show off your skill and your house.
Thus A = An.
Very slight variations in the same grass over time and environment (a hefty word meaning place / space).
Your neighbor has a different breed of grass.
A = Aªn.
Where A is A but shows a wide variation. Enough to be a separate variety.
A = (RsiRpi )
Where A = any potential state of A both known and unknown.
An example of this could be instead of feeding the lawn a diet that produces a more robust color the homeowner instead forgets to water the grass and it becomes dry and brown and eventually dies off.
Or it could be the neighbor’s cow eats it and it changes state completely.
Aristotle never considered time, space, or process in any of his laws. With modern knowledge of how the world works we cannot ignore them. Any change, even the slightest, in time, space, or process, will have an effect on A no matter what A is.
A is only A at a specific place, during a specific time, while no process is happening.
Thus A is ONLY A while you are pointing at it.
As soon as you have turned your back on it it has changed.
The grass, A, is changing at some microscopic level even as you point at it.
Thus An -> I <-P.
I will name the Perceiver George.
This comes from an enjoyable Fantasy novel titled “The Dragon and the George” by Gordon R. Dickson.
It is a reply to The Ultimate Prisoner Riddle. ( I will get into the Ultimate Prisoner Riddle and its social aspects another time.) The oldest of these I know of is Sinbad. But Sinbad the Sailor and Sinbad the wealthy and Sinbad the Pauper are all the same. And this is very transparent.
Jim Eckert on the other hand enters a world of magic as the Dragon Gorbash. And is forced into another Point of View entirely.
George is a suitable name for our Perceiver.
We, as does George, must face constant change in our Point of View.
An -> I <-P.
Where there is a slight difference, even a profoundly noticeable difference such as color change or growing too tall, George is able to maintain continuity. He can say, “My grass sure looks better after I added that new ingredient to it. But it is growing faster so I got to cut it this weekend.”
Thus George can think about, and talk about, the grass in front of his house that he calls a lawn as though it existed in Aristotle’s simplistic universe.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Remember a basic principle of Map Thinking:
Always use the simplest map that serves the purpose.
Just because George knows, or should know, that at some level A -> I <- P does not mean that he has to use it every time he draws a breath.
Here is another basic principle of Map Thinking.
The human mind, in order to function, simplifies everything. There is no way the human mind can encompass all the complexities of the universe. Even if it could it would have to focus on one aspect at a time in order to function as a human being.
In art you are taught the basic shapes. Circle, square, rectangles, triangles, ovals, — None of these shapes exist in nature.
They are mental simplifications the mind uses to deal with all the complex information presented by a confusing universe.
Does not matter.
If you learn to draw, and learn to see, basic shapes, you will always be able to produce a picture.
No tree or bush that ever existed was ever exactly ball-shaped or exactly triangular-shaped — But the mind will process them as such. Even houses built by humans do not form exact squares and rectangles, but the mind sees them as such.
Thus the law of non-contradiction must be replaced with,
A ≠ -> I <- P
A does not equal the Identity it projects to the Perceiver.
A is both A and Not A.
At one and the same time.
You should notice that nowhere in here have I directly discussed particle physics or quantum physics / mechanics. Both are implied. It would be hard for me to discuss reason or science without some references. But everything I have discussed has been on the macro level.
Aristotle could have seen it.
Anyone since Aristotle could have seen it.
Some did.
Those who did were quickly drowned out by those who worshipped Aristotle as the Thinker of all Thinkers. Just last week I met a man whose basic attitude is, “Aristotle said it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Had Aristotle not been so simplistic, or had his adherents not been so fanatical, Quantum Physics would not be such a shock to the average person. Because the activity at the Macro level is NOT that different from that at the Micro level — If you take the time to look.
(C) 2013, All Rights Reserved
The Map Thinker (tm) 
Recent Comments