T H E O R E M S


 
 
 
 
 
 
Written by Aristo Tacoma. Each can be further
distributed when copyright license Yoga4d CFDL
(as on yoga4d.org/cfdl.txt) is respected. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



This is the foundation batch of theorems. For
the newest batch, click here.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CAN BLACK-VS-BRIGHT (BVB) REPLACE COLOR-VS-COLOR 
(CVC)? 
-- A theorem of an informal kind indicating how 
to transcend the greed for too many colors 
 
1::B::2012::8::22
 
Among others, J W von Goethe engaged in work 
aiming to show that colors are not as primary 
as the contrast between black and (as we call 
it) bright (he said, between black and white, 
but the points are more general than that, and 
applies on the computer esp. to the contrast  
between black and computer bright spring green). 
  I believe it is possible, what with all the 
scientific works in the 20th century behind us, 
and armed, in addition, with what we call  
"neopopperian" science, to chisel out a novel 
approach to the matter. 
  Technological innovation has, in the area 
of esthetics, only the limits we consciously 
choose to adapt and apply. Human insight must 
prevent greed of the 'more wants still more' 
kind from removing elements of required 
simplicity from the grounds of our artworks. 
Add too much of components -- it can be colors -- 
and the work may induce confusion both in the 
mind of the artist and of those often exposed 
to the art, esp. if they are not very aware 
of what is involved. For what is, indeed, a 
coherent piece of art, so that both making and 
engaging with it, whether on the computer monitor 
or as some other shape in real life, we acquire 
a sense of meditation and wholeness? 
  In order to think in a way which can speak 
in an enduring and principal way, we have to be 
both willing to use very general (or highly 
abstract) words, and also keenly weigh some  
entirely intuitive propositions. This is what 
we will do, or attempt to do, in the following, 
where we use the word 'theorem' in such a  
completely informal sense as connected to the 
other theorems in this column (yoga4d.org/theorem). 
  Informal means that while we admit of the 
possibility, given very much explicit work, and 
a huge quantity of extra words, to give a  
rigorous logical treatment of the theorem,  
deducing it from definitions, axioms and some 
elementary laws of deduction, we are here  
assuming the context of the enlightened reader, 
able to browse as by instinct over a huge 
amount of 'natural assumptions' required to make 
sense of what is here said at all levels. 
 
DEFINITION. By 'BVB' we will mean any visual
art where the contrast between black and bright 
(bright on the computer can mean bright green, 
but the point is that it is a definite bright, 
not varying in colors) is the sole vehicle for 
expression.  
 
DEFINITION. By 'CVC' we will mean any visual 
art where the contrast between several shades 
of various colors is the vehicle of expression. 
 
The context of BVB and CVC can be a computer 
game. BVB can either mean a computer image 
shaped by means of visible (ie, rather large) 
pixels (typically squares) of EITHER black  
OR a particular bright (eg green), or it can 
mean (what is more typical in photos rendered 
in the green tonation range) a computer image 
with rather small pixels and with a gradual 
transition (in terms of, say, some dozens of 
steps) from the definite type of black to the 
definite type of bright, though without the 
introduction of any extra color. (There are 
also approximations to BVB.) 
 
The use of these concepts do not merely need 
to apply to one fixed image shown for a good 
while -- they can also pertain to a more or 
less quick succession of images such as in a 
game. 
 
DEFINITION. By 'synesthetical' -- a combination 
of greek 'syn' meaning together, and the also 
greek root also found in 'esthetics', which
fundamentally derives from meanings associated 
with saliently (ie, clearly) experiencable, 
and from roots associated with experience, 
esp sensual experience, and also sensing, -- 
we mean that the essential form of experience 
goes beyond identification with any bit of the 
experience with the typical categories of our 
sensory organs such as sight or sound or smell 
or bodily sensation -- and rather involves a 
sense of pure order of felt movement.
 
THEOREM. Perception is primarely synesthetical. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. As said in the introduction 
of this completely informal article where we 
use a completely informal notion of 'theorem', 
we do not explicitly introduce the appropriate 
axioms and such in order to lay out the strict 
pathways of explicit and, we might say, 
'algorithmic' deduction of these theorems; we 
put them forth in a spirit of open-minded 
enquiry with a keen sensitivity to listening in 
to any signs of incoherence in what we said 
either with its own order or with the order of 
broader experience appreciated without confounding 
illusions. This, then, is part of neopopperian 
enquiry. The use of the word 'theorem' is not to 
close down enquiry on the thing said, but rather 
it is to make the point that the present writer 
has a faith in the importance of the statement, 
even if it is perhaps very general and would 
not deserve the typical kind of attention it 
might get in this context if it were put in a 
comment as just one sentence amongst others, 
of varying degrees of obviousness. The faith 
is that this point is not only highly valuable, 
highly true, and worth giving much attention to, 
also inasmuch as it leads up to the concluding 
postulate in this little article, but it can also 
in PRINCIPLE stand within a much larger framework 
of formal deduction as a theorem proven by means 
of procedural steps. 
  It is however clear that if we were to give  
such an expanded account, the treatment of  
essence numbers (presently listed at yoga4d.org 
slash updated.htm) would be part of it, and  
in this treatment, the notion of perception and 
of order comes in quite naturally. Indeed, 
perception as indicated in that context does 
indeed go beyond any sensory modality, 
  But intuitively, by sustained attention and 
much subtle thinking, reflecting over subtle 
insights while meditating also near the sleep 
state, or even sometimes within in, sometimes 
dreamily, it is clear that each human mind is, 
when harmonious with itself and in a healthy 
body, able to reach a state where perceptiveness 
goes on and on in a movement which has meaning 
and order, even as the particular sensory shape 
of the earlier 'input' to the process is no 
longer dominant. The sounds, the visions, the 
sensations in the body, and so on, all acts as 
input to something yet more subtle which can 
be directly experienced. This is the synesthetical 
truth of perception, and it is primary. 
 
THEOREM. On the pathway to consciousness of  
colors through the retina, they are converted  
by means of the same type of parameters as the 
pathways of black-and-bright contrasts through 
the retina. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. Even though presumably the 
various nonlocal features of consciousness (as 
explored also through supermodel theory, see 
elsewhere by same writer) can touch on anything 
not just something, and so also touch directly 
on the color activation aspects in the retina of 
the human eye directly, it is fairly obvious 
that in most day-life consciousness experience, 
there are several more layers of processing at 
a material neuronic level of what the eyes in 
their incessant movement pick up in a living 
body with a healthy brain, the brain extending 
through the neurons indeed to all the body, also 
gut, genitals, nipples, lips, fingertips, feet, 
etc. And it is quite clear that neurons working on 
the color aspect of sensory visual perception are 
not in essence sharply different from neurons 
working on bright-and-black aspects of sensory 
visual perception, nor are the latter merely a 
subset of the former. Rather, these are  
various ways that visual perception may occur, 
and in real life they often go together; but in 
the full set of cases, there are vibration states 
-- frequencies of activation -- and similar such 
in the resulting processing levels. 
 
THEOREM. Patterns of frequencies of also neuronic 
activity designate particular visual perceptions. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. The brain is not merely about 
neuron cells but also other cells and other types 
of perceptive elements, and perception in its 
material aspects is not merely about the brain  
but also the rest of the body and even some  
aspects of a material kind beyond the body, and 
then in addition comes the whole nonlocal aspects 
indicated in supermodel theory. However, any 
distinct perceptive elements tend to give rise 
to frequencies of particular activations of 
also neurons in some way, with some patterns, and 
while this may go beyond what can be mapped in 
terms of genetical code in the DNA, and may be 
varying not just from person to person but also 
in one person vary from one season to another, 
and indeed may vary also when in one mood and 
when in another mood, in EACH PARTICULAR CASE 
patterns of frequencies are distinctly indicating 
distinct sensory perceptions. 
 
THEOREM. BVB can replace CVC in art; in 
addition, CVC should be replaced by BVB in art 
as it can lead the mind onto incoherence. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. The phrase 'in art' means  
that we are bringing in the domain of mood, 
mindfulness also in entertainment, and in the 
quest of wholeness and joy, beauty and flush of 
novel, exciting feelings. We are furthermore 
indicating that there is a sense of luxury in 
the domain of exploration right now, in that 
we admit to real life situations having to have 
many forms of indications running in parallell 
-- e.g. not just words but also flashing lights, 
and not just flashing lights of one color but 
also of another color -- when it comes to  
such as critical timing of actions in critical 
practical situations. There is, in other words, 
a practical utility to CVC that must not be 
denied. The whole quest of the present work 
concerns the notion of whether CVC is necessary 
or even possibly destructive in the context of 
art. 
  It follows from the previous theorems that 
any set of colors lead to patterns of frequencies 
of activation of neurons and correspondent  
phenomena in consciousness. Clearly, patterns 
of frequencies of activation of neurons and 
correspondent phenomena in consciousness also 
arise from angles of lines and simple shapes 
with pixels utilizing bright versus black (BVB). 
  We have already talked of the synesthetical 
feature of perception, -- that all perceived 
can be understood in a primary sense as flowing 
order going beyond any sensory modality.  
Personal exploration and enquiry can show how 
particular setups of BVB patterns can give each 
of the color experiences at a synesthetical 
level. 
  There is a compression in terms of how much 
information that can be given pr square meter, 
say, when color is invoked, for colors  
correspond individually to just such frequencies 
while patterns of several BVB must be set up for 
each frequency to evoke the same in consciousness. 
However, in this context where we explore art 
as a participant perceptive process of flowing 
order with similarities, contrasts and gestalts 
(or wholenesses) (again, pls see the work on 
essence numbers), any tendency to over-represent 
a particular order and over-represent also the 
quantity of orders invoked in a given art image 
may make the mind go sluggish because the  
perceptive capacities are exhausted, and without 
there being any point to this exhaustion. For 
art to be first-hand stimulating, it must not 
conceal its own nature, but rather allow the  
mind to grasp the input and then work further on 
it. So while one may see from the earlier 
points that BVB in fact CAN replace CVC, the 
latter points indicate that BVB not just can 
but indeed should replace CVC. 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WHOLENESS, SCHOLASTICALLY EXPOSED 
-- With a new formulation on heaven/hell dualism 
 
1::A::2012::6::24
  
In the very informal sense of the word 'theorem', 
as also indicated at yoga4d.org/updated.htm, but 
still more informally here -- as we do not outline 
axioms nor definitions -- we suggest an elaboration 
of the berkeleyan perspective. 
 
THEOREM. In a berkeleyan perspective on creation 
as the active daydreaming of the source, there is 
a matching of the distinction between coherence 
and noise, with the distinction between faith 
and disbelief, and also with the distinction  
between higher mentality and essential material 
processes. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. In the berkeleyan perspective 
(as initiated by the philsopher and priest 
George Berkeley, but enormously refined in views 
indicated around on these sites), nothing is not 
belonging to the mentality of the source, origin 
or what we call "God". So in a very broad sense,  
all is higher mentality. However in a more 
concrete sense, something is nearer the higher 
mentality including intentions than something 
else, for unless there are some rules and 
patterns belonging to that aspect of the overall 
daydreaming which we call 'matter', so that this 
matter gets its own inertia, its own chance, 
its own causation, its own coincidence, etc, 
there will not be the contrast between the 
higher intentions and feelings and the gradual 
unfoldment of creation. Rather, if it were all 
one soup, so to speak, there would not be any 
continuity from one daydreamed instant to the 
next, there would not be any challenge to bring 
matter more and more up to the level of higher 
intentions; it would be like a boardgame without 
any rules setting any limits to the motions of 
the boards, rather like a very small child trying 
to play a complicated game without having any 
inkling of the rules. 
  As has been pointed out in theoretical physics 
(e.g. by D. Bohm), causality and chance are in 
some sense complementary concepts implying each 
other at each level they are applied. 
  Chance, or what appears to be chancelike motion, 
is, seen along the dimension of higher mentality, 
in contrast to the notion of coherence, where  
noise then becomes a more suitable word for it. 
Coherence means something beyond control. 
  The greater wholeness or coherence that  
characterises the mind of the origin in an  
absolute sense is of course at the foundation, 
so any use of a word like 'noise' or 'chance' 
must be seen as relative. A weak analogy is  
found in how a computer can emulate chance by 
inputting the output of a complicated arithmetical 
formula into itself, on a finite set of bits, 
so as to produce an apparently chancelike  
sequence of numbers. It is chancelike in that 
it reflects no obvious set of rules, and 
in any case certainly not the explicit rules 
of the rest of the program. It is then, we can 
say, a Relatively Free Fluctuation Generation, 
or what we in Gamev (or F3) programming call 
RFFG. 
  If all partakes in the higher mentality then 
it makes sense to say of all that all is alive 
and all has consciousness, in some principal 
sense, even that which we call essential  
material processes. 
  But there must be a qualititative distinction 
in the type of feeling-or-mentality that goes 
along with, or is inherent in, essential material 
processes and in that which we in supermodel 
theory (which is integrated into the refined 
berkeleyan, or neo-berkeleyan perspective that 
we offer, elsewhere, on these sites), call 
'higher supermodels' (as an extension of the 
pilot wave interpretation of the nonlocal 
type introduced in part by L de Broglie). 
  The supermodels act on each other and some 
of them correspond to more manifest matter. 
But more manifest matter than has some features 
of causality and chance, or control-like rules 
and noise, that are relatively (but not 
absolutely) distinct from higher supermodels. 
It is this feature, which by metaphor we can 
also call 'inertia', of essential matter 
processes that gives the contrast between the 
part of creation which is exposed to a progress 
or evolution and that part of creation which is 
having intents guiding this. 
  Aligned to the higher intents we can then 
see that there are life-processes which we can 
name as 'the muses', belonging to the origin- 
mind and embodiment of this. 
  Given that everything partakes in the higher 
mind, or the totality of the mind of the source, 
it is possible to state that a high degree of 
connection to the highest intents can be said to 
have the feeling of full connectedness, which 
we can also call a feeling of faith or coherence. 
  It is postulated that all human beings who  
exist do have at core full faith. It is compatible 
with this postulate that some says that they do 
not have such faith, for it is not necessarily 
so that all know themselves perfectly. 
  But essential matter processes do have a  
sizable component of noise. Even though this is 
relative, this must correspond to a distinct 
different feeling, involving some limited 
extent of disconnectedness, even within the 
totality of the whole. 
  When the feeling of connectedness correspond 
to a feeling of faith, it follows that the  
contrasting emotion of the source has a finesse 
of disbelief. Given the earlier mentioned 
feature of all having an aspect of liveliness 
and consciousness, to some extent, it follows  
that the essential material processes do have 
an active component of some disbelief. If this 
was not so, there would have been too much 
connectedness in the essential material processes 
that they could have retained their inertia. 
 
COROLLARY. There is a vague sense of pain 
associated with the essential material processes. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. This follows easily by a 
natural reflection of what just, in the above, 
has been stated, and what is implied by this. 
For in the fullness of the berkeleyan vision of 
the universe as belonging to the God-mind proper, 
there is with full connectedness to the higher 
intents obviously also the wholeness-feeling 
associated with joy or what Spinoza (though with 
slightly different perspectives, and not coupled 
up with recent insights into physics, naturally) 
called 'hilaritas'. 
  A reduction of the fullest capacity of joy in 
some of the procesess which, though after all  
are fully within this God-mind, exists with their 
own noise-like or chance-like processes, must  
mean that there is some level of pain to these 
processes. 
 
COROLLARY. The higher mentality existence is 
-- in a berkeleyan vision of existence -- akin 
to what in theology has been called 'heaven',  
while the essential material processes contain 
a closure within disbelief, or incapacity to  
face full faith, that to some extent justify 
to say that these essential material processes 
are, for any consciousness element inhabiting 
them, somewhat 'hellish', or indeed, constitutes 
something which (though very, very, very mildly 
so), can be called 'hell' -- still referring to 
theological terms of a classical kind, but now 
drastically changed in meaning. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. Also this follows from the 
above theorem and how it was proved, as well as 
from the above corollary. In the berkeleyan 
perspective there is a liveliness to all that 
exists and in the fullest human existence, when 
the meditative state is so as to be aligned 
in full good synchronicity and coherence with
the higher intents beyond material concern,  
then the fullness of feeling of existence as  
such must be wholesome, holistic and joyous and 
cannot be a sense of dominant fragmentation at 
all. This is to be aligned, indeed, to that core 
of being which is full faith and without which 
human soul-existence is impossible. 
  In some sense, then, actuality is heaven but 
it is not given to human beings to have full 
sense of it more than at times, in glimpses 
(cfr writings on what we call 'enlightenment'). 
  In contrast, material existence is locked away 
from higher human existence -- the essential 
material processes are extremely minuscle and 
subject to a set of noiselike rules so that, 
given the premise that there is after all some 
liveliness and some consciousness of some  
elementary kind, at some times, also here, 
this is by contrast a sense of hellishness for 
full faith is not possible; it is a state of 
being where even one glimpse of full faith must 
mean full death of the process; for these processes 
are sustained by virtue of their lack of 
connectedness, or, in mental terms, 'disbelief'. 
It is therefore having features allowing us, 
in a sensitive mood of mind, to find parallels 
to what in classic simplistic theological 
terms can be called 'hell'. Further results 
indicate that we are speaking here of something 
which is far more minuscle than even the Planck 
level of resolution of matter, but we do not 
include even outline of proof of this here. 
 
COROLLARY. Realisation of the distinction of 
essential material processes and higher mental 
existence is adamant for growth towards, and then 
within, relative enlightenment for humans. 
 
OUTLINE OF PROOF. In the berkeleyan perspective,  
there is a totality of feeling. 
  In this totality, a human being is able to 
sense not just the totality of cosmos in glimpses 
where this doesn't burn up the sensory apparatus 
of the subtle nature which is part of the human 
brain and body as a whole, including genitals, 
in orgasmic perception etc., but the human being 
can also pick up currents from what we in the 
above designated the 'hellishness' of the  
essential material processes. By realising the 
greatness of the distinction underlaying the 
notes in the above, one will more easily be able 
to avoid giving too much importance to the 
fragmentary, disbelieving feelings associated 
with the hellishness of essential material 
processes rather prefer to attribute truth to 
the sense of love associated with the fullness 
and wholeness of higher mentality and higher, 
nobler intentions, as proper to godhood. 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WHEN IS A SMARTER PROGRAM A DUMBER PROGRAM? -- A 
THEOREM 
-- In design, sometimes, and in some ways, less 
is more; and sometimes, as for computer programs, 
the stupider program is the smarter program 
 
1::A::2012::6::13
 
Intolerably often in today's computing world  
does one meet on programs which are released  
under the pretence of being 'smart' while  
they in fact are overly helpful in an  
entirely misguided, and actively unhelpful way. 
Just as intolerably, the word 'smart' has become 
by some insincere electronic gadget producers, 
sort of glued into some other words and in some 
rediculous way part of a brand-description of 
a whole series of products which, all in all, 
are hit strong by the accusation in the title 
of this informal little article. 
  To remedy and clarify, then, it appeared to  
me that there is a similarity between the  
too-often stated 'less is more' idea which however 
do have some relevance, obviously, in some ways 
and to a moderate extent, for some forms of art 
and design in general, and the not at all often 
stated (in fact, I have never heard it stated 
before, nor ever read it), formulation that 
'less smart, more smart'. 
  I hope that after this article the latter 
idea, however, will come into its most well- 
deserved popularity, whether exactly with these 
words or with some analogous words. 
  I have so many examples for the idea that it 
seems absurd to even begin to mention any 
examples, for the application of the idea is 
so enormously wide in this over-electronised era. 
  Instead, then, with the actively informal 
vocabulary of words such as 'theorem' and 
'definition' as indicated in yoga4d.org/updated.htm 
I will here sketch a kind of informal proof in 
the sense that these things could have been  
made more explicit -- towards the lines  
indicated at ../updated.htm, at least -- 
if we bother to do so. 
  DEFINITION. A smart program in effect is a 
program that, as an effect, contributes 
fruitfully and in an uncluttered way to 
successful activity in a way coherent with 
the intention for the human interactors with 
the program. 
  DEFINITION. A smart program in construction 
is a program that, instead of being made by  
means of simple and sparse rules, have bundles 
of rules involving nuances and averages and 
typically a behaviour that varies in a way that 
is somewhat unpredictable but based on these 
rules, and so that it mimicks the behaviour of 
somebody who has a mind and uses it in some 
contexts. 
  The opposite of a smart program in effect is 
a stupid program in effect. 
  The opposite of a smart program in construction 
is a stupid program in construction. 
  THEOREM. A stupid program in construction can 
be a smart program in effect. 
  SKETCH OF PROOF. Most elementary and simple 
program has an elegant and predictable aspect 
about them that allows them to be called upon 
by a mindful interactor so as to have a function 
that is fruitful, successful in a larger context. 
This is in particular so if there is a sensitivity 
in selecting just what the simplicity of the  
program is all about. 
  THEOREM. A smart program in construction is 
more likely to be a stupid program in effect 
than to be a smart program in effect.
  This is a more drastic postulate than the 
former, which simply concerns the fact that 
some simple programs do great work. Here, the 
postulate concerns a likelihood relating to 
how the program is designed. It is stated that 
the program made so as to effect such smart-like 
attributes as indicated in the definition -- 
reacting by means of averaging over nuances  
and without the type of predictability the
simply constructed program can give -- such 
a program is likely to be unfruitful in many 
ways. 
  In assessing this likelihood, we must take 
as starting-point that the contexts within 
which programs are called on by human interactors 
are lively and themselves complex and full of 
changing objectives and parameters of many  
kinds. Programs can be a stable feature called 
on as a set of simplistic tools when the human 
interactor finds it suitable. But a program made 
smart in construction in the manner indicated 
above is not such a simplistic tool. Rather, it 
is made with the pretence of being a sensitive 
participant in the ever-changing context, with 
novel intentions, goals, subgoals. However, such 
sensitivity is obviously a property of far more 
subtle organisms than manifest digital  
computers. In other words, even though a program 
may have some element of the fluidity of the 
human interactor, the fluidity is likely to be 
informed by assumptions as to what the context 
is that reflect the particular contexts within 
which the program was shaped, and what with the 
deep changes of contexts, this means that the 
particular fluidity that such a program exhibits 
is not a sensitive fluidity. Rather, we should 
call it an 'arbitrary' fluidity, meaning that 
the program that is smart in construction in 
the manner indicated in the definition doesn't 
have a proper relationship to the actual 
assumptions governing the actual context. In 
other words, there is a likelihood that the 
program is stupid in effect. 
  The informal theorems with proofs very  
informally outlined above, can then be 
summarised -- with a sensitivity to the contexts 
in which the words are used as different in the 
two parts of the phrase -- 
  Less smart, more smart. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE ENDING OF 3D ROTATIONS 
-- Understanding how essence number theory suggests 
that the only way to get lively 3D is to step out 
of the mechanistic paradigm of sine and cosine 
arithemethic on assumedly "3d" models 
 
1::A::2012::4::26
 
This is not propaganda, but a simple truth, I think, 
-- at least it seems so to me -- and I don't expect 
many in the present earthian gadget-freaky climate 
to appreciate it -- but here we go: 
  [[[First, though, the use of the word 'theorem' in  
some of my texts is briefly explained in connection  
with an intro to essence number theory as listed also 
at www.yoga4d.org/updated.htm. Here, it is used in 
a short-hand or sketchy way -- to indicate that, 
given extra space for writing than allotted to this 
little article, we could come forth with definitions 
and axioms and such, still the whole range of them 
in a first-hand intuitive way, not mechanistic.]]] 
  THEOREM. A genuinely alive 3d (& more) object in
the real world never undergoes anything like the 
so-called '3d rotations' that may be calculated by 
means of such arithmetic as is derived from sine, 
cosine, arctangent, square roots and the whole lot. 
 
  OUTLINE OF PROOF. 
First of all, in taking essence number understanding 
seriously, we note that the word 'rotation' implies 
a continuity that is not offered by the finite and 
always finite numbers, finite also in decimal digit 
series, that are used in any manifest computer 
algorithm. This is, by essence number understanding, 
not trivial. 
  It means, put simply, that no rotation is possible 
by means of arithmetic of this sort. Rather, what 
happens when a so-called '3d' model (e.g. generated 
by such game-oriented and otherwise excellent, but 
mechanistic and boring to the artist whose  
oinclination is first-handedness, package as  
the Blender program) is exposed to sine, cosine and 
derivate arithmetical techniques (e.g. some sort of 
matrices) is that this 3d model is not rotated, but 
transformed. 
  The next question is then: is the 3d transformation 
by means of sine, cosine and such (as we also did 
in our experimentative LIGHT3D.TXT, before we hit  
on the tracks at present leading to the revolutionary 
CURVEART part of GAMEV) of 3d models relevant  
connected to the re-presentation of such  
transformations as happen in the real life? 
  But we note here that it is a mechanistic  
assumption that anything indeed can be 'rotated' in 
terms of a mere permutation over coordinates and 
vectors and such stuff. 
  In praxis, in real life, with quantum connections 
and contexts enforcing themselves by an immediacy 
that is not reducible to such causal phenomena as 
shadowing and the like, a living being, when  
turning around, is transformed completely. 
 
 
 


















SOME FIELDS IN SUPERMODEL THEORY

1::B::2013::8::24

"Q-fields" have been introduced as a simplification
of the language that supermodel theory lends itself
to, when applied to ordinary English, and in a 
context where it (also more extreme forms of the
theory as applied to daily life, to design etc)
is taken seriously. [cfr article introducing it in
page 10 of Eco-nomy archive.]
  Further, the notion of push-pull fields, or 
"pp-fields", have been introduced in the sense of
a contrast -- signifying not the "quantum-like",
as in "q", but the "push-pull" which signifies
the mechanical causation of a pre-quantum type
of worldview and which is the typical type of
view associated with viewing machines as machines
rather than the fuller picture which is to see 
them also as q-fields. The first use of the notion
of "pp-fields" is in the G15 Multiversity 
Manifesto as given in intro to the Elsketch
series of first-hand electronics projects.
  By analogy, and to extend the sense in which
this concept of q-fields and this type of 
vocabulary can give a unique sense of supermodel
theory as applied to daily life and indeed also
a universe understanding in organic terms, we
here introduce a number of fields, and suggest,
in a strictly neopopperian sense, certain avenues
of understanding -- perhaps (in the sense 
introduced before in our theorem section here
at Yoga4d.org) -- also some theorems. In contrast
to these sections, we will not here attempt to 
even begin to outline any sketch of proof for
most of them (esp. since they allow themselves
to be explored intuitively so fruitfully) -- 
except for the first. 

Suggested intuitive concepts for exploration:
  s-field field of sex
  d-field field of dance
  v-field field of vacuum or near-vacuum, and/or
zero-gravity or near zero-gravity, also as
imagined to exist in interstellar space
  f-field field of flavour or scent, also as in
enjoyment of food
  n-field field of the spread and vibrations
of an essence number
  l-field field of logic
  b-field field of business mode activity -- in
many of the productions of this writer, it is 
distinguished between human activity in a sex or
"porn mode", and activities more oriented towards
use, practical activities, or "business mode",
allowing for the notion of entertainment as a
kind of third mode which partakes in either
  g-field field of a grunge experience, in which
the q-field of a living body changes to the
q-field of a nonliving body

Theorem. A pp-field is a set of q-fields in a
certain type of interaction.
  A single q-field has in it a nonlocal organising
attribute which is not typically associated with
what we call a pp-field. The use of the word
'pp-field' is meant not to indicate a different
worldview, in which q-fields are excluded, but
rather a particular activity within a world and
a metaphysics where q-fields are the norm and
ground. The particular activity is analyzable
(when the pp-field concept is used rightly) in
terms of such as push and pull, or such as 
'forces' operating more 'locally' on the 'parts'.
But these parts, at some level or resolutions,
must be seen as wholes therefore q-fields. And
wholes that connect and interact according to
a certain pattern -- they can be molecules, 
for instance, each molecule partaking in 
quantum-like field of coherencies of a nonlocal
kind -- and this pattern must correspond to some
features of some aspect of q-fields involved with
each of the wholes.
  In addition, we note that a pp-field can, due
to the emergent and generative nature of the PMW
in supermodel theory, suddenly have to be described
as a q-field. Indeed, such as elsketch electronics
have both features at once (and as such constitute
a rare and important experience in the manifest
universe, where the mechanistic aspect of
existence blends effortlessly with the q-aspect,
not just for interactions within and around a
transistor, but also as for such as modulators
or "resistors" with ohms combine not as parts
adding up but as parts engaging in a whole "ohm-
field").

Proposition. A b-field has a focus on a pp-field
while recognising it also as a q-field.

Proposition. A d-field has in it an analogy to 
the v-field (as a teaching of dance).

Proposition. An l-field has in it an analogy to
the n-field (as a teaching of logic).

Proposition. An f-field has in it both an s-field
and a g-field.

Proposition. In the manifest universe, the q-fields
of living bodies cannot physically endure the 
v-fields in the interstellar sense without becoming 
g-fields, even if within or on a natural or artificial 
object that provides physical protection (in the 
pp-sense) against the dangers of vacuum and its cold 
and such. (Thus, space travel in any galactic or 
intergalactic sense cannot be done except by a 
nonlocality that admits no interstellar pauses.)



















*****




ATWLAH