Science of Life - Uri Fidelman - Equations of Mind
Please contribute a chapter to a book, “Science of Life”.
Specifically, to summarise for the readers what you found out about the relationship between the equations of science, and the way our mind processes information.
In the CASYS conferences you have spoken about the measurements that have been done to understand how we think. It determines what we think.
Your story is specifically about the relationship between the language between us (exotheric) and within us (esotheric). How the language and formulations, equations that we use to describe reality, are all based on the communication within us, between our body cells.
That means that we have to think backwards; or - in fact - we are thinking backwards. Reality does not have to fit our models. Our experience does not need to comply with our expectations. Life is not a consequence of DNA…
People write books. Our mind set creates the models. Living ‘writes’ our DNA.
In science the accent is usually on the act of observation: measurement, relying on materials: machines, instruments. It focuses on reduction(ism), generalisation, abstraction. The conclusions of science end in data, numbers on a dial, but they always start with somebody who has an idea, and turns it into a tool.
With your work you lead the ideas in the other direction: where the ideas come from; and how we come to ideas.
That is where I invite you to describe what you have researched, and how it helps us connect the models we make of reality, with the way come to our realisation.
It is similar to the calculation Walter Schempp developed for resolving the Heisenberg Uncertainty in the measurement of electromagnetic field in MRI. Except that in this case its is about the inverse: how we can find the optimal use of freedom of choice.
It is also similar to the descriptions of intercellular communication as described by Cyril Smith, Jan van der Greef, Roel van Wijk, but not about the inverse; how we in the same manner create, and experience (‘our’) ideas.
It is similar to the description of the organisation of the materials in our body, as presented by Vanessa Hill, Peter Rowlands, and Diego Rapoport, but now in inverse: how we structure our ideas.
The theories we make, are produced by our use/way of thinking.
The observations. that we create are the result of our mode of perception.
All theories of science, reflect our patterns of (internal/external) communication.
We can, and need to look at that the other way around also: all models of reality, are formulations of realisation.
By your work I came to understand that we can interpret every model of reality, and every instrument we use in observation, as expressions of the way we structure oure ideas, and how our mind orders information.
Specifically clear was your finding that the laws of science, such are f=m.a, i=O**2.R and E=Mc**2 are not formulations of nature, but formulations of our nature. Or, rather, that both are equivalent, and complements of each other.
Together they formulate the yinn and yang of our body and mind, of information and matter. Which helps realise that both are aspects of the same.
What we have forms as descriptions of/for nature, we can use as formulation for our nature. It means we have a very detailed description of the way our consciousness functions, what Ideas are, and how they are formed, if we only manage to understand our descriptions of ‘reality’ as formulations for our ‘realisation.
I invite you to write a chapter summarising your work and findings:
- What gave you the idea to look for the way we perceive, and find it?
- How did your understanding take shape; what helped you?
- Having discovered the our mind is our model; how does it help you - and us all?
- How do you see that this understanding can be of help for understanding the Science of Life, in and beyond how it already helped me as I described above?
I ask you to condense your insight in 6 pages of text, plus 4 pages for images, diagrams, tables art work; Half a page of with for references to your web site and (for the Science of Life) relevant writings.