C-172. The other “string theory”
For physicists working their investigative way inward from the putative universe, through the entities comprised by this supposed super-entity, it seems to some observers that the most ultimately tiny particle which might be found further along inside these entities could be a “string,” a one-dimensional entity in B-spacetime.
This is an ahistorical (C-108) “string theory,” employing the B-transform to Read the Expansion (C-167f) in terms of the functionality of bodies comprised by their universe (using the inside-outside cognitive relation [X]).
By now, however, we have seen many historical cases of what also might be usefully considered a “string theory.” We remarked on this earlier in talking about interdependency conditions being given a linguistic protocol of “<=>” (ahistorical) when what is – or needs to be – talked about is a sequence (historical): a string of contingent emergent materiality (App. XI-XII,XVI: CEM-history*) involving not only a body step but many other interdependencies within the step (e.g., mind <=> move);
For example, re “N<=>F F” (C-115): needed functionality (NF) => functionality (F) => NF => F => NF … (as re matters of growth)
And re “I<=>G” (C-105): Involve (I) => Grasp (G) => Involve … (as in “playing catch”)
Step strings (i.e., molecular steps), not just body strings.
And not just step strings, either. Step braids. As, for example, when we compose step molecules that Involve more than one step string, such as both the NF<=>F and G<=>I strings within the body<=>step and its mind<=>move strings.
We haven’t got this braid weaving down yet. Our efforts often resemble a very crude macramé.
This is survival of the fittingest (C-166). It should be noted that if R-words (C-107) were generally accepted and employed (C-171), then “fit” would make this point – along with “compose.”
***
While body strings are far removed from the quotidian behavior of problem solving humans, step strings and the continuing body <=> step string of CEM-history are very much front and center – i.e., with us At and On the Frontier (C-118).
* Seen historically, “B<=>S” implies all three of CEM’s conditions: contingency (mutual dependence), emergence (S => B) and materiality (of S as well as, and together with, B).
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
This is an ahistorical (C-108) “string theory,” employing the B-transform to Read the Expansion (C-167f) in terms of the functionality of bodies comprised by their universe (using the inside-outside cognitive relation [X]).
By now, however, we have seen many historical cases of what also might be usefully considered a “string theory.” We remarked on this earlier in talking about interdependency conditions being given a linguistic protocol of “<=>” (ahistorical) when what is – or needs to be – talked about is a sequence (historical): a string of contingent emergent materiality (App. XI-XII,XVI: CEM-history*) involving not only a body step but many other interdependencies within the step (e.g., mind <=> move);
For example, re “N<=>F F” (C-115): needed functionality (NF) => functionality (F) => NF => F => NF … (as re matters of growth)
And re “I<=>G” (C-105): Involve (I) => Grasp (G) => Involve … (as in “playing catch”)
Step strings (i.e., molecular steps), not just body strings.
And not just step strings, either. Step braids. As, for example, when we compose step molecules that Involve more than one step string, such as both the NF<=>F and G<=>I strings within the body<=>step and its mind<=>move strings.
We haven’t got this braid weaving down yet. Our efforts often resemble a very crude macramé.
This is survival of the fittingest (C-166). It should be noted that if R-words (C-107) were generally accepted and employed (C-171), then “fit” would make this point – along with “compose.”
While body strings are far removed from the quotidian behavior of problem solving humans, step strings and the continuing body <=> step string of CEM-history are very much front and center – i.e., with us At and On the Frontier (C-118).
* Seen historically, “B<=>S” implies all three of CEM’s conditions: contingency (mutual dependence), emergence (S => B) and materiality (of S as well as, and together with, B).
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
S