[ESTHER]

Cathedral Building Theory Code Fragment 111 bis:

SOME LOOSE ENDS on Vision, Language and Memory

Intro 1:The following thoughts, badly expressed no doubt, keep bogging me, so i write them down publicly sort of secretly hoping someone would clarify these things for me. It seems No-One reads 'm though or Every Body hates me so much that they refuse me the satisfaction of clarity. I hate Every Body and love No-one.

Intro 2: Here Are Some theses that need to be either defused, logically dismantled or re-enforced in opposite directions before humanity can gloriously proceed into Wolframania, the ultimate Realm of Pretty Damn Clean Understanding.

Intro 3: Some stuff to be flushed down some byte-drain if you can find any

Usage: 1/ FIRST READ the Following Loose Ends

• there is no such thing as a mysterious gateway transforming visual input to language present in the human brain. Although most scientists agree on this, a lot of them are in the nasty habit of still using this fictional Gate to insist on dreaming up methodically ways of classifications of fictional event-objets into a static library, preferably with a pretty blond sitting at the reception desk awaiting Serious Questions from the Audience
  
  
• Invariant objects do not exist as such within the process of human (animal) visual processing. They 'seem to be there', even 'undeniably there' viz. 'they ought to be there' because similarities in brain-events as seen as isolated visual processing events can only be efficiently discussed by establishing them in the coding process, the conscious language of the researcher. There is however no 'there' for these objects to 'be'. They can only become in secondary representations of coherent referal systems, where original 'objects' are replaced rasterised or digitalised representations. Storing the representations in searchable and controlable representation environements (eg a computer network) will enable researchers to establish coherent stories of related invariant objects that then can be experimentally retrieved in subsequent samples of similarly processed information.
  
  This method or model is however inherently 'lossy', in fact it cannot be otherwise or the enire universe in all eternity would need to be included within the referential model.
  Establishing invariance always automatically results in deleting potential.
  
  In spite of high expectations and promising business plans it doesn't really matter that there is no visible or notable difference between the abstracted model and 'reality'. What does matter is the fact that a different brain than the human brain would come up with an entirely different fictional model with exactly the same characteristic of Quasi-Complete Closure or complete reliability. This undeniably means that we ought to allow the existing model to differtiate according to its own limitations/restraints and that a poetical lapse of absence is needed on micro-levels
  
  
• Any mesured brain-activity or event is per se a past event.
  • For the event to 'be there' it needs to be re-enacted. A mere repetition of such an event would effectively require a second world completely isolated from the world of the past event, otherwise the past event would already act as a sign of the new 'staged' event, and therefor overload it with several qubits. In the context of a human brain the path of the previous event would indeed notibly change the next similarity.
  • Calling it a repitition having an equality in essence would amount to the same thing as saying that the the material of which a hamburger in a MacDonalds in Bejing consists ( say a Big Mac) is closer in essence to a simultaneously existing hamburger of the same kind in a Berlin MacDonalds ( a Berlin Giant) than to another hamburger of a different kind ( a Bejing Big Fish) in the same Bejing MacDonalds. Such a claim would be correct for about 0.000000000000000000000010000000542120% of the known universe, the rest of the place would agree your reasoning was totally crap.
    
    
• through scientific analogous reasoning such a gateway however can be constructed allowing to establish the functional existence of a symbolical coherent supercoded realm or informational system. There is no way to rebuilt a functional model on the same basis as the actual human (animal) visual process short of rebuilding a human (animal). Even if possible that would be quite useless for most purposes.
  
  
• So we need to accept the rules and formalities of abstraction and respect their requirements and consequences, their reality. For this to be done correctly, we should take care of complete closure of the reference system. Complete closure cannot be achieved through first level recursion of the current-world relations. You cannot logically deduce information regarding one abstracted event, say an occurence of current C from point A to point B by establishing those three objects in a logically (fairly) coherent order like (mathematical) language. You can ofcourse and you will be right for most cases, but there is no way you are approach 'reality' with your conclusion. In such a fashion you can only aim to be right for 0.000000000000000000000010000000542120% of the known universe. Again the rest of the place would agree untsoweiter
  For correct deduction first a complete order (possessing the characteristic of full closure or absolute Monadism) needs to be established within the describing order, so that a similar event can be created solely within it, without any reference to the reality of the inspiring or investigated event. Within the descriptive order a theoretical model needs to be built allowing a full description of 'what takes place'. This fase is called 'rasterising the problem': instead of studying the real problem a simulation is built allowing full research controll and reverse enginereing of events that is not feasible immediatly (the Wolfram New Science approach attempts xactly that but will fail ultimately unless the restriction of Closure is underpinned). At that moment the objects are 'real' and establish a full blown reality on their own. Their reality however will always be plug-dependant i.e. at any moment the researcher can pull the plug an its 'existence'and all of its coherence or informational reality will collaps. Likewise, no process within the 'object-realm' will succeed in preventing the researcher or anyone in the real realm to pull its plug, unless it is purposely allowed to store energy to defend itself. If any object does succeed in doing that, one reality might effectively be folded into the other.
  
  
• any functional existence should be accredited with a reality-value x of its functionality f in system S etcetera (Shannon)
  

• efficient Visual Information Analysis in such fashion is possible for most purposes, i.e promising results will be available rather easily/quickly for approximately 87% of the aims of such analysis. After the initial successes failing to assess the limits of this approach will cause the analysts to revert to

2/ NOW DECIDE: