also see :

Process Dimensions∞

and some other letters∞

Bonjour Monsieur Carlo Rovelli ( cc: Pierre Levy , Francois Rey , Michel Bauwens )

I am Dante , originally from Brussels.

My research has brought me to you , as I am currently trying to find solutions for a way to build a dynamic relational reference system , in a system of infinite dimensions and levels of abstraction.
Navigation in such a system would be relative to the reference chosen in the eventual navigation , yet the challenge is to understand how a specific kind of " gravity " could be used in the way that all objects relate and see each other - through each other ? -

I have the feeling some of your research related to quantum gravity could be used.

Such a dynamic relational reference system would be useful for many different applications , including the understanding of meaning through the dynamic relational positioning of objects ( in infinite levels of abstraction )

Some of these axioms and the tools to visualize and build with it raises interdisciplinary questions.

I have the feeling some of your research and understanding can lead to such solutions , and I also have the feeling some of my axioms could also be of interest to you - see links further below -

and I would like to have your views on how our visions on universal systems could converge , and complement each other.

To present some of my axioms briefly : everything is relations , relations with a certain conciousness become processes.

Processes and concepts , as much as what seems " material " , are " Objects " ( or are " objectifiable " ) with more or less abstraction.

A "relation" between two objects is an object itself , at abstraction level +1

all conciousness we have of " physical " objects , all knowledge ( objects with higher level of abstraction as physical objects ? ) , any relation , is connected and can be used to visualize other objects on different levels of abstraction of which we do not have conciousness of yet.

I would like to experiment by developing a tool that could also be used as some kind of " meta cortex " ,
and that would not only make it possible to build and visualize databases of relations , but also to visualize the emergent levels of abstraction , as such a data base would have emergent properties and become a window for opening up our conciousness to infinite levels of abstraction.

I also feel that understanding " conciousness" is also useful in finding solutions , and possibly my following axiom on ( objectifiable ) process dimensions can help in that matter :

http://oikoumene.coforum.net/processdimensions∞

I also feel it might connect to some of your research. In this axiom , " time " is also being questioned , and our experienced " reality " would be nothing more then an " addiction to a string " of process dimensions.

Individual process dimensions are experienced in one of the two following flows :

a negative flow being one that is narrowing down towards addiction to a specific channel / trust - i call this a ego experienced flow -

and a positive flow being one that is multiplying its strings of experienced objects , reducing " specific " dependency and addiction - i call this a metatized experienced flow -

as you can see on the process dimensions notes page , it starts with 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 -

" 0 " as the relation that i call " inspiration " , and that can be negative of positive ( this is relative to the object / objectified process )

Negatively and positively experienced process dimensions can be connected between each other , and as energy flows along the string from greater process dimensions it can influence the sustainability of the experienced reality.

( a negatively experienced process dimension , when too disconnected from metatized processes , has a high risk of dying )

what concerns 1 , 2 and 3 , I prefer letting you read my notes and the examples further on that page.

---

This would only be the beginning - many more elements can be found on the basis of 0 , 1 , 2 , 3

for example , strings , that are the continuity of experienced process dimensions , would be the next step that can be further understood and developed.

It would be interesting to understand what happens when there is no more addiction to the string -

It seems there is the potential for a infinity of process dimensions at all times , but they are not all experienced , and not all on the same string / would it be possible to relate strings , etc ?

Anyway , these are questions for later - questions that could become easier to solve when I / we can find some answers for a

DYNAMIC POSITIONING SYSTEM OF ( abstract ? ) OBJECTS

also see some older notes on :

http://oikoumene.coforum.net/abstractobjectdimensions∞

---

To be able to build such a meta-cortex tool - a tool that opens up dimensions to input , relate , build , and allow emergence of ( abstract ) objects and relations -

The question I have at this point of time and need to solve is : how to facilitate the visualization of the meaning of different abstract objects , according to its relation to all other objects - its relative position.

I have the feeling that according to its position , a position determined to all the relations the object has with other objects , the object will find itself closer or further to other objects , and therefore one will start visualizing different ( multi ) dimensions of meaning.

This implies that , with the use of such a meta-cortex space , we will also be able to use a new language , where all concepts can be built upon and can be communicated according to their relations , and their position according to their relations ( all concepts expressed in verbal language , but also all other concepts that are not yet expressed verbally , or that can be found through emergence of the system of inter-related objects )

That would mean that the more objects ( for example , abstract objects like concepts ) are added to the data base ( or the more data bases of relations are connected ) the more the system fine tunes itself , and the higher the precision of its positioning.

Therefore , it would be interesting to have a dynamic system of positioning of abstract objects and relations - that would be based on all the other relations.

Possibly , there could be a navigator ( I call it a " rhizomic visualization browser " ) ,

and one would be able to navigate based on the points of reference one would want to choose.

I would like to experiment with this.

I have the feeling that a conventional program , where we define too many rules in advance as to get a specific result , is not exactly what i m looking forward to , as I would like to see how the system itself is capable of defining itself.

So based on the dimensions in which the relations end up , they would acquire specific meaning - and it would not be necessary , for example , for semanticists , to pre-define meaning of certain relations.

I also want to see how it creates new dimensions , and how it creates emergence on relations.

In other words , such a system would not only have the emergent property of creating new relations and objects in infinite levels of abstraction , but also of constructing relations that would be able to visualized as types of relation , or relations in certain dimensions , and could be attributed a certain meaning.

I have the feeling that ultimately the processing power of a conventional bits processing engine would not be appropriate to facilitate emergence in such a system , especially if it grows to a large number of relations.

On the longer run , it will be interesting to understand how would be possible to instantaneously have the results of a new relation integrated into such a ( networked data base ) system.

Like when one string pulls all other strings it is attached to , and that the dynamic position of such evolving and emergent system fine tunes itself ?

Ok , possibly questions for later.

For now ,

I hope some of the ideas I presented are clear enough - and that they could be complementary with some other ideas you know of or develop.

If the ideas expressed are not clear enough , feel free to let me know - I could also meet up with you somewhere in europe to explain it face to face.

by the way, although I am from Brussels originally , I live a post-nomadic lifestyle and am sending this message from Vilnius , Lithuania.

my profile on the internet : http://oikoumene.coforum.net/DanteGabryell∞

I would be interested to see what these ideas could inspire to you or people you know.

I am organizing a one month collective in Germany , gathering thinkers , programmers , activists , artists , ...
to which you or other persons you would suggest are invited if you want :

http://wiki.couchsurfing.com/en/Detmold_Collective∞

I am also pasting below some conversation I shared in the last month with Michel Bauwens and Francois Rey , in relation to the ideas expressed in this letter.

- for future communication , we can communicate both in english and in french. -

Cordially,

Dante

---

Forwarded message

---

From: François Rey
Date: May 23, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: RE: another note Fwd: preserver et developper les libertes dans le futur : Risques lies au " Meta cortex "


It sounds like you are talking about a mixture of IEML, semantic net, graphs, and ontologies.

When you talk about process dimension it sounds like you are also talking about a cosmogony.

The way you speak of the 3 process dimensions reminded me of the first 3 rays, or rays of aspect, in theosophy (see http://www.theosophical.ca/SevenRays.htm)∞.

Enjoy your trip!



From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Sent: 23 May 2007 14:14
To: François Rey
Subject: Re: another note Fwd: preserver et developper les libertes dans le futur : Risques lies au " Meta cortex "



a few more thoughts , before I leave

i asked if we could start thinking from scratch. / or maybe go out of some addictions of thought , and through this detachment see if its possible to see beyond , and use all tools available.

ok , now , I ll present a few possibilities , and hopefully we can use them :

I have the feeling "everything is relations" , or built on relations.

protons , neutrons , and electrons , are what they are because of the way that they " RELATE " to each other , and everything else.

i am dante because of the way that i relate to many other objects , or abstract objects , and also to you.

in other words , everything that is connected , that is related , is inter related.

or maybe we could go further by putting the hypothesis that everything is conciousness - but we can come back to that ( conciousness ) and discuss it further , and hopefully test it ;-)




so , lets start with the hypothesis that there are objects in many different levels of abstraction. some objects have a higher level of abstraction , some at a lower level of abstraction , and each creating each others reality.

a molecule is an object with a certain level of abstraction - where certain atoms relate to each other , and within atoms other " objects " also relate to each other , at different levels of abstraction

now , what concerns " thoughts " , it might be no different,

we could set the hypothesis that thoughts are objects with a higher level of abstraction that can build itself on all the levels of abstraction below it. ( and also the levels of abstraction above it - although we might not have conciousness of it as a individual - possibly there is some other form of conciousness that makes it possible ??? woud be interesting to digg it further )

so what is an object then ? i guess thats a good question.

a lot of things can be objectified , but then the question is how do objects relate to each other.

some objects are processes - on : ( and also on voice 11 attachment i sent to some of you )

http://oikoumene.coforum.net/processdimensions∞

you can find details of a axiom on process dimensions , and each of these process dimensions is also an object ,

and some process dimensions relate to other process dimensions in a certain way , some process dimensions are within other process dimensions , etc




WHAT IS INTERESTING IS ALSO TO FIND OUT ABOUT CERTAIN FORMS OF ENERGY - QI - as you go on building from these first 3 dimensions to more elaborate dimensions ( possibly there is a infinity if we can elaborate )

and also find out about " strings " of process dimensions

and find out also what is " experience " , addiction , etc

and if our conciousness and experience is limited to this current string because of addiction to the strings , etc - ok , i m brainstorming and we can talk about it later , when i ll be back online - i ll probably be away from the net for a few days or more -

---

we can also situate any relation , as every relation is a relation between two objects , and so a relation is a object at a higher level of abstraction , and this relation in turn can be related to another relation to form a new relation that can then also become an object at a higher level of abstraction , ...

---

so when i talk about inspiring ourselves from physics , and think about the way planets ( or atoms ) position each other , to imagine that we could have a

DYNAMIC POSITIONING SYSTEM IN THE FIELD OF MEANING

might sound crazy to some , but i think its worth experimenting

when we ll be able to develop the tools ( software ) we ll be able to build all this , and experiment.

so why do i think about a dynamic positioning system ? simply because we will be adding more and more abstract objects , or more and more abstract objects will create themselves by themselves through emergence ,

and so the positions of the objects will fine tune themselves.

---

now , what is a dynamic position , or " dynamic coordinate " ,

well , i d like to propose that it is infinitely RELATIVE

so it would be interesting if we ( or possibly if the system itself , by itself ) will find a algorithm for infinite relativity to position itself towards all the other relations it is connected to

so in many ways , like our galaxies , and how all the planets and celestial objects relate to each other , and all kinds of things like gravity that we currently use in physics.




if you connect all this with the process dimensions , you will see that actually i have the feeling that soon we will be able to have a universal language - not only a universal language what concerns languages , but also all sciences , ...

you can position " money " for example - as " trust "

and you can also start to position how a certain kind of currency is related ( for example , who creates it ? - on what trust is it dependent ? , ... )

so you can start visualizing the difference between peer to peer created money , and bank created money , etc

we could use the meta cortex to see all the impacts of every element on each other

or at least , we can start by experimenting when we ll have the software tools -

ok , speak to you soon

i m having a brunch and them moving on to berlin

thanks for reading and i hope to read you very soon ( i ll try to connect in berlin , although i ll be somewhat outside of berlin near a lake , sleeping in a tent - where i ll hopefully meet up with Kasper Souren , Sune Keller , Meinhard Benn , and others - as it is a hospitality network gathering with more then 800 people expected - see http://www.happy-traveller.de/∞ )

Greetings

Dante





On 5/23/07, Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:

Thanks Francois - my reply below

On 5/22/07, François Rey wrote:

It is difficult for me to understand properly what you mean by process dimensions, meta-cortex, reference maps, etc. If it was about semantic net, semantic web, semantic graphs, ontologies etc. I would expect you to use these words. But you don't so I guess you want something different but what?



yes , thats right - as i see it , its somewhat different - some details on



http://oikoumene.coforum.net/processdimensions∞



http://oikoumene.coforum.net/abstractobjectdimensions∞


and in the voice files i just sent you




it will be easier when we will use a universal language that positions concepts - then we will not be limited by words , or the way we use words


but in the meantime , i feel that Pierre Levy has spent a lot of energy in trying to put it into words understood by people that use certain kind of concepts related to these specific words

so for many people it might be easier to understand Levy s words

i did not feel i needed to read all hes words when opening up some texts / a few pieces of the puzzle can in some cases be enough to position within our own cortex , as we can connect it with other pieces of the puzzle already available in our mind ( and can in some cases be re arranged )

Like Michel said a while ago it's easy to over-estimate the capacity of computers to be "smart" when dealing with natural language. The works of Pierre Levy can be very promising in the long run, but for now we're stuck with our languages and all its ambiguities, something that computers still have trouble with.

we r creating something beyond. the current internet ( and also recent developments ) looks very much to me like a memory and a elementary nervous system.

we can still develop the cortex , or in this case , if we develop a human cortex centric point of view , a meta cortex.


and possibly also reinventing ways in which processing power will be used

--

ok

maybe i can start with the abstract objects : abstract objects are things like concepts - and a meta cortex can enable to visualize , build , and communicate with these relations between the abstract objects - in other words , a universal language - so the meta cortex is also the space where the abstract objects position themselves in the abstract dimensions
( ... coordinates within a system )



its a interdisciplinary field of study ( maybe a new one ? ) between semantics , meta physics , computer sciences , ...


actually , to start with , although its interesting to see all the different rules of current logic and semantics ,

i feel we just need a system that makes it possible to relate abstract objects

and the more you can integrate and relate objects in the system , the more the system fine tunes itself , and the position of abstract objects based on all the relations in the system , become more accurate

as i mentionned recently in a message to levy , in the beginning i was trying to understand all the different " types " of relations possible , and i was thinking that we might need to get semanticians on board to further clarify he different nature of relations possible - or that we would like to use to start building with - ,

but more and more i wonder if this is really necessary ?

possibly we will start to observe these same " rules " of meaning of relations appearing in the system by itself as there will be different levels of abstraction of relations , and different zones , ... i have the intuition there could be a potential for the system self defining its relations

but this would still need to be tested empirically

maybe you already know such projects ? i did not find any yet

i still dont have all answers

and what i m saying might be confusing to some of you - and maybe this confusion can also be productive , by challenging ourselves outside of our structures - and by re-setting all what we might think we know -

i d like to start with a software that gives a simple relation capability ( play some kind of infinite dimension lego ) - and the capability to visualise and build on infinite levels of abstraction ( so if we imagine this , i guess every time that a relation is used as a object , it is abstraction +1 / we could then see how dimensions of relations , and different levels of abstraction , build themselves , or possibly even inter relate )

a capability to build on relations , and maybe even integrate all the relations made in certain data bases , such as wikipedia , or possibly the www.uia.be

do you know of such projects ?

if yes , i want to get in touch with them ( together with you ? ) ,

if not , i want to build it with you

Nevertheless in the open exchange vision I consider ontologies and semantic web to be at the core.



well , what kind of semantic web are you talking about ?



one based on verbal language semantics ?



or one that can use all abstract objects of meaning - including the meaning we have given up to now to some words in our current socio cultures - ?


i feel the link you sent me is very interesting , and i added it to my collection of related documents and tools

http://del.icio.us/deliciousdante/ReferenceMaps∞

the meta cortex as i define it up to now is , to give a brief description , a space in which all abstract objects ( such as concepts ) can be ( dynamically ? ) positioned ,

the new universal language then becomes the capacity to share , visualize , build , all the relations possible in such a system - that can include all meaning , from all cultures , ...

What concerns the word " reference maps " , its a term i used to use , and that we could now define as " meta cortex " or " dynamic relations positioning of abstract objects dimensions " system

But I can't imagine one and only one ontology or semantic web, we want as many as we need. We certainly don't want to reproduce the "pensée unique". Right now we have one wikipedia, I'd like many ontopedia, interlinked (and many wikipedias too ;)


hmm , well , you could see and navigate based on what you want to see ( you could choose to see only your own maps of relations , but you could also compare your maps of relations with mine , or you could add your maps of relations ( so the meaning of it ) with other / for example open and public ? ) data bases ,

you could choose to navigate and build in the areas of meaning you want to explore ( with a navigator - i used to call it a Rhizomic visualization browser )

so yes , in some ways " onto "


adj. Mathematics.

Of, relating to, or being a mapping such that every element of the target set referred to is the image of an element in the domain.


but not necessarily with verbal language - although concepts expressed by verbal language can be added into the meta cortex ( like a "dot" positioned in a system ) and inter related with the other abstract objects that define it - as every concept , as i understand it , exists by a number of relations with other abstract objects , and every relation between abstract objects in itself becomes a abstract object at a higher level of abstraction , and it becomes possible to easily build to infinite levels of abstraction provided you have enough abstract objects inputted to build up on higher levels




thanks , i added it to my delicious

by the way , incase it can be of interest , a short view on my background :

i dont have a conventional background .

i m a school drop out - one that was bored , despire being proactively involved , realized the limits , and felt it was meaningless to stay in the system - and after searching for an alternative realized the alternative ( environments ) needed to be created

so as i ve been outside of much of all that , and as I build understanding based on pieces of the puzzle i would put together , and not digest pre-formated meaning , i dont necessarily use words in the same way as some standards - but the more we interact the more i can adapt my language -

i might have a somewhat intuitive approach , not necessarily a systematic and structured ( academic ? ) one based on references

- this possibly brings me some advantages , as i m not limited by words or certain rules - and often also do not think in words -

yet it seems to lead me to some common paths with people in academics , although it can sometimes take a little bit of time for others to understand what language i m talking , as some academicians seem to have their habits and not many of them like to get out of the box they have put themselves in and in which some of them ( probably the less interesting ones ) sometimes seem to take themselves very seriously -

but fortunatly i do have enough knowledge of verbal words for us to communicate :-)
and through the internet , acquire new words every day ;-)

in the last years , i ve been as freelance as freelance seems to go , although i ve also been interacting with youth ngo s and explored different levels of politics and how they work
( not just ngo politics , but also local , regional , national , and european - getting acquainted with people at every level of representative and technocratic politics )