Re: Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
BTW JS - in the context of these comments re chemistry, where you wrote:
> A theory of chemistry, for example, is tested
> by chemical experiments, whose results are
> evaluated by chemists. No one would claim that
> insights that would be relevant to the evaluation.
>
Reviewing of chemisty associations via IDM basic categories [from a conversation on an different list]:
(1) BOND/BIND: covalent bonds are IDM BONDING in that we share electrons and through that sharing assert identity that is 'robust' - 'forever' if allowed. Ionic bonds on the other hand are more BINDS in that they are easily split, as sodium and chlorine in salt when the salt is placed in water. As such these sorts of bonds are binds where we can undo the binds and lose nothing, each element keeps its identity - in bonding you can/will lose identity when the bond is broken. In human behaviour, binding is like a business contract and so spans TIME; bonding has its focus on sharing SPACE. In binding, when the contract is over the parties concerned go their seperate ways with no 'issues' since all has been layed down in the contract. In BONDING, as in a marriage, there are issues when a 'split' comes about if ever, the emotional elements are not covered in the marriage certificate other than "for better or for worse". In modern times, with the increase in ease in fragmentation, !
so we see 'pre-nuptial' agreements coming out! - there is 'business' before pleasure ;-) BIND before we BOND!
(2) BOUND: I would say that Van der Waals are closer to BOUND - they reflect dynamics across molecules but dont 'mix' - they can form a lattice-like structure but is dynamic and the 'cut' between the molecules reflect the 'boundary' condition for BOUNDING - with an expanding/contracting boundary dynamic so that can work through oscillations etc. but retain order and so distinctions - as molecules approach and withdraw from each other so they are reflecting the 'expand'/'contract' nature of bounding.
(3) BLEND: OTOH, Hydrogen bonding reflects more a BLEND focus - e.g. water molecules. There is a lot of energy required to break these sorts of bonds, where from a group of water molecules as 'one' we can extract each member - but still water. It is the polar focus, of positive vs negative, that reflects the core 'heaven-earth' dynamic if you like and so a focus on purity etc. Note that the change of liquid to vapour is a change of TRANSFORMATION, a property associated with blending (yang side, change core self) but there is also a sense of TRANSITION (change expression, retain core 'self' - 'yin' format)
These correspondences imply recursion at work (since that how the blend, bond, bound, bind was derived) - by extending the recursion so we MIX these bondings into composite forms - and so acknowledging what we find in nature (after six levels of recursion we have 64 qualities formed into 8 octets within which ONE element is 'pure', all of the others 'mixed')
There is a LOT more derivable from all this, reflecting the ONE method - differentiating/integrating used in our perceptions of reality etc
Different specialisations, different languages, different labels, SAME qualities.,
Chris.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au