The Limits of Comparison Processing

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
Posted 27 Aug. 2018, Copyright 2018.
.

It’s been written many times before what the efficiencies and outputs of the comparison process (CP) are. Vast numbers of events in existence which are very similar to each other, & drive the creation of the categories of Aristoteles, the levels of the hierarchies of our understanding. We can detail and compare members of each of those synonymic and word clusters/phrases to each other, and which give a much more efficient and thorough, tho still not  totally complete, descriptions of events. It creates creativity by setting up standards, conventions, rules, laws, etc., against which we describe events both internally and externally. Those standards are compared to events and the differences and similarity among them in wide gradations, allow us to create information. ROY G BIV is an excellent example. ( Do we have a near absolute sense of colour? As we can near perfect pitch? Not absolute but close enough.) So are high, high, highest; low, lower, lowest; hot, hotter, hottest vs. cold, colder, coldest; and the unlimited panoplies of those linear adjectival systems. But the central one is the comparative form, between the base and superlative forms, which generates most all the rest. And that has been missed.

.
.
Math works much the same by creating scales against which we measure using lengths, heights, hardness, softness, warmth, cold, painful or not; and the pleasures as well, as in the Morphine standard for pain meds, the analgesics. By counting we create information. By measuring against our standards and scales we create numerical information, and that is then imported into our brains/minds for further processing. This process internalizes basic parts of the universe and allows us to further find patterns. Much in the same ways as we do our comparison of verbal descriptions, which are vaster, richer, and far, far more flexible in descriptions. & essentially this shows how we’ve mathematized, creatively, our sensory inputs, as well.
.
Converting the sensations into mathematical, measuring structures:
.
.
CP creates the recognitions by comparing events of all kinds and flavors, feelings, visual colours and the gray scales,and so forth. Some of which, but most which cannot be measured, such as the loves, hates, and etc., which marks the disparities and differences among the measuring scales versus the vastly greater and more flexible description scales used very largely in biology, medicine, and its subclasses of the exams, diagnoses, and reading most all lab tests, radiological scans and much else.
.
.
So we create the recognitions, then the pattern recognitions, pattern recognitions, pattern recognitions of our hierarchies, without limits. But what of the limits of this method? We know that most all methods, devices and scales have their capabilities and yet their limits and the unlimited ranges in between. & it’s a good craftsman, who knows his tools. And those have been detailed to some degree and before, as well.
.
Using this vastly efficient CP series of methods, descriptions and measurements, also shows the limits of them. Just like logic falls to the empirical test of the false dichotomies, of its essential (& maths, too), A or not A. A or B. Hot or cold, and white or black, we see that it misses a LOT of the grays in between those two. It simplifies, and allows to sort by elimination, but misses most all of the rest. Whenever we hear the critique of “oversimplification” we know we’re dealing with a logical limit and likely complex systems. It’s not just Deduction or induction. It’s all of those standards we use, from the moral, to religious, spiritual, legal, mathematical and logical truths, including the empirical logics of the sciences. There are many truths of value, historical and legal, as well, which are closely related. As are the genealogical truths; and the limits to paleontology and archaeology, because data/info decays in time. That is TD, writ large in the limits of our knowledge over times past. And is Essentially WHY the forensic teams get to the crime scene ASAP before more info disappears, as well as managing the crime scene to prevent same, too. It’s TD, again.
.
Thus we have some serious limits to logical methods, which Godel showed very clearly in his INCompleteness Theorem, called by the shorter, euphemism, Godel’s Proof. But is not most all our knowledge incomplete? And yet the issues of sorting problems have yet to be more completely addressed regarding most all problem solving methods. & will be in later articles of this key, deep, point. Hofstadter addressed this highly important point in “Godel, Escher, Bach….”,  the “this statement is not true” created the paradox of incompleteness. The global, but not specific negative did so.
.
 But comparison processing is not a global negative, but an exclusive sort of info processing. Its work is done by innate, implied or clear cut “exclusions” rather than the negatives, and so is far, far more applicable to events in existence, than limited logics. &  that’s why it’s used by most brains, in one form or the other, daily, and without limits. the limits to our ideas and the methods, devices they are based upon are driven by this incompleteness of logics. Which altho CP has limits by exclusion and by events not being comparable, is so far more capable because it uses relationship, the relational  logics, which go way past what logic can do of itself. & indeed drives the other logics, which create the many truths, as well.
.
A detailed examination of this problem of the global negative has already been discussed. The negative, in short is a kind of exclusion, and the global negative, all A or Not A, is of this inadmissible type. Nothing in events in existence is EXACTLY equal to something else. They can be close. But the CP admits this and unless specific exclusions occur, its logic is far more useful & vastly more widely applicable than “A  = B” or “A or Not A”. The Exclusion principle largely disallows those false Identities of logic, which are often the formal logical fallacies, while the CP intrinsically deals with them using similarity, relationships, and so forth, which logic nor math can easily do.
.
So there we have it. if logics and math are incomplete, then much else can be also. If in the “Grand Design” Hawking stated from the first, that our physics is incomplete and is the case. & Bell also stated that QM was not complete, as did Feynman. We cannot solve the QM equations for huge complexities. And Feynman also stated the obvious, but missed a deep truth. We cannot develop biology from QM, he said. Which in modern terms means, complex systems elude treatment with maths, and physics. Ulam stated that math must “greatly Advance” before it’s able to describe/model complex systems. & so that is to this day.
.
Or do they? The process of evolution, or genetics, and the complexities in each of those cannot be easily figured by those. But we have here good starting answers to Bell, Godel, Hawkings and Einstein’s search for a more complete general theory of physics.
.
And it’s very clearly, Least energy, which Einstein alluded to at least elliptically. And how do we recognize least energy conditions? By comparing them to one and the other. The least cost, the least energy, the least materials, the least times, distances, least waste, and the rich panoplies of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, which more completely describes, as such categories usually do, events in existence, AKA, the complex systems in the universe.
.
.
So there we are with Least energy, the CP, which shows us least energy forms, the structure- function relationships of vast numbers of events in our universe, from the atoms, molecules, organic molecules and much else up the reductionist, hierarchical structure to the brain/mind. Which the latter is best understood by S/F methods. Yet again, CP nearly totally. compares the structures of the brain to their functions, and then back again, and again. thus functional MRI (fMRI) and magneto-EEG’s. And then we compare the outputs of the both, for yet more information!!! Uncannily correct, predictable and we see how the CP creates knowledge. Yet again and again, without limits.
.
But we can still ask this huge question. if our knowledge is incomplete, then the main driver of our info/data creating, the CP must also be incomplete. &  knowing that, which in thermodynamics terms combined into Shannon’s IT, we know this. There is NO perfect heat engine. It’s not possible to perfectly use energy sources for doing things with work. Thus complete descriptions are not possible, either, because it means in TD terms, perfect descriptions. Incompleteness of many types makes that very difficult to create. Thus there is a clear, almost blatant TD relationship of our knowledge to “incompleteness” discussions and outcomes.
.
But we know that LE creates growth in many unlimited instances. And there are the ways out. Inventions &  devices and indeed cultures & ways of doing things can be improved, that is, made more LE efficient. & this is what drives growth from gravitational bodies getting large and larger (Einstein’s compound interest is the most powerful force in the Universe, ), to evolution, to market efficiencies (least energy) of Adam Smith driving most all market growth, and so forth. Building a better mousetrap is quintessentially a least energy form, is not?
.
.
And that’s the whole point. What do we run up against in most all cases?  We have the S-curves of Whitehead’s Process Thinking methods to thank for that. Growth occurs in additive and exponential curves, of which the S-curves are the unlimited, basic forms. And almost anything which does not break us out of, or jogs our society’s current abstractions, after a limited period of growth, will tend to stagnate. Whitehead’s prescient, verbal form of the S-curve, made real, and mathematical. Showing yet again how descriptions of many kinds can be converted into math, and in this case most all growth, yields math creativity.
.
But the limits of finding primes, are basically the most efficient and fastest methods to find, sort out, but not generate the primes. And the best ones are used, again, least energy forms of each when compared to another. How fast does it sort out the primes? Again, showing the LE kinds of sorting problems we get into and escape from. The facts are those can be done more and more efficiently without limits. But we MUST break out of our “current abstractions”, standards, conventions, etc., to do so. And that’s how it’s done. To understand that our methods have limits, and then exceed, circumvent and go “round the impasse”. Creatively. Read the article about the Wiggins’ Prime Sieve, in both the first & then latest, more developed, more complete and more efficient forms, to see this at work, empirically and mathematically. & can be improved without limits.
.
This essentially is what’s going on with CP. using linear methods, or lines, we reach limits; light speed, absolute zero, two exponential barriers at either end of the Two connected S-curves of the energies of fermions.  Which Einstein explored rather well, in which, at least conceptually, our universe dwells. Again, Einstein’s Great Subtleties.
.
.
So we know that the exponential barriers, and the perfection barriers of TD, and the HUP barriers to knowledge, and the most of the rest are simply CP limits, and not always real. By creativity we can jump over those barriers in many, many instances, without limits. Is there a limit?
.
Yes, in the brain. Which creates by using the CP the expon bars, on in the case of math primes, the asymptotic limits. Mistaking our ideas/words and logics for events in existence is the fallacy of idealism, in a nutshell. And we have no real reason to believe that there are no ways around light speed, such as Quantum Tunneling, and around Zero K, such as negative energies. And nor do bosons have all those limits, either, as photons show. & as matter under Bose-Einstein conditions DOES become more bosonic, too. So there are ways “around” the limits, clearly. and likely without limits, too.
.
The CP process limits are clear, the expon bars, and the asymptotes, and the idealistic forms of perfect heat engines. Without those systems, we are trapped, but not forever, as Whitehead showed. &  as our progress as a species has almost always showed, esp in these days of exponential growth of our population, which must come to an end, after a limited period of growth. Until the physical limits of living on our planet instead of most everywhere else, too, must be addressed & are addressed, we will find those “limits to growth”, yet again.
.
Before growth resumes after finding new & better performing S-curve of growth, too.
.
The limits are between our ears, and the limits to our memories and processing of information, mostly. The limits to logics simply mirror that we cannot compare apples and eggs, very well. So we create the means to measure, and describe each of those. But taste has been ignored.
.
“An Infinity of Flavors?”, shows a new approach to those limits and the possibility of mathematizing flavors and smell, too.
.
So while our limits are real, Because the universe of vast events does not go as the Big Pot into the  Little Pots, our minds/brains, there is yet a LOT of room for growth, creatively. & this is the problem of the Land of the Undiscovered Country, too. and such is the case, very likely.
.
Every generation exceed the limits of its past, because the universe is so very large, and our minds/brains are so very small, by comparison. We give up the idealistic illusions and fallacies of ultimates, finalities, absolutes, certainties and perfections, for the realistic probabilities of complex systems, which promise literally growth without limits. Thus most all our limits are not real, but simply way stations to better methods and ways of doing things, universally, but not quite.
.
Beyond the Absolute:
.
&  that’s the way it very likely is, over most all fields and endeavors, but not quite……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s