@Rares82 @Plinz "This" maps onto "that" by similarity or resonance somehow. I'm not sure I understand the question or the image. Here's a different kind of plate, with grains of salt on it, which when exposed to sound at various frequencies make these figures in the salt. I'd call that RC
@metaphorician @Plinz I believe RCs exist—in us & animals—but i don’t think it’s easy to explain how is it that they exist. Consider a planet where abiogenesis hadn’t happened. Some equivalent of that photosensitive plate formed naturally. Sunlight reflects off a tree & falls on the plate. I’d say 1/4
@metaphorician @Plinz that the plate pattern doesn’t refer to anything. It doesn’t represent any more than a broken glass represents the rock that broke it or a fallen domino represents the falling of some other piece. Physical stuff are what they are in themselves—they don’t refer outside of them 2/4
@metaphorician @Plinz It’s you who takes the sand pattern to represent the nodal lines. The tree pattern on the photographic plate & the sand pattern on the Chladni plate aren’t even a thing! The molecular & sand "pixels" in themselves don’t know they make a pattern, let alone a "tree" 3/4
@metaphorician @Plinz So outside you—the conscious observer—there isn’t even a pattern in the first place, in order for it to represent some other pattern. The physical stuff of the brain clearly accomplishes this, but how?! 4/4
@Rares82 @Plinz Not sure how to get logic and stuff from this, but this book looks like it might help en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mat…
@metaphorician @Rares82 I think that the basic thesis of the book is wrong (math derived from experience)
@metaphorician @Plinz @Rares82 I think he means that they seem to exist below the level of experience. Through our experience we can derive aspects of their nature, but via those frameworks we can also reason that they would exist whether anyone with experience were there to observe them or not.