In case anyone is interested; this I wrote to try and explain something to someone:

"Using "quantum mechanics" as an example:

right here we have two words together: "quantum
mechanics".

I could investigate the formal history of physics and
explain how this subject began (it would be nice to
have another author to fill in such details).

My main grounding in this subject was from a book
written for lay people by Richard Feynman, called
"Q.E.D The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter. "Q.E.D.
here stands for "quantum electro dynamics".

Returning to "quantum mechanics":

any person on the street can see that the word
"quantum" sounds like "quantity". They can also see
that "quantity" implies "a number of items together as
a group"; for example "a quantity of chocolates".

My method of simplifying things:

is to look for the most basic essential defining
characteristic or characteristics in the concept; and
find those characteristics that each concept in a
combination of concepts, share in common.

Looking for the underlying simplicity in "quantum" :

"Quantum" shares some common ground with "quantity".
It sounds similar. I do not even need to be an expert
on the origin of words to see that. So I try this
association with the word "quantum" (of course I have
a fair idea which associations will be most relevant
to trying to understand the underlying ideas).

I notice that "quantity" implies "a number of things
together as a defined group". I sense that this idea of
"together"; specifically of "things together" being
like a "meeting" of the items, is going to be helpful.

This gives me the idea of associating "quantum" with
"meeting".
The underlying pattern I am looking for in "quantum"
is looking like being "meeting".


In short-hand:

My associations went:

"quantum" > "quantity" > "several items collected
together" > "a meeting of the items" > MEETING.

Now with "mechanics":

One of my main methods is to use ordinary everyday
English usage of a word to find its essential defining
characteristics.

In everyday life "mechanics" brings to mind
associations such as "a mechanical digger". Thinking
about what is the essence of the word "mechanic" (I
could use a dictionary but as the idea is to minimize
prejudice and to allow associations to present
themselves as freely as possible; I find it seems easy
enough to just explore those associations that come
from considering ordinary usage of the word; or
associations that look interesting from the
perspective of similarities in sound (reminiscent of
onamatapoeia (words that sound like the concepts they
portray e.g. :"sharp" sounds sharp; "soft" sounds
soft).

There are also other sources of ideas that might help
find the connections one is looking for, when seeking
to understand the essence of something.

When I look at how the word "mechanic" was used in
everyday life I can get: "a rigid structure that can
move". A mechanical digger is just that. If something
is mechanical there is something rigid about it,
something fixed. For example: "He mechanically went
about his business".

So returning to "quantum mechanics":

I can try this idea for understanding the essential
characteristic of "quantum mechanics":

"meeting (i.e. "quantum" or "togetherness" or
"countable") mechanics".

That is: quantum mechanics = the mechanics of meeting
= something fixed about a meeting.

I can now represent this as "suppose an item called "a"
is combined with ("gets together with" you could say,
or "meets with") an item called "b".

I could call this "a" meets "b".

How could I make this "meeting" into "a meeting that
is already set or fixed in some way"?

The simplest way would seem if item "a" and item "b"
had already "met" before. That is; if these items had
been combined before in some other context; so against
a different background.

I can represent this as "item "a" meets item "b"
against background "x"; and item "a" also met item "b"
against background "y".

The constant (the fixture) of this meeting is "they've
already met". (You can figure out the role of
Einstein's "cosmological constant" from here; in this
simple cast the "constant" is "cosmological" (it
covers all bases)(it is integral to the meeting of "a"
and "b" being quantum mechanical)(this can be fully
explained later)

So far "quantum mechanics" = "the mechanics of
meeting" = "alternative ways things can meet"."

..............this simplifies science:

"because if things can meet in alternative ways, then
"there is more than one way this EVENT (the event of
the items meeting i.e. coming together) can happen".
They can meet on background "x" or on background "y".

And it is in Richard Feynman's book that we learn that
physicists spend a lot of time "calculating every way
an event can happen".


It is possible to go on and simplify a lot of science;
and it is by often the most obvious or innocent of
associations that one can get simplicity; even
bypassing linguistics and word etymology and just
trying associations that come to mind from sounds; and
often just referring to everyday usage of terms to get
the underlying pattern.

"Math-free analysis" is what I call the process of:

find common ground among the concepts in a sentence or
combination of words;

where the common ground gets duplicated I separate the
concepts by one step only so as to maintain the
integrity of each concept while allowing maximum
freedom for the concepts to interact.

Example:

"motor neurone disease":

"motor" brings to mind "turning over" brings to mind
"turnover.

"neurone" is defined as "nerve cell"; brings to mind
"nervous cell"; ("cell" = "a room or contained area");
so "neurone" gives me "nervous contained area".
"Nervous" gives me the idea "someone nervous before
playing a violin concert" that is "someone distracted'
or "someone not fully focused" or "someone shaky" so I
get "nervous" brings the pattern "shaky".

"nerve cell" now gives me the pattern "shaky contained
area" or "turnover*"

Now here is a major key:

In math-free analysis I cannot double-book the pattern
in the same group as another; in this case the
doubled-up pattern is: "turnover". The idea is maximum
space for each concept to interact with each other,
and minimum repeats. I am integrating (bringing
things together) but I am also differentiating (keeping
them distinct from each other. But I am not
equivocating (I am not using mathematics in-so-far as
I am not counting as in I am not converting everything
into exchangeable units (in other words I have no
"money" in this).

Continuing with looking at "motor neurone disease":

I already have the pattern "turnover" in the
combination "motor neurone disease" because I got it
for "motor".

(The physicists might recognise this conundrum (the
double-booking problem) as "Schrodinger's cat" or "an
imaginary category").

So I separate the two "turnover"s by making "turnover"
two-dimensional.

Now I have to think. How can "turning over" be in two
dimensions?

Rather than worry about that just now; in this
instance I feel it would be useful to write out the
whole thing so far:

"motor neurone disease" = "turnover turnover disease".

But "disease" gives me "ill at ease" that is
"uncomfortable".

So I now write:

"motor neurone disease" = turnover turnover
uncomfortable.

But my combination is ALREADY "uncomfortable" as I
have got two of "turnover" which must be
differentiated from each other if the original words
"motor" and "neurone" are to survive as distinct.

So I will acknowledge this (the most important idea in
all this whole thing is "love God, love your neighbour
as yourself" that is "notice what exists" (let all
voices be heard. If you sense something let it be;
allow its existence to be known, be at peace do not
squash it.)

I now have "turnover turnover uncomfortable" =
"uncomfortable uncomfortable" as the doubling up of
"turnover" endangered my concepts of "motor" and
"neurone" which both lead me to the idea "turnover"
but they must be different aspects so "turnover" has
to become 2-dimensional."

............................................

"Returning to the search for common ground among
"motor", "neurone" and "disease":

I got "motor" = "turning over" = "turnover";
"neurone" = "nerve cell" = "shaky contained area" =
"turnover*" with the asterisk indicating discomfort
because the defining space "turnover" has already been
taken by "motor".

And I noted "motor neurone disease" = (as "disease" =
"discomfort") = turnover turnover discomfort.

The asterisk has gone because "discomfort" is already
present in the whole combination of ideas.

I can condense this further as "turnover turnover
discomfort" = "discomfort discomfort*" but now
"discomfort" has become double-booked.

So I get:

"motor neurone disease" = "uncertainty in defining
discomfort"

Now I think: what does this mean?

"An uncertainty in defining discomfort" ?

I know: if I am constantly adapting to change; I'm
always uncomfortable yet not uncomfortable as I'm
making myself comfortable.

How about: "relative comfort"?

"motor neurone disease" = "relative comfort"?

That suggests that if you have motor neurone disease;
you have to keep "colliding" with things to maintain
the status quo (to stay comfortable).

What positive role could "motor neurone disease" play?
What does it cure?

Why would you want "relative comfort"? "I just want to
be relatively comfortable" suggests you have been
knocked around and you need a cushion to soften the
collisions that is to allow you to get yourself on
"steady ground" , to see the horizon, to steady
yourself, to "stay on the bridge of your ship", to
keep your spirits up, to feel you still have some
ginger ...

Motor neurone disease appears to provide "collisions
with the environment" that is to provide channels of
communication between a person and their environment
when they have been "excessively tossed around".

To reduce the need to have motor neurone disease; one
could suggest taking the best-known sea-sickness
remedy, natural ginger; that might help. Better I
think would be to do exciting pursuits in natural
environments"

............................................

"The idea is to VOLUNTARILY "collide"
with one's environment (to freely interact in ways
that enhance one's feeling of being alive but IN
CONTROL).

The idea is that these diseases are not out to get us;
God loves us and is trying to look after us more than
we know but we need to listen to what He is saying...

The kind of way of looking at these things I give here
is all about increasing freedom. Consent is critical;
this approach to medicine hands power back to the
patient; the patterns are like "doors"; each person
has many individualised options that may suit them in
their situation.

The method I demonstrated tends to produce natural
spaces where diseases can become optional.

P.S.: (one other thing about "motor neurone disease":
consider this possibility: mnd is motor neurone
"cure": nature's way of cushioning someone who is
being pushed around (so rather than resist, you resist
passively by stopping instructions to your muscles) so
you can conserve your energy (and retain the ability
to CONTROL your muscles personally). Any activity
where you "are on top of the situation" (i.e.
"muscular" as in have the controls) so can avoid
"going under" may reduce the need for this "disease".)"

-Alan