Freedom of Choice is the essence of life. Making a choice involves changing involvement. By changing our involvement, we change our realisation. What we need, in science is a way to describe our involvement.
For many years already i knew that science is incomplete without such a description. In engineering school, i realised that the model of the outsiderobserver was wrong. In medical school, i realised that most/all, diseases stem from erroneous involvement. The following series of Essay lays a foundation for a mathematics of involvement.
In part it makes use of my earliest work towards this; plus the later occasional sequels. Human Limits to Man Made Models, my first ever paper, already laid the foundation. Papers such as Subjective Objectivity (Objective Subjectivity) are clear steps on the way. The paper “The Collapse of the Vector of State” in a way presented the evident conclusion: involvement matters.
In this series of papers, i will introduce work of people who helped me see the solution. Some of the people i met in person, of others i got to know their ideas via their books. In each care, their work already implied the need to describe our involvement. By bringing their ideas together, that implicit insight becomes very explicit.
As is the case for all work presented on this website: this is work in progress. More names will be added to the list; as the ideas are further unfolded. No matter what other people may have written and concluded ... ... your own life will have already proven to you that your involvement matters!
You might have done excellent research on this yourself: please contribute. There will be many people i do not know of who have done similar research. There will be far more people who always realised that involvement matters ... ... but did not have/take the time to write down their specific findings.
One of the clearest domains where involvement matters, is in medical/Health care. Specifically the psychic/normalpara forms of healing are based on modulating involvement. The ancient mystic traditions and meditative trainings are all very aware of this. What is needed now is a direct integration of this insight in (irresponsible) science.
By claiming/pretending to be ‘outsiders’ of the measurement, scientists became irresponsible. They could/did not take their of involvement/responseability into account. We all know and can see the consequences: scientific planetary destruction/wars. All of which will end as soon as scientist MUST take their own involvement into account.
This has profound and direct implications: differences in vision can be reconciled. That can be used, directly, in politics and integration of different possible perspectives. The project “Integral Health Care” )Initiated decades ago) is based on that realisation. Evidently this also means the possibility of religions integration, by complementing perspectives.
The language of involvement integrates subjective realisation with objective reality. It is based on individual uniqueness; and our evident inherent Freedom of Choice. It implies respect for other perspectives, and release of bias: deDogmatisation. And thereby answers the question What is Science?: responsible choice in involvement.
  
It'll be evident that whatever we produce at that level will be a mathematical model; a mental construct. This mathematical mental model/construct must comply with all rules existing for the use of languaging, as the described by Maturana & Varela, and by Grinder & Badler (the originators of neurolinguistic programming). The elemental mental principles described by Uri Fidelman apply; these are not only mental processes, but also brain processes and thus also body processes. Later on we will need to connect this up with the understanding of health and the integrity of (inter)cellular communication as described by Bert Verveen and Hans Selye.
We need to look at the relational pattern which is presented by the mathematical equations. We must understand that the equations of mathematics are in fact formulations of the relationship which we define ourselves within our context; and by which we define our self within that context. Uri Fidelman points out that they can map onto each other only if there are actual representations of what happens within our environment and in our body. Jon Cunnyngham points out that this means that we must adapt the mathematical formulations/calculations if they do not match our psychological experiences/findings.
We need a mathematics of involvement, in which we do not describe the findings on the basis of the parameters that we analyse in looking at the world around us. As Dimensional Analysis shows: the errors that you make of the level of interpretation will distort our perceptions/realisation. This will cause errors in the definitions by which we function. The mathematics of involvement will need to be 1) a description not only of the observation but also of 2) the observation as a verb, plus also of 3) the Observer in specifying the relationship to the environment (as noted by Cees van Schooneveld), but more fundamentally 4) we will need to (cor)relate that to the internal cellular communication functions, as they take place within (y)our own body.
This concludes the introduction on the mathematics of our participation in creation.
