For the formulation of communication we can learn from our body, and mind.
In our body we experience this (unconsciously) as cell-communication.
Between people we experience this (in many forms) as communication.

Communication is the interaction based on Synergy: feed forward and feedback.
Communion is based on Symbiosis: Networked feed forward and feedback loops.

We see how these work within our body, based on the interaction of our mineral, vegetable, animal and consciousness system.

The mineral system can therein be compared to the hardware (matter), consciousness to the (information) software.
In the interaction we see the material structure and dynamics (free versus bound electrons, and ditto protons.)

We also see the temporal organisation dynamics, for which we need to regard the dynamics in the spatial and temporal perspective; both are linked.

The figure is a standard fractal base; a bifurcation. In our body this represents the referon system for relating the cell core to the cell membrane. The single vector from the nucleus core connects the radial to the peripheral; as described in e.g. the mathematics of Adams and Mowitz. Potential mathematics defines how this fractal can be mirrored and inverted, to transcend the boundary of the defined (cell) system.

This connects the fractal to an inverse fractal, as is seen also in the work of Bill Tiller in the transcendence of the barrier of the Speed of light. (Energy invested in the transition, returns after the transition.) Requirement is that the single vector must fully convert into the dual double vector of the plane (membrane) surface. When this condition is fulfilled then the dynamics of the local system can connect to those of the environment. (Integration Condition.)

The Integration Condition can thus be summarised in the shape of the plane that links the first (primary) and secondary (second) vector. This is portrayed in the classical image of the Light Cone. This can be generalised in a Vortical (Vortex) description (definition), in which the convergence of the first vector (A) into the plane, and the emergence of the second vector (B) out of the plane are dependent on the perfect mirroring (transposition integration) within the plane.

The so-called ‘light cone’ therewith is the requirement for system transcendence (boundary transcendence) of the vector A through the interface (<>) into the vector B.

The light cone this has no meaning without the core (kernel) vector A, and its inverse/dual, vector B. It means that we can not regard vector A separate from the ‘light cone’ nor separate from vector B. The dual nature of the interface (= inner-phase) can be represented by the symbol “۞”.

This representation has NO meaning; it is DISconnected from context.

This means that the Radial notation (within a field) and the Circular notation (of a boundary) must always be combined. Without the connection between the Boundary and the Field, the transition between them, and the relationship of the part in/to the whole cannot be described. It means that the Notation can be replaced by making use of these traditional forms of notation, in which the interface is represented by a circle (or cycle).

The circle can indeed be interpreted also as a cycle. Any interface is based on the balance between feed forward and feedback. Where this is traditionally seen/shown as => and <=, the above makes clear that we need to include the transition IN the interface into the description. The un-folding of fractal vector “A” into the interface (immersion) and the con-volution of fractal vector “B” from the inter-phase (emersion) must both be described, as both are related (dual). Only when both are present, and balanced, can the interface be transcended and the part relate to the whole.

From a mathematical perspective, this means that we need to look into what happens in the interface of description; this is IN the “=”-sign; which is the interface in which not only the previous and the next representation of description are connected, but also where the observer is involved in the observation. The feed forward and feedback cycle which defines the balance in the description, is therein also integrated, unified and identified in the participation of the observer. This means that there is no objective observer; this does not and cannot exist.

A = B
must be replaced by
A # B

# : Dimensional Operator (= & // & . & *)

Later we will see that the interaction between the observed and the observer, with/in their context, involves 4 axes of rotation between them:

1. vertical axis – within the observer,
2. Frontal axis of observation – from the observer to the observed,
3. lateral axis – of the observed within the context of the observer, and
4. the 4D inversion axis of the integration of the observation in the context of the observer, in/to the internalised representation of that observation as a realisation within the observer.

(Both exist in 2 versions (A & B), for the state and the process; the observer and the observed.)

The Fractal Vector is possible only because the field is related to its boundary. The expansion of the vector A into the Fractal A takes place because the radial vector becomes defined (definite, by becoming finite) in being related to its circumscribed Circular dual definition. The Radial and Circular formulation are thus/thereby related; they are dual: the one defines the other. This means that classical reduced (Radial) description is meaningless without its relativistic (Circular) defining context. This has very explicit practical implications: radial relational logic (A => B) has NO meaning outside of its cyclical referential logic (A <=> B).

Mathematics has come to the realisation that this double description is needed. Complex Number theory offers its notation. The so-called ‘Real’ component, is the notation for the radial aspect. The so-called ‘Imaginary’ component, described the cyclic aspect, which defines the system. The ‘Imaginary’ aspect is equivalent to the time cycle, and the carrier wave’ of the system. The ‘Real’ aspect is the ensuing signal, the shape, thus the form, in any specific context. (Gabor mathematics makes explicit that these two component need to be regarded together, to be able to address the holographic dynamic nature of the reality/realisation that we are part of.)

The Circle and Radius, cycle and rod, are known in many cultures. A classical representation of the same is in the symbol of the shepherd staff (animal husbandry, dynamic control) and the flail (harvesting seed, static selection) in classical Egypt; also –together– represented as a letter “G”. In politics the same is conveyed by the sickle-and-hammer symbol, or, in masonry, by a compass (circle) and square (rod).

This relational definition is with reference to, thus in relationship with, the human observer always. There is no objective human observer; observation is always done by subjective humans. The description ‘on paper’ needs to be related to the operational interactive dynamics in/by/of the human, always. This interaction is dual to that what is seen on paper. Whereas we see, ‘on paper’, the steps of the equations, within the ‘observer’ we experience the processes in/of their transitions.
We therefore need to juxtapose the (seemingly) discrete steps in the description with the ongoing continuous experiences within the human (‘observer’).
(Note that the word ‘observer’ applies to a person observing particular rules in communication. This is also where the ‘education’ of scientists is a conditioning in observing their rituals of observation and communication.)

Although in Complex number ‘mathematics’ the Real (space-state) and Imaginary (time dynamics) are customarily regarded in coincidence (as if coinciding) it is necessary to realise that the two ‘layers’ (aspects) are co-incident only under condition of coherence with/in the context.
This interaction can be made explicit by labelling the feed forward and feedback in combination/conjunction, as is done in the write-re-write algebra (Rowlands).

In order to be able to account for our own involvement, that formulation needs to be ‘doubled’: the transition from observation-to-object (Realisation) needs to be complemented by the transition by/of observation-by-subject (Realisation).

The steps in the equations and the stages in redefining the equations must this be related. The dynamics in the human observer must be explicitly described. This can be most easily done at their most fundamental level: that of cell dynamics. The communion/communication between people can be seen to be defined on the dynamics between communing cells. The principles implied can be seen with/in cell division. This then offers the basis for cellular communion, communication between humans, and the basis of/for consensus.

The basis for this interaction can be seen in Figure 1, applied to the communication within cells. The plane in the middle is at right angles to the vector from the cell core to the cell membrane; and thereby this figure not only represents the dynamic of membrane transition (including of the the Tiller-Einstein solution) but also the dynamic of, for, during, after cell division, in which the zygote has been split into two cells, which together form one unit(y).

Crucial is the understanding that we here see the relationship between Space and Time; specifically, how Time (process) forms the ‘carrier wave’ for the structure in Space (state). The consecutive stages in cell division can be represented in/as the following figure, where the first state – the Zygote – is juxtaposed to the next state: the divided cell. It represents a fundamental principle, which is repeated throughout the creation/manifestation of life, and our body. It brings us to the notion that we need to describe cell division as a (Time) Fractal (Vrobel).

The description shows the relationship between Unit and Unity. The Zygote, when it divides into two cells, retains unity, while ‘remaining’ units. (Dotted represents the next phase stage.) The radial notation (left) is equivalent with the circular notation (right); but both are meaningful only when used together: the local system needs to be seen to be bounded, because in the boundary you can find the relationship with/in/to the environment; which is shared by both.

This notation thereby implies its complement, the inverse. This is where, from a system boundary (energy) it is possible to infer it implied (information) centre of coherence from which the integrity of the system can be deduced. These complement the space/state and process/phase (time) – consequential – levels of manifestation.
Information => energy => time => space, is thus defined in the co-incidence of the above two symbols.

We see this duality in the following figure, which defines the duality in the first stage in cell division: it specifies the relationship between unit and unity. It combines (‘coincides’) the relationship between the first cell (the zygote) and the two ‘second’-stage cells. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the sequence of the first cell (first circle, on the left) and the second cell (second circle on the right). The circle on the right is a virtual/imaginary circle/cycle. It contains – dotted – the (next stage) two cells which were formed out of the cell division. Juxtaposed is, again, the fractal vector notation (in which it now is evident that this notation describes the division into units, but fails to describe the maintenance of unity.)

In order to make the preservation of unity explicit, we need to make use of the dual (co-incident) notation described above, in which the fractal vector is identified with the phase transition in/to a field, linking it in-to the Boundary; but linked also to the integrity of the interface (and its integrity in inner-phasing) out of which the dual of the phase change can emerge; if the transformation in/by/through/out of the boundary is (self) consistent (its own dual; i.e. invert-inverse). This boundary-transition is the essence of cell-division. The duality of the Boundary Transition, and Cell Division, can be juxtaposed:

In the figure on the right (the representation of cell division) the dynamic between unit and unity is shown. Note the directions of the arrows, which indicate the orientation of the flow of the topology of the singularities of the system. In the more complete denotation of the principle of cell division, the relationship between the first cell and the two emergent cells is made explicit. The cycle within the system can then be – explicitly – seen to be related to the System Inversion; and our capacity to sensing the universe around us, within us.

This diagram is fundamental. It simultaneously describes the principle of boundary transition, cell division, and the functional and operational organisation of our whole body. The image for cell division, denotes the Fractal vector; which denotes the kernel, determinant, matrix and array of a classic vectorial system; of Vortex dynamics. The image below shows the same relationship in the way we customarily see it and regard is: in the form of our body:

Implied in this representation is a principle property of the fractal; and the diffraction of the sequence of unity (1) in duality (2, two-ness) as trinity (3, tri-unity) into its inverse: the 4D system.

#### [Foreword][MetaThematics 00: Introduction][MetaThematics 01: Beyond Mathematics][MetaThematics 02: Toward a Formalism][MetaThematics 03: Symbolic Representation][MetaThematics 04: From Physics to Phasics][MetaThematics 05: The Gravity of Consciousness][MetaThematics 06: The Manifestation of Space][MetaThematics 07: The Art/Act of Involvement][MetaThematics 08: The Formulation of/for Involvement][MetaThematics 09: The g.o.d. experience][MetaThematics 10: The g.o.d. BioLogics][MetaThematics 11: g.o.d. = creation][MetaThematics 12: Primes and Consequences]

 [Welcome] [Core Concepts] [Topics] [Participants] [Publications] [Research] [Projects]