OJPP  Vol.8 No.4 , August 2018
Processes of Science and Art Modeled as a Holoflux of Information Using Toroidal Geometry
An attempt is made to model the structure of science and art discovery processes in the light of currently defined ideas on the societal flow of knowledge and conservation of information, using the versatile physical concept of toroidal geometry. This should be seen as a heuristic model that is open for further development and evolution. The scientific process, has been often described as a iterative and/or recurrent process. Current models explain the generation of new knowledge on the basis of a number of sequential steps (activities) operating in a circular mode. This model intrinsically assumes this process to be congruent for all individual scientific efforts. Yet, such a model is obviously inadequate to fully describe the whole integral process of scientific discovery as an ongoing interactive process, performed in a cumulative fashion. This implies that any new cycle starts from a different perspective or, optimistically seen, is initiated from a higher level, in a spiral mode, that takes into account the ongoing rise of scientific perspectives. Also, any model that attempts to picture the scientific process, should include potential interactions of concepts or hypotheses, in the sense that concurrently developed concepts may (mutually) influence each other and even may be mixed or superposed or, alternatively, may even result in concept extinction. Science and art progression, both seen as an individual effort and as a historically-based flow of events, is inherently a non-linear or even sometimes a chaotic process, where quite suddenly arising visions can cast a very different light on main-stream scientific thought and/or seem to remove existing barriers in more traditional “habits of the mind”. In contrast to the rather gradual evolution of science, the history of art sometimes even shows complete rejection of preceding conceptualizations and s. The dynamics of cognition and perception are fruitfully suggested by the rotational dynamics of a torus as a basis for its “self-reflexive” property. Also, the torus exhibits contraction/relaxation loops, in which the torus turns inside out in a vibrating mode, implying strange loop trajectories. This suggests that the toroidal geometry embodies a cognitive twist, relating the “inside” to “outside” of knowledge as with a Möbius strip, a phenomenon that can be seen as the basis for self-consciousness. The torus geometry may also be applied to the art process on the basis of personal experience, intuitive vision, intention, imagination, and technical realization of the becoming piece of art. The finalization of the art concept can be conceived as a sort of knotting of the spiral information process: By literally connecting both ends of the toroidal information trajectory, the spiral is closed and a final product is created. Importantly, both scientists and artists may be inspired by intuition and serendipity, possibly through contact with an underlying knowledge field, as identified in modern physics. Unfortunately, science that often claims objectivity, sometimes seems dominated by a range of subjective human attitudes, not different from any other field in society. One factor is the deficient science-philosophical education of our students in the current curricula and loss of academic worldviews in university careers, in which “time is short” and necessary moments for reflection scarce.
Cite this paper
Meijer, D. K. F. (2018) Processes of Science and Art Modeled as a Holoflux of Information Using Toroidal Geometry. Open Journal of Philosophy, 8, 365-400. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2018.84026.
[1]   Andersen, H., & Hepburn, B. (2016). Scientific Change. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[2]   Banschoff, T. F. (1998). An Interactive Gallery on the Internet “Surfaces beyond the Third Dimension”. International Journal of Shape Modeling.

[3]   Barr, F. (2006). The Theory of Evolutionary Process as a Unifying Paradigm.

[4]   Barus, I. (2001). The Art of Science: Science of the Future in Light of Alterations in Consciousness. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 15, 57-68.

[5]   Bauer, H. W. (2014) The Science Bubble. EdgeScience, #17, 3-6 February 2014.

[6]   Bauer, M. W., & Suerdem, A. (2016). Relating Science Culture and Innovation. OECD Blue Sky Meeting on Science and Innovation Indicators, Ghent, September 2016.

[7]   Bentov, I. (1979). Stalking the Wild Pendulum on the Mechanisms of Consciousness. New York: Bantam Books.

[8]   Bernstein, P. (2005). Intuition. What Science Says (So Far) about How and Why Intuition Works. In Endophysics: Time, Quantum and the Subjective. Singapore: World Science Publishing.

[9]   Bishof, M., & Del Giudice, E. (2013). Communication and the Emergence of Collective Behaviour in Living Organisms: A Quantum Approach. Molecular Biology International, 2013, Article ID: 987549.

[10]   Bizzari, M., Soto, A, Sonnesschein, C., & Longo, G (2017). Saving Science. And beyond Organisms. Journal of Biological Sciences, 1.

[11]   Bjerve, A. (2016). The Fractal-Holographic Universe.

[12]   Bohm, D. F., & Peat, D. (2008). Science, Order and Creativity (2nd ed.). Routledge (Transferred to Digital Printing Routledge).

[13]   Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). The Undivided Universe. An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. London: Routledge.

[14]   Brady, R. H. (2000). Perception: Connections between Art and Science.

[15]   Bruza, P. D., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2012). Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[16]   Butterfield, J. (2014). Our Mathematical Universe. Book Review in Plus Magazine of the UK Mathematics Millenium Project.

[17]   Davies, R. (2006). The Tyranny If Big Ideas.

[18]   Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2007). Chapter X: Where Do New Ideas Come From? How Do They Emerge?—Epistemology as Computation (Information Processing). Vasteras: Malardalen University.

[19]   Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2012). Floridi’s Informational Structural Realist Basis for Infocomputational Modeling of Cognizing Agent, Informational Structural Realism, ISR.

[20]   Eagleman, D. M. (2013). Why Public Dissemination of Science Matters. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 12147-12149.

[21]   Filley, C. M. (2016). Across the Great Two-Cultures Divide. In E. R. Kandel (Ed.), Reductionisms in Art and Brain: Bridging the Two Cultures. Columbia Ininiverity Press.

[22]   Fishbein, E. (2005). Intuition in Science and Mathematics—An Educational Approach. Berlin: Springer.

[23]   Gaudreau, Mx. A. (2016). Unexpected Ramnification of Knot Theory. Asian Pacific Mathematics Newsletter, 6, 7-21.

[24]   Geesink, H. J., & Meijer, D. K. F. (2018). Evidence for a Guiding Principle in Quantum Physics. Quantum Biosystems, 9, 1-7.

[25]   Geesink, J. H., & Meijer, D. K. F. (2016a) Quantum Wave Information of Life Revealed: An Algorithm for Electromagnetic Frequencies that Create Stability of Biological Order, with Implications for Brain Function and Consciousness. NeuroQuantology, 14, 106-125.

[26]   Geesink, J. H., & Meijer, D. K. F. (2016b). Bio-Soliton Model that Predicts Non-Thermal Electromagnetic Frequency Bands, that Either Stabilize Living Cells.

[27]   Geesink, J. H., & Meijer, D. K. F. (2017a). Bio-Soliton Model that Predicts Non-Thermal Electromagnetic Frequency Bands, that Either Stabilize Living Cells. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36, 357-378.

[28]   Geesink, J. H., & Meijer, D. K. F. (2017b). Electromagnetic Frequency Patterns that Are Crucial for Health and Disease Reveal a Generalized Biophysical Principle: The GM scale. Quantum Biosystems, 8, 1-16.

[29]   Gough, W. C., & Shacklett, R. L. (2014). The Science of Connectiveness. Part 3. The Human Experience. Subtle Energies, 4, 187-214.

[30]   Grossman, L. (2012). Hawking’s Escher-Verse Could Be Theory of Everything. New Scientist, 9 June 2012.

[31]   Hamlin, J. F., & Séquin, C. H. (2009). Ribbed Surfaces for Art, Architecture and Visualization. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 6, 1-4.

[32]   Haramein, N., Brown, W. D., & Val Baker, A. (2016). The United Spacememory Network: From Cosmogenesis to Consciousness. NeuroQuantology, 14, 1-15.

[33]   Heylighen, F., & Chielens, K. (2006). Cultural Evolution and Memetics. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science.

[34]   Hofstadter, D. (2007). I Am a Strange Loop.

[35]   Holland, P. (1996) Quantum Back-Reaction and the Particle Law of Motion.

[36]   Horgan, J. (2012). What Thomas Kuhn Really Thought about Scientific Truth. Scientific American.

[37]   Huang, S. (2013). When Peers Are Not Peers and Don’t Know It: The Dunning-Kruger Effect and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Peer-Review. Bioessays, 35, 414-416.

[38]   Institute of Venture Science. Critical Comments on Today’s Scientific Enterprise.

[39]   Judge, A. (2016a). Being a Poem in the Making. Engendering a Multiverse through Musing.

[40]   Judge, A. (2016b). Visualization-in-3D-of-Dynamics-of-Toroidal-Helical-Coils.

[41]   Kastrup, B. (2017). Self-Transcendence Correlates with Brain Function Impairment. Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics, 4, 33-42.

[42]   Kauffman, L. H. (1987). State Models and the Jones Polynomial. Topology, 26, 395-307.

[43]   Kelly, K. (2015). Speculations on the Future of Science.

[44]   Keppler, J. A. (2013). A New Perspective on the Functioning of the Brain and the Mechanisms behind Conscious Processes. Frontiers in Psychology, Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 1-6.

[45]   Keppler, J. A. (2016). On the Universal Mechanism Underlying Conscious Systems and the Foundations for a Theory of Mind. Open Journal of Philosophy, 6, 346-367.

[46]   Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of UNIFIED Science, 2nd Edition.

[47]   Lambert, N., Chen, Y. N., Cheng, Y. C., Li, C. M., Chen, G. Y., & Franco, N. (2013). Quantum Biology. Nature Physics, 9, 10-18.

[48]   Langan, C. (2017). An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics. Cosmos and History. The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 13, 313-330.

[49]   Laszlo, E. (2007). The Akashic Field. New York: Dutton.

[50]   Linov, (2014). Introduction to Knot Theory and the Knot Group.

[51]   Loll, R. (2011). Quantum Gravity at the Planck Scale: Getting a Hold on Spacetime Foam.

[52]   Maeda, J. (2004). Artists and Scientists: More Alike than Different.

[53]   Malina, F. J. (1968). Some Reflections on the Differences between Science and Art. In Directions in Art Theory and Anesthetics (pp. 134-149). London: Faber.

[54]   Mathijs, E., & Mosselmans, B. (1993). Similarity or Difference: The Case for Interdisciplinarity between Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Art and Aesthetics.

[55]   Megidish, E., Halevy, A., Shacham, T., Dvir, T., Dovrat, L., & Eisenberg, H. S. (2012). Entanglement between Photons That Have Never Coexisted. arXiv:1209.4191v1[quant-ph]

[56]   Meijer, D. K. F. (2007). Van Meme tot Medicijn. In J. van Baak (Damon) (Ed.), Over Boodschap en Beeldvorming in Cultuur en Cognitie (pp. 99-119).

[57]   Meijer, D. K. F. (2012). The Information Universe. On the Missing Link in Concepts on the Architecture of Reality. Syntropy Journal, 1, 1-64.

[58]   Meijer, D. K. F. (2013). Information: What Do You Mean? Syntropy Journal, 3, 1-49.

[59]   Meijer, D. K. F. (2014). The Extended Brain: Cyclic Information Flow, in a Quantum Physical Realm. NeuroQuantology, 12, 180-200.

[60]   Meijer, D. K. F. (2015). The Universe as a Cyclic Organized Information System. An Essay on the Worldview of John Wheeler. NeuroQuantology, 1, 1-40.

[61]   Meijer, D. K. F., & Geesink, J. H. (2016). Phonon Guided Biology. Architecture of Life and Conscious Perception Are Mediated by Toroidal Coupling of Phonon, Photon and Electron Information Fluxes at Discrete Eigenfrequencies. NeuroQuantology, 14, 718-755.

[62]   Meijer, D. K. F., & Geesink, J. H. (2017). Consciousness in the Universe Is Scale Invariant and Implies the Event Horizon of the Human Brain. NeuroQuantology, 15, 41-79.

[63]   Merali, Z. (2017). The Universe Is a String-Net Liquid.

[64]   Merrick, R. (2008). Interference. A Grand Scientific Musical Theory.

[65]   Merrick, R. (2010). Harmonically Guided Evolution. Fairview.

[66]   Nickles, Th. (2014). Scientific Revolutions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition).

[67]   Niemetz, A. (2004). Singing Cells, Art, Science and Noise in between. MFA Thesis, UCLA Department of Design/Media Arts.

[68]   Perla, R. J., & Carifo, J. (2004). The Nature of Scientific Revolutions from the Vantage Point of Chaos Theory: Toward a Formal Model of Scientific Change. Science and Education, 1-28.

[69]   Pesic, P. (2015). Music and the Making of Modern Science.

[70]   Pitkänen, M. (2013). What Music Could Teach us about Consciousness.

[71]   Plsek, P. (1996). Working Paper: Models for Creative Process.

[72]   Popper, K. (1969). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper & Row, New York, Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, RKP, London,

[73]   Primack, J., & Abrams, N. E. (2006). The View from the Centre of the Universe. Discovering our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos. London: Fourth Estate.

[74]   Purwins, H., Blankertz, B., & Obermayer, K. (2007). Toroidal Models in Tonal Theory and Pitch-Class Analysis. In Tonal Theory for the Digital Age (Computing in Musicology 15, 2007), 73-98.

[75]   Rosen, A. (2005). Art and the Event Horizon.

[76]   Ruse, M. (2009). The Darwinian Revolution: Rethinking Its Meaning and Significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10040-10047.

[77]   Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving Science. Science Isn’t Self-Correcting, It’s Self-Destructing. To Save the Enterprise, Scientists Must Come Out of the Lab and into the Real World. The New Atlantis, 49, 4-40.

[78]   Sarfatti, A. (2015). Bohm Pilot Wave Post Quantum Theory.

[79]   Scaruffi, P. (2007). Bridging the Gap between Art and Science. Notes for a Round Table Moderated by L. Shlain, San Francisco, USA.

[80]   Scientific Revolutions (2017). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-revolutions/

[81]   Shlain, L. (1991). Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light. New York: Morrow.

[82]   Skeptical Investigations. Some Notes on Pseudo-Skepticism.

[83]   Smoyer, L. (2005). Musical Mathematics, the Mathematical Structure of the Pythagorean and Equal Tempered Scale. In Partial Fulfillment of the Masters of Science in Teaching Mathematics.

[84]   Sullivan, J. M. (2003). Optimal Geometry of Art.

[85]   Sutherland, R. I. (2006). Causally Symmetric Bohm Model.

[86]   Tegmark, M. (2014). Our Mathematical Universe. My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. UK: Penquin Books Ltd.

[87]   Tozzi, A., & Peters, J. F. (2016). Towards a Fourth Spatial Dimension of Brain Activity. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 10, 189-199.

[88]   Van De Bogart, W., & Forshaw, S. (2015). Re-Constructing Memory Using Quantized Electronic Music and a “Toridion Byte” Quantum Algorithm: Creating Images Using Zero Logic Quantum Probabilistic Neural Networks (ZLQNN).

[89]   White, J. H. (2013). Poetry of Light. https://poetryoflight.org/2013/05/03/ouroboros/

[90]   Wilczek, F. (1989). Longing for Harmonies. Themes and Variations from Modern Physics.

[91]   Wilczek, F. (2016). A Beautiful Question, Finding Nature’s Deep Design. London: Penquin Books.

[92]   Wilkins, J. S. (1995). Evolutionary Models of Scientific Change. Master Thesis, Mount Martha, Australia.

[93]   Williamson, J. G., & Mark van der, M. B. (1997). Is the Electron a Photon with Toroidal Topology? Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 22, 133.

[94]   Yepez, O. (2004). Matter and Light in Flatland. General Physics (physics.gen-ph).

[95]   Young, A. M. (2006). Comments on Science. Essays. http://arthuryoung.com/essays.html