This is a continuation of a private discussion with Thomas, but I ran into the 1000 word limit and feel it's an interesting discussion for the group as a whole.  

...


You said, "Bohm did not break into the mental space required to understand Bohr, which you can see in Bohm's attempt to revision quantum physics causally (by which I mean the limited causation of Newton)."

Yes, the implicate order holds a great poetry and truth.  But it feels a bit Platonic and proto-rational, or even steam-punk at this point in time, like the Maxwell's Demon of fluid-dynamics and complexity science. Rather than fully arriving at the fractal future at our feet, it feels a bit anachronistic and ideal, pointing from afar to this new post-classical, post-quantum and finally trans-/Rational (and trans-foundational) causal integration of implicit immanence. The perfection of the implicate order points to what I called in SpinbitZ, the "principle of infinite determinism" (infinite determinism equals indeterminism), which is the recognition of the "positive infinity", as the "secret of Grand Rationalism" (Merleau-Ponty/Deleuze). This is the inversion, integration and transcension of the pre-rational and foundational infinite regress into a nondual causal emergence in emptiness and form. The integrated and completed Rational, like all levels, is fully nondual. Boundary (and the quantum) integrated into infinite fractal dynamics, the infinite abyss seen now as the fractal/causal fountain (in a silly sort of anti-foundational sense). This is the Zenonian essence of immanent causation, mirrored in the structure of the mathematical continuum and integrating into the next dynamic transvolutionary Mathematical boundary, which is the solidus of the ratio in fractional dimension itself, as opposed to the proto-rational "non-euclidean" geometries.  

This recognition of deep infinity, or difference in emergent continuity is really what Bohr seems to be intuiting with his quantum, but he lacked critical Historical context to explain it, and most importantly, a philosophical framework within which to understand the fundamental shift to immanent causation.  Einstein, however, even studied Spinoza and considered himself a Spinozan, identifying famously with Spinoza's God.  But Immanent causation is not easy to grasp, and Spinozism was deeply reviled and trampled under the Mythic world into which it was born, the world also still largely intact when Bohr arrived on the scene, imho, and even currently, to whatever degree. But this quantum wholeness is also Leibniz's monad, which is the old substance translated into the heart of discontinuity, the monad, in a perfectly antipodal or polar relationship to the Spinozan Substance, which gives their integration such depth as intuited by so many in the esoteric sciences.  The monad (Deleuze's Leibizian folds) are perhaps Leibniz's greatest invention, as a solidification of Spinoza's bounded infinite (Finite Unity, in SpinbitZ).  But It's an important turn of phrase into reintegration of the continuity of the quantum, when Deleuze invokes it as the fold; the infinite modality of his Difference. It reconnects to the originary wholeness in division, and effects a nondual understanding, polarity, or dyad with, and indeed as the boundary conditions of reality itself.  


"There is no transition or half-way becoming involved, no Zeno's paradox of motion where to get from A to B an infinity of infinities must be traversed."

Right, but the regress is a peculiar problem of Foundationalism.  Perched at birth at a vast level of transcendence, upon opening our eyes we feel dizzy looking inward, trying to find ultimate ground, as if nature herself, or INFINITY were similarly perched.  The infinite confusing itself with the finite.  But in Mathematics, Zeno's paradox is fully reconciled and integrated into the structure of the continuum.  Simple transitions don't of course suffer a Zenonian regress.

But, it is also true that there are no halfway points at this level of harmonics. And that's exactly what we're dealing with. The tendency for music to solidify. In the patterns of cymatics we see the same thing. The interims between standing-wave harmonics are messy and can easily fail to register. They are the enforms for the exforms. Power is released and not held in the interstices.


"Or put it this way: in A going to B, there is no manifesting the entirety of those potentials between A and B.  There is only manifestation A, then manifestation B.  The infinity of potentials between these two is traversed in infinite potential space via development of Schrödinger's waveform."


Right, and precisely, as Schrödinger intuited, with his initial psi, I believe, which represented pressure, because this really is a cymatic wave resonance event.  And it's useful sometimes to let go of old patterns when they fail to lead to a successful result. But again also useful to recognize when new formations or integrations of those old patterns breath new life into the understanding.
 
Really the great transition here across which Schrödinger's and Bohr's intuitions couldn't quite reach (Planck's as well, with his favored threshold explanation, similarly close to the reality) is the shift into continuity and "pure" fluidity.  And this is actually the shift from transitive or linear causation---(which confusedly would include 'non-linear' (or trans-linear) curves)---into immanent causation marked conceptually by both Nagarjuna and Spinoza. But this is as much an Historical issue, because it was only in 1999 that it was shown that superfluids could carry the transverse waves required for the fluid ether which Michelson and Morley detected initially, but didn't have the theoretical framework to integrate into theory.  And so the notion of the ether, the physical essence of Schrodinger's fields, had no grounding in empirical data at that point in time, given that there was no way to understand how the ether could be fluid and to reconcile the anomalies pointed to in the ether drift tests.


And so here we are now, with the transvolution of Mathematics reaching its source in the complexity of its self-similar embodiment of and as the kosmos.  But this reaching of source feels monumental to me, like it is preceding a critical leap in human collective understanding, after over a century of dead-ends. I've been thinking of what it means for epistemology, and there is a sort of self-recursion, autocatalysis, or laser-like harmonic reinforcement that seems to occur...really on the brink of explosion. It's hard to explain, but you probably intuit it as well. It's a new attractor or morphic quantum, and I'm sure you will... :). We just kinda have to wander in the space and chart the recursions through the linearity of language. But I've been pulling out some threads that seem to be solidifying the view for me.

And so at this point in history all of quantum interpretation (not to mention standard cosmology) has this old sci-fi retro feel to me. The foam; the multiple worlds; the collapses of (ridiculously simplistic) singlet wave-functions; the curved rectilinear (literally pre-rational, or integer-dimension) space metrics and wormholes; the dualistic, empty and paradoxical (as opposed to integrated-polar) complimentarity and uncertainty principles; etc. Each facet reveals but a glimmer of the post-quantum fine-structure of mind and matter, and the axis of Tao now unfolding at our feet, integrating into a deep ergodic/fractal 'backbone' at all levels in the kosmos.


It's interesting the tensions here between the ideas, emphases, and men.  And in a similar way, Bohr's quantum has the same anachronistic feel to me. A beautiful intuition of the criticality of dynamic boundary and the emergence of unity, but an unfortunate disintegration with the key truths of the past, such as intuited by Planck and Schrödinger, both of whom could see a glimmer of the integration lost (Kuhn-loss) with the bold new quantum.  Bohr seems so ready to abandon all that came before him, like Newton, in that sense, and Einstein himself, all prepared to take their own quantum leap of intuition right off the ship of earthly (classical, solid-biased) understanding for the abstract ocean of mathematics.  The problem is really their limited grasp on the Nature of Mathematics; both its limitations and advantages. So ready to dive in, and yet quite unprepared, theoretically or empirically, to swim ... at that point in time. And yet an historical recursion on Newton's "hypothesis non fingo".  "Quantum shifts are real, and fundamental (immanent)." Interesting how the intuition is so clear in the light of the strange attractor, but really so obvious as well (in hind sight) with the concept of standing waves, embodied directly in Schrodinger's wave equation, but lacking the capacity to understand this degree of fluidity, far beyond our everyday molar and viscous (inertial) fluids. And in this sense, Bohr's matrices (and Born's probabilities) took us far away from that connection so we could forget about the difficulties of the causation involved from that impoverished historical context. But such is the meandering thread of history and human understanding.


You said, "Bohr's understanding of causation is unlimited, and therefore is non-conceptual---cannot be finitized, conceptualized, boundaried, etc."


Exactly.  Quite like Zeno's plurality, and for the same reason.  It grapples directly with the infinite in continuity, breaking out of the foundational regress to the Parmenidean Being-Now.  This is Spinoza's immanent causation, which Einstein, a Spinozist, overlooked, and Nagarjuna intuited in his critiques of causation.


"Where is the quantum boundary and how and why does it manifest how it does?  I don't think quantum physics has an answer to that right now, though my intuition leans the direction of viewing a holon as the base criterion for defining a quantum...."


I think your intuitions are right on here, and this fits with the empirical scaling relations (Oldershaw), and with their causation in Sorce Theory, with the infinite immanence in continuity providing the pure determination of "randomness" or unpredictability, the core aspect of true novelty in emergence, and the requisite understanding of "pure" fluidity. We just had to break into the basement level and poke around a bit to understand the transition here in this segment of the cycle in the fractal backbone of the cosmos.

 

Views: 671

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Joel,

 

Joel (quoting Tom?): "Where is the quantum boundary and how and why does it manifest how it does?  I don't think quantum physics has an answer to that right now, though my intuition leans the direction of viewing a holon as the base criterion for defining a quantum...."

 

I've gone forwards and backwards on this issue.  At the moment, the arbitrary nature of holonic scales makes me think that they serve as useful and flexible models rather than actual ontological joints "out there" in nature.  When I say that holons are arbitrary, I'm not referring to the order, but the "length" of the steps.  To use numbers as an analogy, we could have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on; but, so long as the proper order is maintained, we could have something like 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, etc.  When it comes to evolutionary maps, however--the sort of things we see in Wilber's diagrams, e.g. elementary particles, atoms, molecules, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, etc--we have no way to say which are the true, quantised holonic steps.  Should we, for instance, sub-divide molecules into monomers and polymers?  What are the "real" quanta here?  Does the question even make sense?

Hi infimitas,

 

Yes, that was quoting Tom.  So in my response to that quote you'll see I'm dealing with empirical scaling relations, such as Bode's Law, Shrodinger's wave equation and Oldershaw's self-similar cosmological scaling relation which links them on all observable scales so far.  These patterns recur at precise levels, and can not be explained by chance.  The same square-of-the-distance pattern occurs in the shells of the Earth, for example.  There is a deep self-similarity to the fine structure of the cosmos.  And this is one of the critical problems with standard cosmology and fundamental physics, given that it has no capacity to begin to explain them with mere gravity or with particle-mediated "forces", which are merely categorical.  There is a clear shift, imho, to a complexity view underway.

There is a ton of research out there on this new fractal view of cosmology and fundamental physics, and we're really just beginning to see it.  But here are some resources that can help:

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=85

http://chaos.aip.org/resource/1/chaoeh/v10/i4/p780_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://www.physorg.com/news157203574.html

 

Hi Joel

The difference  between limited causation (intersubjectobjective activity), and unlimited causation (and infinite determinism as indeterminism ) is evident, I can see that unlimited causation is the expression of infinite depth and the other way around. Do I get what you are saying here? Effectively its like the movement of infinite depth is infinities perpetual move into a singularity. Is this the reintroduction of casality or of acausality – back to an originary context ?  from another view as far as causality goes it is clear enough that the the real affects the actual to borrow a phrase from Bonnita’s post. It is not clear how the real has a causal element in any frame . Since infinity  is a subtext of constructs,  the axial inversion - infinite depth has  singular/transrational(?) tendencies….

A long shot - Varelas reentry as a third term in its own right  presents itself between true and false and actual and real, and perhaps other than nondual, in the context of autonomy and beyond  - the emergence of an entity independent of constituent terms. I don’t know where this is from or going yet :) Appreciate the links above

Hi valli,

 

valli said:

The difference  between limited causation (intersubjectobjective activity), and unlimited causation (and infinite determinism as indeterminism ) is evident, I can see that unlimited causation is the expression of infinite depth and the other way around. Do I get what you are saying here? 

 

I think so, although I don't see the distinction at the "limit", but with a shift in "direction", or onto a new (yet originary) axis in a deeper pre-conceptual (vision-logic) "coordinate system" (if we are to conceptualize it). Even transitive causation is fundamentally infinite, given that cause and effect cannot be separated. They are a fundamental polarity, and in this sense nondual.
valli said:
Effectively its like the movement of infinite depth is infinities perpetual move into a singularity.
Yes, conceptually it is a singularity, which mirrors only the *depth* of the reality (representation and regress), not its own motions (e.g. intensive forces). So the regress never happens, but in the representational search for immanence (e.g. in the failure to find a cause for gravitation) from within, and in violation of the layers and cycles of transvolution, or differentiation and integration, emergence and dissipation, unfolding and enfolding, etc. This is a key issue I have with using the singularity in a physical context, such as with Black Holes (despite the problems with falsification, and better, more predictive/explanatory models). It's a category error between the processes of representation and complexity in a self-similar or holarchically layered reality. There seem to be no *infinite* regresses in nature, no euclidean points, but rather only relatively deep *involutions*, such as with the steep gradient of the root matter-units, such as the atom and the stars, and even the galactic cores. Variably steep condensations of energy, yes, but there is no nearness to infinity...quite obviously, and thus the use of singularity or infinity in orthodox or common parlance is at best misleading.
 
valli said:
Is this the reintroduction of casality or of acausality – back to an originary context ?
Yes, this is a developmental pre-trans issue with the evolution of the concept of causality, and we're integrating on the transcendent return to immanence or involution (in a transvolution cycle). From a clear empirical and theoretical perspective, there is a real phase-shift in the nature of matter and the emergence of properties as we transcend physically through the quantum and up into molar forms. And categorically we are involuting here into an understanding and integration of these originary and deeper forms.
 
We can look at it generally as a shift in basic metaphors or "axes" of causation, from "transitive" to "immanent" (Spinoza, intuited by Nagarjuna), or simply (and misleadingly) from horizontal to vertical. But this is also, critically, a move from the linear and simple, to the vastly parallel (infinitely so), and thus a shift into true complexity, as we see with the infinite depth of the fractal. It is also no coincidence that dimension itself has succumbed to the membrane of closure, or the ratio, and we have integrated at this return point back into the immanent infinite in dimensionality itself, in the fractional dimensions. Dimensionality has finally become rational, and quite literally.
 
But if we are to press closer to the physical reality at issue here with the move into the quantum and integrating into the return to this immanent and originary causation, we must turn to the key metaphor of immanent causation itself in an all-touching plenum. In the emergent transition here, as paradoxical as it at first seems, this key metaphor is that of fluidity, at the subquantum and quantum levels, as opposed to (or giving rise to) solidity at the trans-quantum or molar levels. Common fluids are in this sense, solid. They have an inertial friction or viscosity because, on this new immanent "axis" they are close to the root-unit level of the quantum, whereas below this level, the forces moving toward continuity, have emerged to the point of the capacity of 'pure' fluidity to support the emergence of these units of solidity, the quanta. This is why it is an all-or-nothing affair. It's fundamentally harmonic and dynamic, and a function of thresholding resonance, exactly as Planck intuited.
 
But this is an unfamiliar and 'pure' form of fluidity, the essence of the strange properties of "super-" fluidity and conductivity, and the core of the aspects of "quantum coherence" in Bose-Einstein condensates, etc. This is a purity in the sense of completion, or the reaching of a pole or apex in a real oscillation in emergent properties or forces (the core of Oldershaw's empirical self-similar cosmological scaling relation). From 'pure' fluidity and continuity, through the quantum of the atom and its thresholding quantization of energy absorption, into higher forms of solidity, and on into inter- and trans-solidity in chemistry, molar-fluidity and evolution.  And we can follow it again higher until the next level of continuity, and recursing again into the next quantized forms of the stars, and again with their own harmonic shell thresholding, which we only see in vastly slow motion, from which we distill the empirical self-similar scaling relation at this level in the form of Bode's Law.  
Acausality was only the out-phase (dissonance) in this historical involution through the layers in the eternal cosmogonic onion, where the old forms were lost in search of, or transition to the new. Classical and transitive causality is based in pre-conscious metaphors of solidity, such as category (the essence of the mythic). Solidity enables linearity and transitive relations, such as connection, reflection, or more generally opposition. And so classical causation progressed deeper into the pre-solid or generative fluidity of its own emergent nature, and thus to its own limits.
 
valli said:
from another view as far as causality goes it is clear enough that the the real affects the actual to borrow a phrase from Bonnita’s post.
Hmmm, I'm not familiar with this distinction between the real and actual, or the mapping here, so I can't comment, but I'd love to understand it better.
valli said:
It is not clear how the real has a causal element in any frame.
From my pov, it's not clear how it could not ultimately have a "causal" element, given that causation is deeply related to the real. But perhaps this has to do with the necessary shift to the immanent form in the transcendence (involution), as intuited by Nagarjuna but not expressed until Spinoza, and the pre-trans issues surrounding this transition?
 
valli said:
Since infinity  is a subtext of constructs,  the axial inversion - infinite depth has  singular/transrational(?) tendencies….
Yes, infinite depth, or simply the immanent/transcendent axis is actually the axis opened up with the ratio, in the embryogenesis of Number and Operation in mathematics. And this is mirrored in conceptuality in the sense that it is the "essence" (ha, in the anti-Platonic or Spinozan sense) of Nagarjunan emptiness. So in this sense, "deep infinity", to borrow from Escher, is the axis of Rationality itself, which allows the Nagarjunan "pulverization of the categories."
valli said:
A long shot - Varelas reentry as a third term in its own right  presents itself between true and false and actual and real, and perhaps other than nondual, in the context of autonomy and beyond  - the emergence of an entity independent of constituent terms.
 
Yes, I think so. Varela's reentry seems to point to the move to, in Deleuzian terms the "intensive forces" of immanence, as opposed to the "oppositional forces" of Representation (e.g. true and false, or duality). But we can also integrate the understanding of true novelty (e.g. infinite determinism equals indeterminism) in emergence and true complexity, the heart of which is immanence or continuity.
valli said:
I don’t know where this is from or going yet :) Appreciate the links above
You are welcome, and I appreciate the discussion!



 

Joel, very cool. I’m back fresh with manufactured consent, after what was then known as festivity. A lot of things to get into, so I’ll follow this up in subsequent posts. Please Ignore any familiarity drawn from popular culture :)

Yes, conceptually it is a singularity, which mirrors only the *depth* of the reality (representation and regress), not its own motions (e.g. intensive forces)

So I could say unlimited causation dissolves in depth and doesn’t leave demonstrable traces or traces as such ? Then  the conventional meaning of causation is N A - as in this causes that - since it gets caused on whether something causes it or not.

It must be, the very validation of causality gives it its reality. Interesting to examine the mechanism of giving validity to causality – because as far as everything is concerned , if anything at all can be given validity so can causation be given validity. Giving anything validity is extreme , you could arrest the universe . haha

But it is also quite reasonable not to give anything or causation validity at all. Isnt it  selective reasoning  to reinforce and reify one world of reason (and not allowing reason its axiological possibility – as you have allowed with rationalizing dimensions from another premise)  so that, there isn’t any escape from causality, embedded as we are in its heyday

From a clear empirical and theoretical perspective, there is a real phase-shift in the nature of matter and the emergence of properties as we transcend physically through the quantum and up into molar forms.

It is also no coincidence that dimension itself has succumbed to the membrane of closure, or the ratio, and we have integrated at this return point back into the immanent infinite in dimensionality itself, in the fractional dimensions. Dimensionality has finally become rational, and quite literally.

Very interesting. I  think of a domain here that is spatially unlimited as it is causative, though a space inherent to functional closure , the cause negated by the necessity for its own being by what it causes. That’s creative even if I didn’t call cause creativity at the outset or refer to an a priori pole, within event polarity. A purity of completion here gives it perhaps an autonomy beyond constituent terms. Its nice when a loop liberates itself and is also easy about location and trace levels. Perpetually shifting locations show permeability across domains among other things. Sort of dimensionally unlimited but with event accessibility. quite literally as you suggest.

Event polarity gives me a buzz. By event (unlimited causation) what is implied is before  autonomy , the polarity in autopoesis . a polarity that is not really differentiated – it still is its bare substance that doesn’t look like any pole. The key metaphor is that of fluidity  or dimensionality itself….

 

 

Hmmm, I'm not familiar with this distinction between the real and actual, or the mapping here, so I can't comment, but I'd love to understand it better.


a link to Bonnitta's post and related comment

 

an excerpt - CR makes a distinction between the actual and the real – the “real world” is a unity of transcendental co-presence, whereas the actual world is stratified by structures that arise from social processes, biological processes, etc…

 

 

Hi Tom, your post about the financial crash is depressing. But of course it’s a prelude to a shift to yellow and a brave new world. I’ll comment on that thread I’m interested in how that plays out. I’m picking up from something you highlighted…..

But this is also, critically, a move from the linear and simple, to the vastly parallel (infinitely so), and thus a shift into true complexity, as we see with the infinite depth of the fractal. It is also no coincidence that dimension itself has succumbed to the membrane of closure, or the ratio, and we have integrated at this return point back into the immanent infinite in dimensionality itself, in the fractional dimensions. Dimensionality has finally become rational, and quite literally.

Joel, coming back to this, this is almost exactly how I see it too :) its interesting that it works with different contexts and approaches. I want to dwell a bit on the membrane of closure. Shifting the emphasis can I say functional closure rediscovers itself, through this membrane as it describes a leap in distinctivity. This boundary zone is like both irreducible and elusive. A non substance that describes all substance. From Terry’s paradoxical boundaries ;

From this brief description of fractals as they occur naturally, we can see that self-similar dynamics span the full range of existence, from the most concrete, material levels to the most highly abstract and psychological ones. Fractals appear in the joints, in the space between levels. They supply boundaries that are infinitely deep and paradoxical

And you could stretch the boundaries past the psychological to dimensional. In other contexts I’m all agog about how quality and quantity are recursive , and how quantity turns to nature of mind. The shift from linear to complexity as being. I’m just linking to a conversation with Terry now. But I want to come back to this. Also a comment about the collapse of distinctions to do with the actual and real

 

 

its interesting that it works with different contexts and approaches.

Yes, this is because it's pre-conceptual, and trans in the sense that we are involuting to this source.  It's the ground of conception.

I want to dwell a bit on the membrane of closure. Shifting the emphasis can I say functional closure rediscovers itself, through this membrane as it describes a leap in distinctivity.

Yes, that seems to make sense, though I'm guessing a bit on the correspondence of our maps.  They seem to line up.  Closure is both involutionary and evolutionary.  I call it transvolutionary.  In every act of closure it opens itself up to a new one.  This is essentially what Goedel showed, but it's the mechanism at the core of mathematics as it opens to exhaustion in operalization of the field of abstract relation.  I see a self-similar closure form with many layers within layers.  The whole of dimensional mathematics is nearing a meta-closure in the cycles underneath it opening, exhausting, and encapsulating new holonic layers.

This boundary zone is like both irreducible and elusive. A non substance that describes all substance.

Yes, a primitive metaphor beneath the conceptual apparatus.  The vision-logic coordinate system as we involute in evolution back to the core of the cogito and subject-object interface and begin to see where we started.

From Terry’s paradoxical boundaries ;

From this brief description of fractals as they occur naturally, we can see that self-similar dynamics span the full range of existence, from the most concrete, material levels to the most highly abstract and psychological ones. Fractals appear in the joints, in the space between levels. They supply boundaries that are infinitely deep and paradoxical


Beautiful and so true.  This is the integration level of mathematics and science, of biology and physical science.  I've been reading Prigogine's _End of Certainty_, and it's really giving a great perspective on the Historical context and how to interpret Quantum Science for where it must go.  He says:

The role of the observer was a necessary concept in the introduction of irreversibility, or the flow of time, into quantum theory.  But once it is shown that instability breaks time symmetry, the observer is no longer essential.  In solving the time paradox we also solve the quantum paradox and obtain a new realistic formulation of quantum theory.  This does not mean a return to classical deterministic orthodoxy; on the contrary, we go beyond the certitude associated with traditional quantum theory and emphasize the fundamental role of probabilities.  In both classical and quantum physics, the basic laws now express possibilities.  We need not only laws, but also events that bring an element of radical novelty to the description of nature.  This novelty leads us to the 'new kind of knowledge' anticipated by Maxwell.  ...we believe that we're actually at the beginning of a new scientific era.  We are observing the birth of a science that is no longer limited to idealized and simplified situations but reflects the complexity of the real world, a science that views us and our creativity as part of a fundamental trend present at all levels of nature.

And continuing with your post, you (Valli) said:

And you could stretch the boundaries past the psychological to dimensional.

This is because of course there is no real boundary and dimensional has always been as much (or more) subjective as objective.  Fuller showed initially just how arbitrary are the agglomerative dimensions, 1-3D or nD.  And empiricism is showing how more realistic are the fractional dimensions, and it just makes sense that dimension itself would involute to the ALL in the Cycle of Unity.

... In other contexts I’m all agog about how quality and quantity are recursive, and how quantity turns to nature of mind. The shift from linear to complexity as being.

Yes it's very exciting to glimpse a vast new sea opening to exploration.  We've collectively really been in the dark.



Thomas said:

Non-causal = "the conventional meaning of causation is N A ..."

Right, in the interim to immanent causation in integration with the Immanent-Transcendent Axis we enter a zone of silence and "cause" itself fades.  The signifier left adrift awaiting the new attractor.  

This tacit continuity of non-causation (nonfinite causation) is at once a shift out of conceptuality ("seeing it 3D") to a subtler dimensional seeing.

Although I understand that "cause" must float for a moment before integration, I will echo the prior point that all causation is infinite, and that the move is to a new understanding of boundary as it enters a new axis.  On this axis (immanent-transcendent) boundary itself becomes infinite because it opens to its interior.  But prior to this, "transitive" or "classical" causation was already infinite in its own axis.  It was just "composed" of finitudes, boundaries.  And the infinity of each axis is its other, which is why they are orthogonal.  In other words, the infinity within the transitive boundary was always there.  It just wasn't operationalized.  Causation is always infinite.  It just opens to a new infinity (axis).  

Also, as for "nonconceptual", I can see this in the sense of a deeper integration with intuition and the primitives of conceptuality.  But again I caution that the transition to a new integration is always preceded with a loss of traction before the new map attractors come into view.  I think this is also true with conceptuality.  In my view, conceptuality doesn't drop off so much as integrate at deeper and wider levels.  It opens to its other forms, roots, edges, folds, and gradients.  

A Bose-Einstein condensate was predicted decades before it was achieved (very recently) in a lab.  The condensate is implied by the quantum of action, by non-causation if you will. 

If perhaps noncausal also means emergent.  Do you mean roughly the same thing here?  Because to me they seem intrinsically opposed.  Emergent is a priori causal, just immanently so.  Of course it depends on the aperture and context around the term causal.  

There is no cause in pure-wave fluidity, as the entirety of what is called "fluid" is a unity.

This "unity" is immanence, continuity.  It's not so much "acausal" as maximally causal, the way I see it.  I think there is a pre-trans issue here, and once we get to trans causal re-emerges.

This unity is implied by the wave aspect of matter, which in the quantum vein is a non-local wave aspect. 

Only when interpreted via the classical mode based on the observer whose measurement "collapses" the "singlet" and classical (timeless and reversible) "wave-function".  As Prigogine shows, the real line between classical and post-classical mathematical physics (depending on how those lines are drawn) is that between the timeless pre-complexity dynamics and the complex dynamics of instability and dissipative structures (etc.).  Classical dynamics is characterized by a timeless reversibility.  It lacks an "arrow", and only accomplishes the semblance of one via the extrinsic and ad hoc construct of this "collapse" in measurement (it's fully perspectival, absolutely so, which shows that it's part of the post-modern phase before integration to complexity).  As Prigogine says:

The role of the observer was a necessary concept in the introduction of irreversibility, or the flow of time, into quantum theory.  But once it is shown that instability breaks time symmetry, the observer is no longer essential.  In solving the time paradox we also solve the quantum paradox and obtain a new realistic formulation of quantum theory.  This does not mean a return to classical deterministic orthodoxy; on the contrary, we go beyond the certitude associated with traditional quantum theory and emphasize the fundamental role of probabilities.  In both classical and quantum physics, the basic laws now express possibilities.  We need not only laws, but also events that bring an element of radical novelty to the description of nature.  This novelty leads us to the 'new kind of knowledge' anticipated by Maxwell.

According to Prigogine the critical move here beyond what I'd call a post-modern malaise and into a post-classical era with the understanding of uncertainty as a function of a perspectival horizon, rather merely a principle encoding ignorance.  This is a move into operationalizing the mechanisms, time itself at this point, in terms of a complexity dynamics, with the general metaphors of dissipative structures, attractors, emergence, etc, instead of mere axioms and principles.  

Near absolute zero, this implicit non-locality manifests as absolute macro unity.

Yes, this is characteristic of emergence.  Novelty, seemingly out of nowhere, i.e. "noncaused".  And yet we are moving into generalizing the nature and structures of this deeper (immanent) causation.

But notice: the particle aspect of a Bose-Einstein condensate has gone fully implicit in the Bose-Einstein state.  This can be seen in Ketterle's experiment where he dropped two BECs onto one another to produce macro interference.  The width of the interference lines is measured using a particle measure.  Wave-particle duality is fully alive in the BEC.

Right, there is a fundamental polarity.  Waves are made of particles are made of waves ad infinitum.  But the deeper polarity here is that between fluids and solids.  Waves are but an aspect of fluidity, and at the level of immanent unity (continuity) waves possess maximal fidelity and power (super fluidity).  A cymatics at this level has maximal capacity to form the "root units", the quanta.  These "timeless" forms, solids of flux, are the essence of classical dynamics.  They are the solid or involutionary aspect of real closure.  Classical dynamics is also characterized by a solid basis or bias.  And so it is characterized by single-particle approximations, and "singlet" curves and wave-functions, fluids reduced to "kinetic-atomic" motion.  The post-classical is a shift to the continuity and fluidity aspect of Nature, with its maximal power of wave dynamics in continuous superfluid cymatics.  

The implications, here, are to my mind profound.  A BEC is potential in all matter.  A BEC manifestation has therefore shifted potential and actual, to pick up on Bonnitta's language, whereby the particle aspect has receded to the status of implicit background.

Yes, a sufficient "granular distance" is achieved and effective continuity emerges into maximal or "super" fluidity.

In circumstances where the particle aspect is manifest, the wave aspect goes implicit, or potential, which is why the BEC was predicted.  But potential is actual potential, thus any particle manifestation will imply the continuity a BEC manifests.  That continuity has real-world manifestations by real, actual operation of that potential (non-locality, for instance).

But we have to be careful of antiquated interpretations, in this case solidified by a misuse of statistics and known loop-holes in quantum optics.  See the works of Caroline H. Thompson.

Thus in moving from the particle-implicit ground state of unity into particle-manifest states of the quantum and into higher macro forms of solidity, one could say that the absolute non-causation of ground-state unity is, if you will, horizontally or spatially "spread" into observable causation.  But because cause implies non-cause, any observed cause implies infinite cause, per Nagarjuna.  Adding all observable causes---an intuitive, because infinite, adding---one arrives again at the implicit non-cause of all structuring, or non-locality etc.  Fundamental duality.

Yes, it's an oscillation between fundamental states of matter, ultimately: solidity and fluidity, and their modal manifestations the particle and the wave.  Sorce Theory gives the causal principle of complimentary which shows how each leads into the other in a true polarity in recursion and emergence.  And Prigogine shows the bridge between the classical timeless dynamics of particles and wave-functions, and the post-classical view from Complexity, where the observer is no longer needed to break the time-symmetry and we move into an actual dynamics behind the probability and uncertainty.



Thomas said:

Joel:

Although I understand that "cause" must float for a moment before integration, I will echo the prior point that all causation is infinite ...

Yes, cause is infinite. I get what you're saying as a strong image of fundamental interrelatedness: we all move together.  I prefer non-causal to infinitely causal, though, as it opens the door to a non-causal language to describe change.  That non-causality in my lingo is creation.  But I get what you're saying.

That makes perfect sense, really, and it's a great point. I suppose I'd then translate to omni-non-causal to explicitly bring back in the positive element of the "regress" at reflection from absolute.

Also, as for "nonconceptual", I can see this in the sense of a deeper integration with intuition and the primitives of conceptuality.  But again I caution that the transition to a new integration is always preceded with a loss of traction before the new map attractors come into view.  I think this is also true with conceptuality.  In my view, conceptuality doesn't drop off so much as integrate at deeper and wider levels.  It opens to its other forms, roots, edges, folds, and gradients.

Yes, that's what I mean by non-conceptual, Joel.  More particularly, I mean primarily the integration of opposites in the root fractal of relative-absolute. 

I love the way you phrased that. That would be the element of univocity in Deleuze, and of course the essence or a key attractor for conceptual nonduality.

That integration for me represents a move to paradox, or simultaneous-dual---integrated contradiction. 

To and through, yes.

The integration infuses the imaging (wholeness) power of right brain, so to speak, into the detailing (partness) power of left brain, the combination of which is more powerful than just-linear (finite causation).

If perhaps noncausal also means emergent.  Do you mean roughly the same thing here?

That's precisely what I mean.  The now is always new, emergent, but fractally so.

This "unity" is immanence, continuity.  It's not so much "acausal" as maximally causal, the way I see it.

I get you.  That's what I mean.  The now is always continuous and infinitely causal (whole with all), and new.

Only when interpreted via the classical mode based on the observer whose measurement "collapses" the "singlet" and classical (timeless and reversible) "wave-function".  As Prigogine shows, the real line between classical and post-classical mathematical physics (depending on how those lines are drawn) is that between the timeless pre-complexity dynamics and the complex dynamics of instability and dissipative structures (etc.).  Classical dynamics is characterized by a timeless reversibility.  It lacks an "arrow", and only accomplishes the semblance of one via the extrinsic and ad hoc construct of this "collapse" in measurement ...

I think it's important to distinguish, here, that the Schrödinger wave function is a function-in-possibility.  Possibility is non-temporal and indistinct, so the so-called "collapse" is not an event in time or space, a real collapse, but a figurative notion that expresses the particularity that events: retain continuity with the past in an emergent new wholeness reference to that past and to relevant possibilities.  Collapse-in-continuity as it were. 

yes, and of course, perspective is key. Only from a frame of reference and representation does the collapse occur at all. What "really" happens is a "quantum event" that results at a higher level in an empirical/conceptual measurement. Sort of like a charge between the ontic and epistemic levels (and immanent and transcendent), when more often it does not occur in this continual move to the more steady involution and closure. And so some scientist jots a note on a paper, or punches a key. Other than that ...and the metaphysical interpretations clouding it... there is no "collapse".  I see it as closure or involution of understanding builds a charge at "source" and sometimes a spark occurs to form the ariadne's thread.  But the spark is as much a function of the understanding as it is the source.  It's the interaction that allows or necessitates that type of energy form.  It doesn't really occur in its absence.  But this isn't the same of course as meaning that a whole "reality" is generated in the event, any more than a stroke of lightning generates a new world.  It's all, always fundamentally creative, regardless of which levels are sparking.

This would be to express the non-temporal nature of change, where non-temporal means temporal and not (non+temporal).

Fwiw, I interpret uncertainty to refer to the indeterminacy of newness.  The new must be indeterminate, per Nagarjuna.  Quantum uncertainty therefore = newness in fundamental, continuous, infinitely causal relation.  Quantum physics is both precisely predictive and not. 

More perhaps later.

Creation vs. causation... or immanence as creative causation. Very stimulating thoughts,Thomas. Thanks much for your sparks!

wow, beautiful resonance.  Nicely encapsulated at the end.  That's exactly the image.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2020   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service