Self-Similarity and the Quantum - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T08:42:10Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A39501&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=nowow, beautiful resonance. Ni…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2012-01-20:5301756:Comment:395012012-01-20T04:32:26.966ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<p>wow, beautiful resonance. Nicely encapsulated at the end. That's exactly the image.</p>
<p>wow, beautiful resonance. Nicely encapsulated at the end. That's exactly the image.</p> Thomas said:
Joel:
Althoug…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2012-01-19:5301756:Comment:391452012-01-19T03:45:18.063ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<p><br></br> <br></br> <cite>Thomas said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A39028&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment39028"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Joel:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Although I understand that "cause" must float for a moment before integration, I will echo the prior point that all causation is infinite ...</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Yes, cause is infinite.…</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Thomas said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A39028&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment39028"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Joel:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Although I understand that "cause" must float for a moment before integration, I will echo the prior point that all causation is infinite ...</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span>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.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A39028&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment39028"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><blockquote><p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>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. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span>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.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A39028&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment39028"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
<p>That integration for me represents a move to paradox, or simultaneous-dual---integrated contradiction. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span>To and through, yes.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A39028&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment39028"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
<p>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).</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>If perhaps noncausal also means emergent. Do you mean roughly the same thing here?</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>That's precisely what I mean. The now is always new, emergent, but fractally so.</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>This "unity" is immanence, continuity. It's not so much "acausal" as <em>maximally</em> causal, the way I see it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>I get you. That's what I mean. The now is always continuous and infinitely causal (whole with all), and new.</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>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 ...</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>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 <em>emergent new wholeness</em> reference to that past and to relevant possibilities. Collapse-in-continuity as it were. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span>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.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A39028&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment39028"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
<p>This would be to express the non-temporal nature of change, where non-temporal means temporal and not (non+temporal).</p>
<p></p>
<p>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. </p>
<p></p>
<p>More perhaps later.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span>Creation vs. causation... or immanence as creative causation. Very stimulating thoughts,Thomas. Thanks much for your sparks!</span></p>
</div>
</div> Thomas said:
Non-causal = "…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2012-01-01:5301756:Comment:381732012-01-01T23:20:46.281ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<p><br></br> <br></br> <cite>Thomas said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Non-causal = "the conventional meaning of causation is N A ..."</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Right, in the interim to immanent causation in integration with the Immanent-Transcendent…</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Thomas said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Non-causal = "the conventional meaning of causation is N A ..."</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>This tacit continuity of non-causation (<span style="text-decoration: underline;">non</span>finite causation) is at once a shift out of conceptuality ("seeing it 3D") to a subtler dimensional seeing.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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). </p>
</div>
</div>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
<p>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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>There is no cause in pure-wave fluidity, as the entirety of what is called "fluid" is a unity.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>This "unity" is immanence, continuity. It's not so much "acausal" as <em>maximally</em> causal, the way I see it. I think there is a pre-trans issue here, and once we get to trans causal re-emerges.</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>This unity is implied by the wave aspect of matter, which in the quantum vein is a non-local wave aspect. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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:</p>
<blockquote><p><span>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.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Near absolute zero, this implicit non-locality manifests as absolute macro unity.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Yes, a sufficient "granular distance" is achieved and effective continuity emerges into maximal or "super" fluidity.</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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 <em>actual</em> 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).</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/self-similarity-and-the-quantum?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33204&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment33708"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>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.</p>
</div>
</div> its interesting that it wo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2012-01-01:5301756:Comment:381712012-01-01T21:18:00.867ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>its interesting that it works with different contexts and approaches.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote><p>I want to dwell a bit on the membrane of closure. Shifting the emphasis can I say functional closure rediscovers itself, through this membrane <b><i>as</i></b> it describes a leap in…</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>its interesting that it works with different contexts and approaches.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote><p>I want to dwell a bit on the membrane of closure. Shifting the emphasis can I say functional closure rediscovers itself, through this membrane <b><i>as</i></b> it describes a leap in distinctivity.</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote><p>This boundary zone is like both irreducible and elusive. A non substance that describes all substance.</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote><p></p>
<p>From Terry’s paradoxical boundaries ;</p>
<p><i>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</i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>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:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p><span>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. <span>...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.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>And continuing with your post, you (Valli) said:</p>
<blockquote><p>And you could stretch the boundaries past the psychological to dimensional.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote><p>... 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 <i>being.</i></p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes it's very exciting to glimpse a vast new sea opening to exploration. We've collectively really been in the dark.</p>
Hi Tom, your post about the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-11-04:5301756:Comment:338102011-11-04T09:16:10.392Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>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…..</p>
<p><i>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…</i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>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…..</p>
<p><i>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.</i></p>
<p>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 <b><i>as</i></b> 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 ;</p>
<p><i>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</i></p>
<p>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 <i>being.</i> I’m just linking to a <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/tom-on-quantum-enlightenment?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A30302&xg_source=activity" target="_self">conversation</a> with Terry now. But I want to come back to this. Also a <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/report-from-critical-realism-integral-theory-symposium?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33806&xg_source=activity" target="_self">comment</a> about the collapse of distinctions to do with the actual and real</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
Hmmm, I'm not familiar with…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-11-02:5301756:Comment:337042011-11-02T08:42:01.257Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p><em>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.</em></p>
<p><em><br></br></em></p>
<p>a link to Bonnitta's <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/report-from-critical-realism-integral-theory-symposium" target="_self">post</a> and related…</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>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.</em></p>
<p><em><br/></em></p>
<p>a link to Bonnitta's <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/report-from-critical-realism-integral-theory-symposium" target="_self">post</a> and related <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/report-from-critical-realism-integral-theory-symposium?page=3&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A33335&x=1#5301756Comment33335" target="_self">comment</a></p>
<p> </p>
an excerpt - <em>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…</em><br/>
<p><em> <br/></em></p>
Joel, very cool. I’m back f…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-11-01:5301756:Comment:333302011-11-01T10:42:57.070Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>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 :)</p>
<p><i>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</i>)</p>
<p>So I could say unlimited causation dissolves in depth and doesn’t leave…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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 :)</p>
<p><i>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</i>)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <i>anything</i> validity is extreme , you could <i>arrest</i> the universe . haha</p>
<p>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</p>
<p><i>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.</i></p>
<p><i>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.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<i>. The key metaphor is that of fluidity</i> or dimensionality <i>itself</i>….</p>
<p> </p> Hi valli,
valli said:
The d…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-10-29:5301756:Comment:334092011-10-29T07:24:25.371ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<p>Hi valli,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>valli said:</p>
<blockquote><p>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? </p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<div>I think so, although I don't see the distinction at the "limit", but with a shift in "direction", or onto a new (yet…</div>
<p>Hi valli,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>valli said:</p>
<blockquote><p>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? </p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<div>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.</div>
<div>valli said:</div>
<blockquote><div>Effectively its like the movement of infinite depth is infinities perpetual move into a singularity.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><div>valli said:</div>
<blockquote><div>Is this the reintroduction of casality or of acausality – back to an originary context ?</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>valli said:</div>
<blockquote><div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div>valli said:</div>
<blockquote><div>It is not clear how the real has a causal element in any frame.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>From my pov, it's not clear how it could <em>not</em> 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?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>valli said:</div>
<blockquote><div>Since infinity is a subtext of constructs, the axial inversion - infinite depth has singular/transrational(?) tendencies….</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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."</div>
<div>valli said:</div>
<blockquote><div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div>valli said:</div>
<blockquote><div>I don’t know where this is from or going yet :) Appreciate the links above</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>You are welcome, and I appreciate the discussion!</div>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><br/>
</i>
Hi Joel
The difference bet…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-10-28:5301756:Comment:332042011-10-28T14:55:09.032Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Joel</p>
<p>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…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Joel</p>
<p>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….</p>
<p>A long shot - Varelas reentry as a third term <i>in its own right</i> 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</p> There is a ton of research ou…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-10-24:5301756:Comment:326072011-10-24T14:23:55.705ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<p>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:</p>
<p><a href="http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/" target="_blank">http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=85" target="_blank">http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=85…</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>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:</p>
<p><a href="http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/" target="_blank">http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=85" target="_blank">http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=85</a></p>
<p><a href="http://chaos.aip.org/resource/1/chaoeh/v10/i4/p780_s1?isAuthorized=no" target="_blank">http://chaos.aip.org/resource/1/chaoeh/v10/i4/p780_s1?isAuthorized=no</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.physorg.com/news157203574.html" target="_blank">http://www.physorg.com/news157203574.html</a></p>