Tom on "Quantum Enlightenment"

[Balder]

For anyone interested --

Tom, a former member of IPS, has posted an interesting -- and lengthy! -- blog on Integral Life.

 

Quantum Enlightenment 

[Joel Morrison]

 

valli said:

I think there are problems with always preexisting or always already , appears to impose a  condition on everything. One  problem is that it doesn’t account for creativity.  this is the  difference in our positions, and this has a fallout in recursivity and infinite depth, and the unconditional of course. it could have something to do with how the words are mapped. If we say unconditional is irreducible I figure it cannot have a cosmic address, which is obviously a construct – so yes pre-existing is something I can’t locate. It disturbs me on other implications too, I have to consider that….

 

That which prexists is the very ground of possibility itself, and it doesn't preexist in any static form, but in the sense that it was never created, because without the very possibility of creation "already existing", how could it be created?

[Joel Morrison]

Oh yes, which is why I gravitate to the Deleuzian lineage, which expresses the logic of infinite difference.  :)  I totally agree and relish interactions such as these as they give you a chance to expand the self into and through other emergent holonic lenses.  Without that process of interfacing with the other, we'd not get far at all!

Thomas said:

Differentiation is real, to me, so I take different views seriously, despite otherwise-seeming impressions others may have of me.

[valli]

 

That which prexists is the very ground of possibility itself, and it doesn't preexist in any static form, but in the sense that it was never created, because without the very possibility of creation "already existing", how could it be created?

possibility is partial. creativity in the sense of whole implies a premise of no thing. the whole is synchronous with its absence. there cannot be thing without no thing - quoting Bohr I think from one of Toms posts. Anyways I think it has validity from a purely observational, aperspectival premise 

I'll come back with a more considered response. its late out here and my thoughts are crossing :)

[Joel Morrison]

Thomas: I think that's very close to my understanding.  Here's my perspective (not rigourously thought through): mass is not other than the asymptotic freedom (assuming this expression is valid) observed as the relations between quarks (or as the relation-statement in which "quark" gains meaning).

Though I can't take quark theory very seriously, let me see if I can resonate a bit further here.  In general, I find it too abstract for my purposes, and too far from the "ground" of causation, specifically as compared with Sorce Theory which actually explains the causation of mass in superfluid-dynamic (complexity) terms.  In Sorce Theory, mass arises from a concentration of force vectors (motion) in the process of enfolding at these root-level quantized levels.  This is the formation of true particles, such as protons, stars and beyond them likely the voids (and below that likely the Planck level).  The formation of particles arises when the emergent properties of the substrate reach effective continuity and there is sufficient distance from the inertial scattering effects of the previous root-unit levels, such that we see what is known as "quantum coherence".  At this stage we have "aetheric" or subatomic superfluidity (see Volovik), which enables the cymatic emergence of the next level of stabilized form (root matter-units or true particles).  The mass is just an effect of the concentration of motion (force) in this process, essentially, though Sorce Theory gets very detailed in mapping the causality to the empirics and mathematics.

 

  Both mass and asymptotic freedom arise as a unity.  The notion of mass thus looks to me to be relevant at certain observational levels and not at others.  For instance, it does not operate, per se, in the realm of light, which seems to be one limit-threshold confining the relevance of the mass concept.

Yes, this unity seems to make sense in that it is effectively what constitutes the true particle, but also in the sense that it is the unity of the emergent properties of the substrate that allow for its formation at the self-similar scales.  But the bosonic nature of light is best understood in terms of particles and waves, imho.  Light has no mass simply because it is not actually a particle.  The "photon" is merely a measure of the capacity for light to become quantized ala Planck's original (and correct, imho) explanation of his quantum as a thresholding effect on continuous energy, in that the shells of the atom (root unit) are quantized harmonically and can often, given the right complexity conditions (again emergence and unpredictability) can be absorbed to generate more harmonically, and fluid-dynamically quantized holonic layers in the structure of the atom (root unit).  So it looks like a particle of light is being detected simply because the continuous energy is quantized out in the formation of quantized shells of energy in the atoms of the detector.  Again Sorce Theory describes causally how this happens, and in post-classical (complexity) terms.

Bohrian quantum physics says possibility is continuity---the possibility of the Schrödinger wave equation, which is non-discrete-continuous.  Possibility and continuity are both tacit expressions and, as so, they connote uncreated, a priori, pre-existing.  Meta.

Nice, I like that.

[Joel Morrison]

Yes, and actuality is whole.  :)  ... but all possibles are actual...  :)))

valli said:

possibility is partial. 

[Joel Morrison]

Complementary to a particle description is a wave description, which you appear to be attempting.

 

Well, yes, but all wave descriptions are founded on particle descriptions are founded on wave descriptions ad infinitum, essentially, depending on where, really, you prefer to rest and define your ad hoc foundations.  This is what I call the Causal Principle of Complimentarity, in contrast to the axiomatic orthodox version.  :) Sorce Theory describes simply how one generates the other (how all energy transformations occur, as well, and all the forces, etc), and in this process, really, the whole of the nature of the quantum.  But, to be clear, it's not my theory.  I just expand it in a nondual context, and integrate it, a bit, with the emerging bleeding edge Fractal and Electrical Cosmologies.

 

Would this process of reaching effective continuity be a fractal pattern exhibited at different levels?  It seems that in human dialogue, like we're engaging here, coherence is attained when there's sufficient distance from the scattering effects of difference, in other words, when understanding is attained.  That understanding would seem to me to create a new, inclusive whole (call it a particle by analogy).  Coherence results.

 

Wow, very cool!  Yes, I find the particle/wave, solid/fluid, emergence/form (intuition/concept) analogues and self-similarities very useful, precisely, I think, because reality is self-similar, it echoes similar forms into new levels or emergent substrates, forming them and emerging from them.  Awesome!

 

But yes, it's certainly a fractal pattern.  See Rob Oldershaw's brilliant work on the topic.  Sorce Theory, in this regard, fills in lots of the details he outlines.

 

We never see light.  We only see a particulate, holonized manifestation in matter and infer the activity of light from an observed material change---no exceptions.  I've never read or seen evidence that light exists particulately.  The notion of photon simply doesn't make sense to me on an intuitive level.

 

Exactly.  This is Einstein's key blunder, imho, but I find his Relativity Theory less than satisfactory, to say the least.  :)

[Joel Morrison]

Nice, yes, but I also mean it in another sense, which was fleshed out by Spinoza.  Leibniz, in his superficial reaction, called it the "proton pseudos", or "first lie" of Atheism, because he was attempting an exoteric dogma, or religion for the masses which required the separation of the possible and actual to set up "God" as benevolent, etc, etc.  It failed dramatically, but the interaction between these philosophies gave rise to some very interesting food for thought.  I flesh that out at the end of SpinbitZ, and it's really a fun ride.  Anyway, it just takes into account the nature of "deep infinity" (to borrow Escher's term), which means that given true infinity every possibility would have both an eternity and an infinite space within which to manifest, and hence WILL exist somewhere and somewhen, or more correctly ALWAYS, somewhere, and perhaps even everywhere enfolded given the infinite depth and self-similarity.

 

[This is yet another of the simple truths of the Rational not transcended or included in the general or academic view]
Thomas said:

Joel: Yes, and actuality is whole.  :)  ... but all possibles are actual...  :)))

 

Well said.  I once wrote a blog titled, "Where does possibility reside?"  I used that word reside to encourage serious thinking about the actuality of possibility.  If water can become steam, it is, in actual, real possibility, already actually steam---actual steam-possibility.  I personally see no other way of thinking about possibility.  How else, if possibility weren't actual, could anything become anything else it potentially could become?

[Balder]

Joel and Tom, I'm glad you were able to find some common (mutual) illumination.  Are either of you familiar with Terry Marks-Tarlow?  She's also a member of this forum (she joined and participated briefly when I referenced one of her articles in this thread: The Observer in the Observed).  Her interest is complexity science and fractal mathematics.

[Joel Morrison]

The article looks fascinating, and clearly it's a field I find fertile, so it'd be great to connect.  It's rare that I can afford to take as much time as I have recently to engage, but it'd be fun to do so with an expert in the complexity domain.  Thanks much for all the connecting here, Bruce.  

Balder said:

Joel and Tom, I'm glad you were able to find some common (mutual) illumination.  Are either of you familiar with Terry Marks-Tarlow?  She's also a member of this forum (she joined and participated briefly when I referenced one of her articles in this thread: The Observer in the Observed).  Her interest is complexity science and fractal mathematics.

[Balder]

Great, Joel.  I'll contact her and point her to this thread.

[Terry Marks-Tarlow, Ph.D.]

Hi Joel and Tom, I'm thrilled that you both are interested in the fractal nature of reality! The paper that Bruce posted of mine is actually a bit older and not my most sophisticated one on this topic. I'd like to give you all a more recent one, published in 2005 in Cybernetics & Human Knowing, where I swear I channeled mathematics. The paper is an extension of Robin Robertson's previous examination of the history of mathematics as it reflects the evolution of human consciousness. He looks as symbols such as zero and infinity and speculates about various leaps in collective consciousness. Robin stops his analysis with Godel. In my paper, I pick up from there and examine the meaning of fractal geometry, and specifically the extension of infinity into fractional dimensionality. If you are interested in this, can someone please instruct me how to post the paper? Thanks, Terry 

Joel Morrison said:

The article looks fascinating, and clearly it's a field I find fertile, so it'd be great to connect.  It's rare that I can afford to take as much time as I have recently to engage, but it'd be fun to do so with an expert in the complexity domain.  Thanks much for all the connecting here, Bruce.  

Balder said:

Joel and Tom, I'm glad you were able to find some common (mutual) illumination.  Are either of you familiar with Terry Marks-Tarlow?  She's also a member of this forum (she joined and participated briefly when I referenced one of her articles in this thread: The Observer in the Observed).  Her interest is complexity science and fractal mathematics.

[Balder]

Hi, Terry, welcome!  If you look at the bottom of this thread, right below the post box, you will see a link that says, "Upload Files."  When you submit your next post, you can click on "Upload Files" to attach your paper, and then click "Add Reply," and that will add it to this thread.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bruce